Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Post-Woke Left is Making Their Big Push

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 17, 2025 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:26:40

The Post-Woke Left is Making Their Big Push

But does it make sense?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Can't say I'm late today, can you?
	I said it for nine o'clock because I didn't know how long it would take for me to get ready.
	But I'm ready now.
	So, you know, we may as well start a bit early.
	I guess we'll wait five minutes because there are probably people like making a cup of tea and thinking, oh, I'll just come back in a minute.
	So I feel like I'm a bit bad for jumping the gun on that.
	But how are you doing, chat?
	Hope you're all doing well.
	I can see you.
	Yeah, I know.
	Good job being early, eh?
	Protestant values.
	It's really funny.
	I have a meeting with Arch every week and I berate him if he's five minutes early for being late.
	How are you all doing, folks?
	I hope you're doing well.
	Yeah, it was a really good lads hour today, wasn't it?
	And that's all Dan.
	Dan did the lads hour and it was superb.
	So, so, it was such a good demonstration of the problem of living in the system we live in.
	I just couldn't get over how well it played out.
	He should be very proud of himself for it.
	Very, very proud of himself.
	How's Advance doing?
	I mean, Advance is doing fine, but the problem is they haven't hit the national consciousness yet.
	So, Advance is a good platform for the online right to coalesce into, but some actual targeting would have to be done to win seats, and some actual really hard work would have to be done.
	And so, frankly, I just think it's the wrong time, right?
	I think that, as you can see, Farage has the momentum, and it's going to be Farage's world in a minute, which we'll talk about in a minute.
	So, people asking, what are the post-woke left?
	Well, the post-woke left is the left that understands that woke for them was the correct interpretation of the liberal order, frankly, the liberal worldview.
	And so, they have imbibed and accepted and reified in their consciousness the prescriptions of wokeism.
	They are woke.
	I mean, obviously, they believe in trans rights, they believe in massageration, they believe in feminism, they believe in systematic structures of oppression, whatever, whatever leftist nonsense you want.
	It's all coalesced into this is just what the left is now, right?
	So, they don't need to go on the crusading rampage to persuade everyone or browbeat them into believing it in at least their own circles.
	They all agree on these things because they're left-wing.
	And so, that's what the post-woke left is.
	Woke as a movement as a phenomenon, came out in the early 2010s, went hard in the mainstream, peaked at around 2020, and then now just is not receding, but is settling on the left.
	So, they all just agree this is what being a left-wing is.
	It's being insufferably woke, right?
	So, they don't need to like browbeat about it.
	All the arguments have been had.
	Everyone knows where they stand, and they're not a very large percentage of the population when it comes to it.
	So, this is what the post-woke left is.
	And at the moment, they're currently engaged in their big push.
	They are trying to re-solidify themselves.
	They understand that you can't campaign on woke issues because actually very, very few people believe that trans women are women or that Black Lives Matter is a legitimate movement or are in favor of mass immigration or anything like that.
	And so, they're pivoting to, frankly, just wealth taxes and class hatreds, which is going to be something that they have got some purchase on because, of course, things are terrible and everyone knows things are terrible.
	So, if things are terrible, it's easy to point and say, it's that guy's fault.
	They think it's the problem with the rich, when in fact it's the problem with the system itself.
	Anyway, so as you can see from polling, the polling is bad for the previous establishment parties.
	What I find really interesting about this is that the right still has an overall majority here.
	And so the Conservatives currently splitting the reform vote.
	Because we have first past the post, it's not going to help.
	But it would be nice if they were just not, because the Conservatives are a dead party.
	They're a party, frankly, the 19th century, but of the 20th century, of a paradigm whose time has passed and they need to get used to it.
	The Labour Party are a party of the 20th century.
	And of course, as you can see here, this is the first poll they've been on so far that they've been down to 15%.
	15%.
	Not 50%.
	15%.
	This puts them in fourth place.
	Joint third, sorry, equal with the Greens.
	However, when this is mapped onto where these constituencies would actually be won, it gets a whole lot worse, which we'll get to in a second.
	But what can we draw from this?
	Well, reform represent the vote of the radical right.
	Reform represent the solid nativist vote.
	We want right-wing politics to fix Britain.
	That's what reform is for.
	That's what the branding is.
	And that's what's being applied to Farage by people like Keir Starmer.
	Keir Starmer and all of the rest, all of the sort of, you know, centre-left, Keir Starmer, all of the left apply to Nigel Farage the things they see on the online right.
	So Nigel Farage gets to own that whether he likes it or not.
	And he doesn't have a choice, and he doesn't like it either.
	But that's what is represented and viewed by their opposition in Nigel Farage.
	So he's not a radical, obviously.
	He's probably not going to be very good, to be honest.
	And I hope he is.
	I really hope he does well, obviously, because he's going to have a victory momentous and epoch-shattering if these polls continue until the next election.
	And frankly, there's no particular reason to think that they won't.
	He will have a victory that is epoch-making, and I think he'll let it slip through his fingers.
	Frankly, I don't think he's ready for it, which is a different story.
	But anyway, the point being, reform are a brand new entity who represent essentially the radical right.
	The Conservatives represent the old centre-right that's slowly but surely withering away and dying.
	And the Labour Party represented, well, it's supposed to be a centre-left, but as you can see, they're getting chewed out by the Greens.
	The centre cannot hold.
	The radical right and the radical left are on the rise.
	Now, the radical right is a lot further, more than twice as much as the radical left in the greens.
	The lib dems being a kind of ethnic party of the middle-class English, so they're a bit of a separate case.
	But the radical left, the radical right, are on the rise, and the centre is collapsing, and everyone can see it.
	And this is a very interesting thing because we get a new world coming into view.
	Look at this map, right?
	So the polling that you've just seen, when it's modelled out into the country, is very interesting.
	So you can see in the southwest, basically, of the country where the Lib Dems will win most of their seats.
	These are the mostly well-off white English areas.
	As Davey said, he's pitching himself as the party of Middle England.
	Well, here is Middle England, and they're going to go Lib Dem, unfortunately.
	They don't have to.
	If Nigel Farage was going to campaign quite hard here, it's a Brexit area.
	The Southwest voted for Brexit, just like the rest of England, frankly.
	So there's no reason to think there has to be a hardcore Remainer party that rules in this area.
	But Farage hasn't got a good line on the Southwest.
	He's not got a good way of appealing to them yet.
	And I guess he just hasn't tried.
	But then when you're winning like this, why would you need to?
	He's eaten Labour's lunch all across the north.
	Everywhere else is basically reform.
	Apart from the sort of hardcore Welsh nationalists and Scottish nationalists, who are, of course, not nationalists at all.
	They're insane and woke.
	But this is absolutely fascinating.
	Absolutely fascinating.
	Because what it boils down to is the Reform Party getting 390 seats, which is just an incredible swing.
	It's not record-breaking or anything, but I mean, the swing probably is record-breaking.
	It's not the largest number of seats anyone has had, but with a majority, you only need 326 to have a majority.
	So with a majority of 390, that gives Nigel effectively dictatorial powers over the country.
	And he won't have any long-standing factions within reform because these will all be brand new MPs.
	Most of them doubtless will have absolutely no experience of parliament and will just do precisely what Nigel tells them.
	And why wouldn't they?
	They'd be elected on his manifesto, on his agenda.
	So why wouldn't they just do it?
	Nigel wants to pass this thing.
	Of course, we're going to pass this thing.
	Let's get it done.
	Let's get it done.
	They'll be able to just rush through the parliament and put in place anything they want.
	There'll be massive opposition from the civil service and all the institutions and the media and this and that and the other, blah, blah, blah.
	But frankly, Nigel should just ignore them and just say, right now, I've got five solid years.
	I'm just going to fuck you.
	I'm going to fuck this whole system.
	I'm going to destroy everything.
	I mean, today it was announced that the digital IDs will be used to buy alcohol in pubs.
	And it's like, oh, really?
	Was that preventing immigration?
	Is it?
	You fucking liars.
	Obviously not.
	And if Nigel was sensible, he'd just come out and be like, look, on day one, this is gone.
	Just vote for me and this is gone.
	Vote for me and you will not need digital ID to buy a pint in the future.
	End of story.
	Job done.
	And where's the you'd believe it as well, right?
	You think Nigel Farage wants digital ID when he goes to his local and buys a pint?
	Probably not.
	Probably not.
	Anyway, sweeping victory for reform if these numbers hold.
	The Lib Dems, as you can see, will have 80, which is an increase of 8, because the Lib Dems know who they're appealing to.
	They realize that they are appealing to middle-class white English people.
	And they go to where they are most concentrated and campaign hard on basically being the party of the Libtard status quo.
	We're just going to do things exactly the same.
	Oh, no, of course we're not going to have racism.
	We're going to have this.
	We're going to do things very progressive, but in a progressive way that doesn't rock the boat or increase your taxes or anything like that.
	Because with the Lib Dems, we are basically the party of non-intervention in anything.
	We don't have an affirmative plan for anything, apart from rejoining the EU.
	And so the Lib Dems will have 80 seats.
	Good, good, solid number for a party like the Lib Dems.
	Might even be the highest, actually.
	I can't think of a time where they've had more than that.
	But not great.
	But that'll be them as His Majesty's opposition, right?
	The loyal opposition will be 80 Liberal Democrats compared to 390 reform people.
	And then the Greens will go up to 56, which is, of course, very impressive, but you know exactly where this is going to be.
	Basically, The areas of ethnic replacement is where this is going to be.
	Where the Labour Party thought they were going to hang on to all of these things.
	So, if we just bring in these new constituencies and then we give them loads of largesse from the taxpayer, give them privileges and the law and make them the sole focus of what we do.
	Well, they'll just keep voting for us.
	And it's like they don't have to, actually, because the Greens have revealed themselves to be just an Islamo-communist alliance.
	And there are leftists who don't like me saying that, but it's completely true.
	And everyone will see them for that in the future because their primary constituency will be foreigners and communists, mostly Muslims and communists.
	And so, Zach Polanski has rocketed them up in the polls to 15%, which, you know, don't get me wrong, that's the highest they've ever polled.
	That's amazing.
	But I don't think it's going to get that much higher than that.
	But then, of course, you've got the SNP and blah blah blah and the others.
	But then you've got the Conservatives down to 24, which is pretty bad.
	They had 120-ish last time, or they have now.
	So that's pretty bad.
	But Labour will go down to 17.394.
	This is a wipeout that we haven't seen since the turn of the previous century.
	Like, this is genuinely that's the end of Labour, right?
	That's the end of the Labour Party because they tried to serve too many different masters and they couldn't even serve one.
	And so this is what you get when you abandon the actual core of the party through Blairism, bring in a bunch of foreign constituents and then try and serve both sides.
	Everyone knows that the Labour Party is the party of foreigners, but that'll just go to the Greens, which is totally fine.
	I think the Greens will essentially be a bit of a silo in these ethnic enclaves.
	So the rest of the country can just get on with having the argument between reform and the Lib Dem.
	So how many deportations are going to happen?
	Hopefully, Nigel Farage is like, yeah, fucking millions.
	So, but anyway, so the point that I'm making here is just the center cannot hold.
	Right?
	The centre will not hold.
	It's over.
	And at least if the current trends carry on, it is over.
	And isn't that great?
	And so you'll have seen people like this chat popping up because the new post-woke left are like, right, we need our shtick.
	We need our stock line that we can say is true and we can just trot out and ascribe every problem in the country to merely the billionaires.
	Immigration a problem in the UK?
	No.
	Why'd you say no?
	Because it's fundamental to our existence.
	Oh, why'd you say that?
	Because we need it.
	We don't have enough people being born in this country.
	We need immigrants.
	It's simple.
	Why does the UK fear immigration?
	We're told to.
	By who?
	The elites that own us.
	So the capitalists and the billionaires that are in charge that really own us and own our parties, mostly the Tories, but now Labour as well.
	They tell us to fear it because they need someone to blame for our problems.
	I mean, just as a quick interlude here, they are the ones who want it because for them it's cheap labor.
	And it is the sheer number of people in this country that allows the wealth inequality that we have to grow to the extent that it is.
	If they had to compete for workers rather than workers competing for jobs, they would not nearly be the kind of inequality that we have now.
	And there would not nearly be the kind of annoyance at immigrants that there is now.
	But of course, this guy's got this completely backwards.
	And now he has to point to the billionaires who, of course, are for mass immigration broadly and be like, right, yeah, so we just need more people.
	Just crank them in.
	And the billionaires will profit from that because this will compress your wages.
	And this is somehow coherent to him.
	When really they're the ones causing our problems.
	Last 10 years, there's 6.2 million people on a waiting list for NHS and 2 million children in poverty in the UK.
	Allegedly, that is due to immigration.
	Do you have any thoughts on that?
	I think it's not due to immigration.
	Immigration is the reason RNHS works.
	The thing that causes that is governments deliberately underfunding and sort of underutilising the NHS for what it could really be.
	Amazing.
	How is it being underfunded?
	The NHS's funding goes up every year.
	How's it underfunded?
	And the answer is excess demand because they bring in a million people a year and the NHS, a certain percentage of them, need to use the NHS and for various other services.
	And this is all stuff we've covered in many, many times, so I won't labor the point.
	But it's just remarkable how his worldview is about never critiquing immigration.
	It has to be something else.
	Now we've decided it's the billionaires.
	It's nothing to do with immigrants coming in.
	It's to do with it being badly managed and badly funded.
	Immigration is a problem in the UK.
	I mean, at least we can agree that it's being badly managed.
	And the funding, I mean, it's never been more better funded, but there can never be an end to it.
	Anyway, so you get people like that.
	And he gets his talking points from people like Zach Polanski, this kind of vanguard, shall we say, of new leftists who at the moment, Zach Polanski's at 15% in the polls, which again is good.
	But they've been about there for a couple of polls now.
	So it's interesting.
	I mean, I just don't think that Zach Polanski's Green Party actually has the mass appeal that they think.
	Because Zach Polanski has been everywhere.
	He was on Question Time the other day.
	He's been on every podcast.
	He's been on the news agents.
	This is like the barometer of the British establishment, this podcast.
	And he's been in the papers constantly.
	He's got lots of followers on social media.
	So it's hard to think how much more coverage he could get.
	And yet they're only at 15%.
	So I suspect that's something to do with the fundamental lack of appeal that this kind of politics of envy has.
	I think the British public can smell a rat.
	I think that they can smell that there's something wrong and rotten at the core of the Green Party.
	Because, of course, it's made up of an unnatural alliance.
	I mean, Zach Polanski is a gay, vegan, Jewish communist, and his second, his deputy leader is a Pakistani Muslim.
	And I mean, there's a few things going on in the world at the moment that suggest that they wouldn't be natural bedfellows were it not for the communist ideology.
	It's evidently a marriage of convenience for the pair of them against the wide majority and of course the billionaires who they're constantly going on about.
	So the general spells that Zach Polanski comes out with, the rhetoric that he uses, he's good at remembering his lines.
	He's good at knowing what he's supposed to be saying in any given situation.
	But I don't know whether you watched the question time the other day when he was on the Zia Yousaf.
	The mask slipped a couple of times, right?
	The mask, whenever he's actually presented, because Zach's got the salesman's tactic.
	When he's dealing with someone he thinks he's going to win over, he is very collegial, very smooth, very polite.
	But when he encounters someone that he knows he's not going to win over, that kindness, that politeness just disappears.
	Suddenly, Zia Youssef is a racist, Nazi, fascist, xenophobe, blah, blah.
	So the spitting, hissing cat that's actually behind the mask comes out and shit at him.
	And everyone sees it, right?
	Everyone can see that actually he isn't this placid, mild-mannered, well-spoken chap.
	What he is is actually a seething, resentful, malevolent figure.
	And he has brought together a resent, again, deeply, all their politics are based in resentment.
	Green is exactly the right colour for this party because they're the most envious party you've ever seen.
	This, this very actually hostile and again, I can't think of a better word, the malevolent.
	There's a malevolence in the Green Party that everyone can see and smell, despite Zach putting on all the perfume of rhetoric to try and cover it up.
	It's very clearly there.
	But Zach is pushing at the open door because, I mean, of course, he's on the news agents.
	He's on question time.
	He gets brought in all these places.
	Despite the fact that he's just a London Assembly member, he's not anyone very important.
	But he is the leader of the Green Party.
	And they've gone up in the polls because it's become a kind of meme on the left.
	Well, Labour have actually abandoned leftism and therefore, and Corbyn and Zara Sultana failed to get their shit together completely.
	And so Zach Polanski has come out and, you know, smoothly, in his used car salesman way, taken over the Green Party and is promoting the Greens in this very radical left-wing space.
	And this has been very successful for him.
	They've got over 100,000 members now, which again, records for the Green Party.
	So kudos to them.
	But the point being, everyone can feel the resentful communist under the well-manicured, well-presented front.
	And if you think he's not a communist, I mean, I just think he is.
	I just don't see why I would not think that.
	Here's him talking to a literal communist, obviously.
	And she explains that her job is to just advance the cause of communism.
	He just nods along like, you know, the Churchill dog song.
	Oh, yeah, very good.
	Is that I think there's a contradiction at the heart of my politics, which is, on the one hand, I want to be part of essentially a movement that advances the cause of communism in this country.
	On the other, the freedom to don't worry about.
	She goes on, yeah, but I wouldn't be free to say what I want.
	Let's just go back to that little head nod.
	Just like, yeah.
	Two things.
	One is that I think there's a contradiction at the heart of my politics, which is, on the one hand, I want to be part of essentially a movement that advances the cause of communism in this country.
	On the other, who doesn't want to be part of that?
	I mean, Ash is like, yeah, well, I wouldn't be free if I did that.
	But okay, whatever.
	Whatever.
	We're not talking about freedom.
	We're talking about communism.
	And there's the old line, they're like, well, if you go to a dinner party and you sit down at a table and there's 10 of you and one of you is a Nazi, then there are 10 Nazis at that table.
	Well, I'm quite prepared to apply that standard to if there's 10 of you at a table and there's one communist there and you're all just like, oh, yeah, there's a communist here, then it's a table of communists.
	Okay.
	I'm more than happy to do that.
	Anyway, so Zach, I think it's fair to call him a communist.
	I think everyone knows he's a communist.
	Otherwise, he wouldn't be a part of the leader of the Green Party.
	And when presented with the communists, he's just like, yeah, yeah, no, that's why we're all here.
	And so that's something I think that the British public are just going to not feel good about.
	And I think it's just going to not be very appealing to them intrinsically, regardless of what they're actually offering.
	Now, Ash Sarkar went on question time last night and this clip has come out of it.
	And to be honest with you, what's really frustrating, not frustrating, but like what we have to accept is that they are identifying a problem that is a real problem.
	But again, like I said, I do think that there's a bit of an issue when an evil monster turns up on your doorstep, knocks in and says, look, can I come in?
	I have this for you, and presents that thing that you've always wanted.
	Do you want the monster to be the one who brings it into your house?
	That's the issue here with the Green Party, is that they are identifying a problem, but their solution is going to be monstrous.
	Everything is too expensive and nothing works.
	And taxation is a part of that, but I'm going to come to that in a second.
	The first thing I actually want to talk about is where we're paying too much money.
	So, 200 billion pounds of our money has been paid out to shareholders for privatized utilities like rail and mail and energy and buses and stuff of that nature.
	That's money that could have gone into reducing customers' bills or investing in infrastructure.
	It hasn't.
	It's gone out in the form of shareholder profit.
	Or if you look at social care, which is really the monster under the bed whenever you look at any local authority's budget, the role of private equity is disgusting.
	So, nearly a quarter of foster placements and children's residential homes are run by companies backed by private equity, and they're looking for profit margins of about 20% or more.
	So, it's hugely expensive for local authorities, and that money isn't going into workers' wages, it's going into private equity.
	So, the first thing we need to do is admit that privatization has been a failed experiment, it has cost this country dearly, and it is an experiment that needs to end.
	Right, that's correct.
	That is a completely salient analysis of the current state of the public finances and the public services.
	And it will be through this analysis that they attempt to jam communism in, as she said a minute ago.
	And so, this is something that the right has to take away from them.
	Because honestly, we agree.
	The radical right agrees that, in fact, privatization was a mistake.
	Tony Blair and David Cameron's quest to privatize everything, mostly Cameron, has been a genuine, a genuine problem.
	And it's ruined everything.
	And everything is shit in part because of that.
	Now, you'll notice how she pointed out: well, that's 200 billion.
	Okay, that's true, but public spending is 1.2 trillion.
	So, what about the other trillion that is the problem in public spending?
	Now, of course, they have no answer to that.
	We have answers to that, which we'll get to shortly.
	So, what they think also is that we need to raise taxes.
	Now, I don't know whether you're aware, but we are carrying the highest tax burden since World War II, you know, when we had literally a command economy because we were an entire nation at war with Germany and various others.
	But this is the kind of thing that they'll go on and say: This is an economist, you know, one of the sort of like new left-wing economists that will go on LBC and make this kind of argument.
	Can you give me an example of where putting up taxes has generated economic growth?
	The example that's really striking at the minute of this is just about the fastest-growing economy in Europe.
	The one praised by The Economist magazine of all places last year as the economy to look to is Spain, which has a higher rate of tax than this country and introduced a wealth tax not too long ago, which brings you to like one and a half billion euros by now.
	So, it's certainly the case that you can have economic growth and more of a tax burden, and you can try and steer how your growth is happening and who's getting the proceeds of that growth and still have a higher tax burden overall.
	Right, so now that's that's interesting, isn't it?
	Use Spain, uh, because I mean, for a start, obviously, sure, it might technically theoretically be possible that despite the government eating more and more of the money you've personally earned, uh, that maybe things could grow.
	It might be possible.
	It's obviously going to be the case that you'll get a lot more reliable growth and you will certainly get growth if you lower taxes.
	But of course, that's not going to pay for the insane welfare state these people are asking for.
	And I love the guy's eyes here.
	I didn't mean to pause it on this bit.
	But this is exactly the kind of perspective that I keep seeing from them.
	This kind of desperation.
	They're desperate to persuade you that actually they're not fucking lunatics.
	Whereas in fact, they are.
	And also, they're not really telling the truth, right?
	So if you look at the actual ratio of government expenditure to GDP in Spain, it is in 2025 45%.
	45.06%, which is insane.
	I mean, for every pound spent or peso spent and a dollar, whatever the Euro it must be in Spain, actually.
	They spend the government spends 45 cents.
	I assume it's cents.
	For some reason, I want to say Fennex.
	The government spends 45 cents of that Euro, right?
	That's how consumed the Spanish economy is with the government.
	But Spain is getting about 3% growth every year.
	So I'm not going to say I know why that is.
	So he's not technically wrong on that.
	What he's wrong about is that this would be a substantive difference to where we are because they're on 45%.
	Well, we are on 44.4%.
	So it's not like there's actually that much room to raise the taxes anyway.
	And the context of Britain and Spain are clearly different because we're on basically the same point.
	And we are in massive decline.
	Our economy has stagnated.
	We have taken just so many people into our country and we're paying billions in welfare, billions and all the other benefits that we give.
	And so we are losing huge amounts of money.
	I mean, we should be way richer than Spain, but we're not.
	And as you can see, we've got a very, very similar percentage of GDP that's being spent by the government.
	So this is not really a very good argument, is it?
	Actually, there must be some other tangible difference between us and Spain, which I'm sure the economists can explain to you.
	So, I mean, we haven't really got that much room to raise our taxes to get to the point where Spain's at.
	We'd probably have to surpass that.
	But of course, we also know that this is just eating into the rest of the economy.
	And so what are we going to do?
	How?
	Oh, yeah, another quick thing here.
	You'll notice that we have a deficit of 137 billion, which is more than 1%.
	So it's about 5%.
	So it's like it's what are we going to do?
	What are we?
	What are we?
	In fact, no, it's about 10%.
	What are we going to do about that?
	So if we raise it by 1%, we're not going to get 10% deficit covered.
	So we are currently constantly racking up government debt because our spending is 1.279 trillion and our receipts are 1.141 trillion.
	So we are in this massive deficit.
	What are we going to do?
	Well, Lewis Goodall, remember the chap who was interviewing Zach Polanski here.
	Popular chap who was having an interview with the communist from the Green Party.
	Well, he just thinks we should have 100% wealth tax, inheritance tax.
	So when someone dies, just all of their money and resources go to the state.
	I mean, I just, I can't think of anything more evil.
	I mean, this is just outright theft, right?
	We accept that this is outright theft.
	This is, you worked hard all your life, but that money isn't actually yours.
	Because normally, if it was yours, you would write something called a will and dictate how you want it to be distributed after your death.
	Because fundamentally, it's your money.
	You earned it after the government has taxed it every fucking step as well.
	Every step of you getting that money was tax, tag, tag, tax, tax, tax.
	And finally, you've got some assets, you've got some money in the bank, you've got some investments, and you're like, right, okay, I'd like to divvy those up.
	And Lewis Goodall comes in.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Actually, you owe those to the government.
	All of it to the government.
	And your children can get fucked because we have a welfare state to pay for here.
	That is absolutely mad, isn't it?
	But it's not the only time this comes out.
	And again, Lewis Goodall, he says it as if this is just a rational, straightforward thing and wouldn't ruin the economy because the people who are rich will simply just leave, which is what Ollie Dougmore was presented with on LBC the other day.
	In fact, we'll watch it just because it's funny watching him look this stupid.
	A punishing inheritance tax.
	Such a lib demo.
	Yeah, really.
	Really him.
	Me, a lib dem.
	He's a communist, obviously.
	He's not a lib dem.
	He's a communist.
	And he knows he's a communist.
	Let's just pick like a figure out the air.
	Let's say over 10 million pounds, 100% of that is returned to the state.
	And I would.
	Returned to the state.
	Returned.
	The state didn't own it.
	You owned it.
	And if you were successful enough to earn more than 10 million pounds, you can't return.
	This is like a gun buyback.
	Where it's like, yeah, but the state didn't sell me those guns.
	Those guns never belonged to the state.
	What do you mean buyback?
	You mean theft, right?
	You mean compulsory seizing of my property.
	And Ollie's like, yeah, I do mean that because I'm a fucking communist.
	Then revisit 100%.
	Yep.
	Well, that really was.
	I love this face.
	Yeah.
	No, no, 100%.
	I have no idea what a second order effect is.
	And I want 100% of that money because this will somehow fund the NHS for.
	Well, I mean, let's assume you raise, I don't know, 50 billion.
	That's about three months of NHS spending.
	Like, let's assume you just rob all the rich people.
	You're like, yeah, we raise 50 billion.
	Let's go 70 billion, 80 billion.
	That's about six months of NHS spending.
	The black hole is so big that it's just insane to think about.
	And so if that's like the, you know, for stealing all of the wealth from the rich people in a year, you've got half a year's worth of NHS funding.
	I mean, is it going to be 137 billion?
	Do you think you're going to steal 137 billion off people?
	I don't think it's going to cover it.
	I just don't think it's going to cover it.
	Especially as whenever you do these things, you always get less than you predict as well.
	I think it's called the laugher curve.
	Where actually, if you keep raising taxes and keep stealing and squeezing, you end up making less and less and less.
	And you're just like, why am I making less?
	I'm going to have to put tax up again.
	And it's because people either won't work or they'll move their assets and money and they'll just fuck off.
	Because why would they live with it?
	And this is what the conservative Chris Philp on the other side pointed out.
	He was like, well, look, this is not going to work.
	Have a thousand million.
	Anyone with more than 10 million would just leave the country.
	Let them go.
	Seriously.
	Let them go.
	Let them go.
	That is remarkable, right?
	Because as the budget of office from responsibility will tell us, the top 1% pay 30% of the taxes in this country.
	So Ollie would happily let 30% of the 1.14 trillion that we raise disappear.
	Let them go means we go down to about, what, here?
	About there, so we would be about 800 billion rather than 1.14 trillion.
	Like, Ollie, I don't know whether you understand me, but this has to be paid.
	And you can only accrue such a deficit and such a debt before people are like, actually, I don't really want that.
	I don't think it's getting paid back.
	And then it becomes an issue of can we even service the debt or the in the tax or interest on the debt?
	And the answer is going to be, well, I mean, it's quite a lot now.
	Is it good that we double it or triple it or quadruple it?
	Probably not.
	Is that sustainable?
	Probably not.
	Now, if you're a communist who wants the complete collapse of the economy, that's probably where Ollie's going with this.
	But honestly, he just sits there like so forward.
	Like, yeah, no, this is what I'm going to say.
	Now, what you have to do is essentially agree with me or I'll not care what you think.
	It makes him look like just a retard.
	It makes him look like someone who doesn't understand that this is paid for out of this.
	And this is the NHS.
	This is the pensions.
	This is all the welfare.
	This is the housing welfare.
	Like this, this would do to those dependents that we have what Ollie thinks that the billionaires are trying to do to them.
	Forcing them all to flee would do to this exactly the worst thing they say that Nigel Farage will do.
	When they're like, oh, he'll privatise the NHS.
	I mean, that wouldn't ruin everything, but, like, that wouldn't be...
	I'm not in favour of it, really, because I think it'd be sold off to foreigners, frankly.
	But the welfare state itself, it would just collapse.
	Payments wouldn't get made.
	Things, I mean, like, this is the army as well.
	So you'd have to prioritize a series of things.
	And eventually, it'd be basically pensions and welfare that wouldn't get paid.
	So I assume they're prioritizing the NHS.
	So basically, old people are going to starve to death.
	And people who are on government assistance get kicked out of houses and they'll starve as well.
	So it'll be pretty terrible.
	But Ollie's just like, you know, let him leave.
	Just let him leave.
	Let him go.
	Let him go.
	Because he has thought this through.
	Look at his earnest face.
	Yeah, I've worked myself in such a lather.
	I just hate the billionaires so much.
	I'd just rather them to leave the country.
	I'd rather other countries have rich people and not us.
	It's like, that's amazing.
	You want us to be like Cuba?
	That's incredible.
	And even then, Cuba had some rich people, just the dictator in charge.
	So let me get straight.
	Your idea, your genius idea.
	I love that Chris can't even believe what he's hearing.
	Ollie is speaking like someone who knows nothing about how the system works.
	He's acting as if he doesn't know anything.
	It's to say that anyone who's worked hard, been successful, set up a business and got more than 10 million quid, you're going to say, go away, we don't want you.
	No, are you literally insane?
	No.
	You just did say that.
	I mean, you literally said, let them go.
	Say that.
	No, I'm not saying they should leave the country.
	That's what I'm saying.
	you have the opportunity to leave 10 million pounds to each of your children that's quite enough and if as a good tory says who has It says Ollie.
	Who cares about Ollie's opinion?
	Who cares?
	Like yourself, Chris, which I believe you are, believe in a meritocratic society, you should support it too.
	I'm telling you, that's meritocracy.
	What human nature is.
	The state stealing everything you earned in your life is meritocracy.
	Ollie, you're a retard.
	There is.
	And if you say to someone who's got more than 10 million pounds, we're going to basically swipe all of it when you pass away, those people will simply leave the country.
	You might like that, but that's what they'll do.
	I mean, they're doing it already, even with the late tax.
	10,000 a year are leaving already.
	I love this.
	I love this.
	Where would they go, do you think?
	Look at him.
	He thinks he's got him.
	He thinks, go on, retard.
	Go on.
	Show me where they're going to go.
	And Chris is literally anywhere.
	Like, there are countries in this world that don't have any personal taxes.
	You know that, Ollie.
	But they're going to place it anywhere else.
	I mean, they're going to buy.
	They're going to Dubai.
	They'd go to Singapore, they'd go to New York, they'd go to Milan, they would leave the country.
	So, not only would it be family counts, language counts for nothing, schooling counts for nothing.
	Mate, people are leaving already as a result of high taxes.
	So, not only would your genius policy raise literally no money, in fact, it would raise negative money because the most successful people would just leave the country.
	I'd be looking at at the end of this, Ollie's Ollie's indifference and imperviousness to this.
	This is not a rational argument, right?
	He's not making an argument.
	What he's doing is asserting his feelings.
	He's saying, No, I just hate those people.
	I want to punish them.
	He's not, he, I mean, if you asked him in like a non-public setting, he'd probably, yeah, it would be a problem.
	We would, you know, I don't know what we'd do, I'm sure he'd say, but this isn't about that.
	This is about him just essentially being edgy.
	Like, he is basically trolling them at this point.
	It's basically, it would be the same as if some right-winger got up and was like, Yeah, no, I love Hitler and I think he did nothing wrong.
	And that you had a left-wing on there.
	Are you serious?
	He'd be like, Yeah, yeah, I am.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And what?
	It's like, okay, but like, you know, in reality, he did a lot of things that were very bad.
	So it's, it's one of those sort of like, just, I'm basically just declaring to you, we don't share a moral system.
	That's what he's doing.
	What he's doing is not advancing an economic agenda here.
	He is breaking a relationship.
	He is deciding that, no, you are the enemy and I am against you regardless.
	I'm creating this gulf here by making this an intrangible, intractable issue that cannot be resolved between us.
	Because I, Ollie, have committed to the emotional position of just hating the rich and hating what this country was.
	And you are actually in favor of trying to make things work, trying to make the country better.
	And so you can see that Ollie is not really talking economics.
	What he's saying is, I just hate the conservative on the other side.
	I just hate that person and I want them to be freaking the fuck out.
	And that's it's fun for him.
	It's a game for him.
	That's why he looks like he's enjoying himself doing it.
	Anyway, I mean, like, this, this is my favorite thing.
	I've covered this.
	I covered this on the podcast today, but I've got to cover it again because it's so funny.
	The Green Party are freaking out that reform want to take public spending down to 35% of GDP.
	That's a 275 billion pound cut.
	I mean, Ollie wants to take it to less than that because he wants a cut of around 350 billion.
	So just saying, you know, very interesting.
	But anyway, so the point that I'm driving at here with all of this is that despite them being resentful communist idiots, they have got a point, which is that we should not have been selling off our national assets.
	And we shouldn't have been selling off these national assets for many different reasons.
	One of which is that, well, if they were making us money, why would we do that?
	Like the example of the Royal Mail is the one that always springs to my mind because as you can see from the data here, when the Royal Mail was privatized in 2013, it was profitable by a lot.
	So the overall turnover, the revenue, was 9.3 billion.
	And out of that, they had a 324 million pound profit.
	So a third of a billion pounds that was paying into the exchequer every single year.
	And for some reason, the Conservatives are like, right, okay, we need to privatize that.
	It's like, yeah, I think there is some genuine teeth to the argument that what the Conservatives have done is just sold this off to their mates, right?
	So their mates can get rich, doing nothing of any particular use, take over an already existing and working institution and just squeeze everything out of it that they can.
	This is a genuine argument, a genuine example of what they can point to that is correct.
	And this is something that we can also agree because we do not need to be what I'm going to call an ideological capitalist.
	Now, you're well aware, obviously, that I'm more than in favor of property rights.
	I think that you should pay as minimal taxes as possible.
	For example, the British Empire was run on about a 7% tax rate.
	The state spending of GDP was 7%.
	So imagine having 93% of everything you earned in your own bank at the end of the month.
	Fucking imagine.
	God, it would be like a dream.
	And then imagine having a world-spanning empire to go with it.
	And then imagine giving it all up for the fucking NHS.
	But that was the world we used to live in.
	It was at 15% at the height of the Napoleonic Wars.
	15%.
	A kill for 15%.
	Anyway, the point being, this is one of those things where this was not good, right?
	This was not good.
	And this money, instead of going into the public finances, is going into the pockets of some conservative ally donor fat cat.
	Not good.
	Not good for the nation.
	Not good anywhere.
	And we have other things.
	And again, if you're an ideological capitalist, if you're just for privatization under every circumstance, then the problem is that you're going to the problem with ideology is that it does not take into account what is actually happening.
	Now, what is actually happening is what really matters.
	Like I said, I'm completely for property ownership, but I'm not for ideological abstractions.
	So the free market is not something that I worship like a god.
	In fact, the free market can be the thing that inhibits property rights.
	For example, in mass immigration, because of course the billionaire capitalists want infinite amount of labor to keep labor costs as low as possible.
	Well, this has real knock-on effects to me and everyone else.
	It makes housing prices go through the roof.
	It means your future is being sold off for these people to be able to have minimum wages, the minimum possible they can pay you.
	And so while I am in favor of property ownership, I can see that the market, this ideological capitalism, can inhibit property ownership.
	It can be the thing that prevents it.
	Capitalism itself can prevent property ownership.
	And being someone who is for property ownership and not an ideological capitalist, I can look at that and say, right, okay, well, this is the excess of capitalism, and I'm not for excesses.
	I'm not for arbitrarily punishing the rich.
	I'm not for mass wealth confiscations by the state, obviously.
	But I'm also not for rigging the market in such a way that the super rich get to continue becoming even more super rich at the expense of the rest of the country.
	I actually think a more moderate, balanced curve would be appropriate.
	And if we didn't have a thumb so heavily on the scales from the state bringing in excess labor, making everything about our lives more difficult to make their profits even greater, then this wouldn't happen.
	If we just restricted the labor market by restricting the number of people coming into the country, you'd see your wages rise.
	And we saw that after Brexit, when hundreds of thousands of Polish and other Eastern Europeans left, wages in the industries they were occupying started going up because, of course, they were like, oh, right, no, we need to pay, we need to hire someone quick, quick, quick.
	We're actually struggling for workforce here.
	Now, Boris Johnson, because of the Treasury saying, well, look, we don't want people's wages going up, flooded the country with millions of non-European immigrants in order to keep your wages low.
	The Conservatives are the ones who private office of royal mail.
	So this is 324 million that would have been able to be used to lower your taxes that is now going to some conservative donor.
	So, no, this is not good.
	You do not have to be a communist.
	You do not have to be a socialist.
	You don't have to be any kind of iss or ism to look at that and say, well, that's an idea that has come from heaven to earth, right?
	That's the problem with ideology.
	Because, I mean, if you would say, right, we've got this vast state industry that's costing us billions of pounds every year.
	If we privatized it, then the person running it would be invested in slimming it down sufficiently so that it became profitable again.
	That makes sense.
	It doesn't make sense to do it to a profitable industry.
	And so this privatization is good in all circumstances.
	The ideological capitalism has got tangible problems.
	And it also leads to this kind of event where, for anyone who doesn't know, we have just the worst trains in Europe, probably in the entire world.
	I'm not in the entire world, I suppose.
	India exists.
	But we've got the worst trains in Europe for a reason.
	Because half of our trains, as you can see here, are owned by foreigners.
	Avanti West Coast is owned by the Italian State Railways.
	Their railways are state-owned and they own one of our railways.
	Great Western Railway is actually owned by a UK firm, but it's still private and it's still shit.
	And the reason they're shit is because apparently it's just cheaper to pay the fines than it is to improve the service.
	And so don't worry about that.
	Then you've got Southwestern Railway, which is in part owned by the Hong Kong government.
	Again, not private, is it?
	This hasn't been privatized.
	This is just owned by foreign fucking governments.
	Thameslink, French State Railways.
	Again, foreign government.
	What's this one?
	I can't see.
	I don't know what that is.
	It's missing.
	But this Trentalia, Italian State Railways, owns another one.
	Then Greater Anglia is owned by the Dutch State Railways.
	East Midlands Railway is owned by the Dutch State Railways.
	Chiltern Railways is owned by the German State Railways.
	And Arriva Cross Country is owned by the German State Railways.
	Why on the right would we be in favor of this?
	What possible argument is there as a right-wing, as someone who believes in private property, to say, yeah, no, I think that foreign governments should own our railways?
	What?
	This is mental.
	Like, this is ideological capitalism on steroids.
	We're going to privatize the rail.
	It'll make it work better.
	Okay, stop back there.
	It's a natural monopoly.
	Who the fuck is competing with Great Western Railway down south or any of the others?
	These are natural monopolies.
	You're not just going to lay another track next to it and then, you know, have two lines that are competing against one another.
	There is no competition.
	There is no capitalism here.
	What there is is exploitation.
	And that's why our trains are the most expensive and the shittiest because we are literally subsidizing Europe's rail.
	And so theirs is way better than ours and way cheaper than ours.
	And we're paying for the privilege.
	We are allowing them to exploit us because the Conservatives decided, yeah, no, we're going to privatize it by selling our rail, half of our networks, to foreign governments.
	There's no right-wing argument for this.
	And a sort of radical right-wing argument for this would be based in something slightly more xenophobic, right?
	It'd be like, hang on a second, I don't want foreigners exploiting the British.
	I don't want them indirectly exploiting the British by the fact that they own everything that we have.
	And that actually seems crazy.
	Why would we want that?
	I'd rather the British state own these things.
	So any profit that they made went into reducing my taxes, right?
	So this whole thing, this whole thing about the failed privatization that Ash Sarkar brought up, is correct.
	And it is something we can own as well.
	And moreover, because we will not be operating from the ideological I want communism perspective, we will sound less resentful.
	We will sound more convincing because we will just say, well, look, it just doesn't make sense that an institution that was making lots of money for the exchequer would be privatized.
	This doesn't make any sense at all.
	Why would we want foreign states owning our railways?
	And again, there are various other public utilities that fall under this category.
	I'm just using these as the two examples just for the sake of argument.
	But I don't doubt that there's some enterprising online right-winger who's writing an article right now listing all of those things that are actually monopolistic industries like water companies, electricity companies, because of the infrastructure that they use.
	And we'll demonstrate how these are all, or a large number of them, are just owned by foreign governments and companies.
	We don't want any of that, right?
	There's absolutely no reason that we would want that.
	And there's no reason we should have to have it.
	This is something we should take these things back into public ownership because they would lower our taxes.
	And that was as good an argument as any.
	And it would stop the exploitation of us by foreigners, which I think is a completely reasonable argument that the average person on the street would be like, you know, I don't think we should be subsidizing Italian state railways with the profits from our trains.
	I don't think we should be subsidizing the Dutch state railways with profits from our trains.
	Why are we doing that?
	That's kind of mad, isn't it?
	That's insane.
	You'd never make that choice.
	And so from the post-woke left, this is an argument not only we can take away, but we can make it make more sense.
	Because we are not going to be like, yeah, there'll be a huge deficit when we've driven off all the rich people.
	And fuck you.
	We're not going to be saying that.
	We're going to be actually saying, no, we can actually balance the budget.
	It's just going to be painful for those people who are exploiting us.
	Sorry.
	Too bad, people who are exploiting us.
	This is coming down, and we're the ones who are going to make it come down.
	Nigel Farage should have a very strong hand by just arguing this case.
	He doesn't have to be a socialist.
	He doesn't have to be a communist.
	He just has to be someone who is reasonable and looks at the circumstances and says, yeah, no, this can't go on.
	This is absurd.
	And the reason that we will win when we appropriate this argument from the left is because this is a core pillar.
	This is the last core pillar of the mass appeal of the left.
	Wokeness didn't work.
	Wokeness was a total failure.
	The public has rejected wokeness categorically.
	The legal system has rejected wokeness categorically.
	Nobody wants wokeness.
	Nobody believes the things that the left wants them to believe.
	And so the left has had a major push on that front and they got BTFO'd.
	And so they have withdrawn.
	And so they've looked around and gone, right, what else do we have?
	What else is on the left?
	It's like hating rich people is on the left.
	Great.
	Yes.
	No, there's actually an argument for that because the conservatives are such unbelievable traitors.
	The conservatives are such phenomenal traitors.
	They would literally sell our country piece by piece to foreign countries and their super rich buddies and the donor class.
	And we can actually leverage that and keep ourselves relevant in the public discourse.
	And so we need to take this away.
	And the reason that we can take this away from them, but they can't take anything away from us is because of what this is attached to for them.
	So they will come out very strong and say, no, look, these are the economic arguments.
	That's absolutely true.
	But they are also saddled with the cultural arguments, the cultural arguments, which are frankly just evil.
	And the reason everyone hated Jeremy Corbyn, the reason why Jeremy Corbyn on the doorstep was just reviled by everyone, because they will come across obviously as the party of foreigners and communists.
	And I don't know whether you've noticed, but the British public, 70% at this point, want immigration reduced.
	Immigration has gone too far.
	So being the party of foreigners means that they can't take away our anti-immigration platform.
	So we can present people with the economic argument that they agree with when the left is presenting it, so I don't see why they disagree with it when we present it, and the anti-immigration platform, because they just have pro-immigration sentiment.
	And they say it all the time.
	And I think this is going to be the thing that really, I mean, if they were to be able to pivot to being nativist and anti-immigration, they would win by a long way.
	But they can't do it.
	They're morally committed.
	I mean, this is, as you can see, on the London overground, I think it is, or part of one of the London underground style trades.
	A poem by Louise Bennett from 1966 called Colonization in Reverse.
	I don't know how well you can see it on the screen there.
	Colonization in Reverse.
	that someone took a picture of, because, I mean, this is just, I mean, just, I love these mask off moments where they just tell us exactly what they are thinking.
	They, They do think of themselves as colonizing our country.
	And actually, the majority of people in the country don't want their country colonized.
	As you can tell by people going, well, no, this immigration stuff has gone far too far.
	And so we can take the left's strongest pillar, last remaining pillar, and add it to our anti-immigration argument.
	Not only that, the immigration argument dovetails and synthesizes well with the anti-foreign exploitation through mass capital argument.
	Because, of course, loads of these people are taking our money.
	Like, we are paying literally a billion a month in welfare to foreigners.
	And that's not including all of the other ways in which, like, you know, the channel migrants and all that, the billions that's costing us every year.
	We can make that same argument and it apply to the corporations that have been, the industries that have been privatized, but also the foreigners that are here as a net deficit who never contribute to this country.
	And I'm not saying that every single foreigner needs to go or anything.
	Foreigners who are a net contribution and who we personally quite like, communities who have shown friendship to the English people and British people, I've got no problem with those as long as they're within reasonable numbers.
	But there are certain communities that are not only an economic burden that we're carrying through time and space, but are just openly hostile to us.
	And we don't really want those people here.
	We don't want hostile people living in our country at our expense.
	Anyway, I'm going to read this colonization in reverse.
	I want you to get a feel for it.
	So I'm going to go through some of their poetry.
	The thing about poetry is it tells you the spirit of the thing, right?
	So this was written in 1966 by a Jamaican immigrant.
	What joyful news, Miss Matty?
	I feel like me heart gwen burst.
	Jamaica people colonizing England in reverse.
	You can see they're going to raise the literacy standards.
	By de hundred, by de thousand, from country and from town, by de shipload, by deplane load, Jamaica is England bound.
	That's brilliant.
	I'm so glad.
	I'm so glad they're colonizing us.
	Demoport out of Jamaica, everybody future plan is forget a big time job and settle in de motherland.
	What an island, what a people, man and woman, old and young, just a pack dem bag and baggage and turn history upside down.
	They're literally just here expecting that they're going to make money out of us.
	And now the country is in absolutely creaking financial state.
	That doesn't really hold up, does it?
	I mean, it probably did in 1966, but it certainly doesn't now.
	Anyway, the next thing is Zach Popansky did a reading of this poem called British by Benjamin Sefania, who was a Jamaican who came to Britain.
	And he has decided that actually Britain is every foreign people in the world.
	Take some Picts, Celts and Siliers, and let them settle, then overrun them with Roman conquerors.
	Remove the Romans after approximately 400 years.
	What I like about this is, all right, we can remove people, right?
	Even if it's 400 years, we can remove people.
	Good to know.
	Put a pin in that.
	We'll be coming back to that.
	Add lots of Norman, French, and some Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, and Vikings, and stir vigorously.
	Stir vigorously means have them war for hundreds of years.
	Much bloodshed.
	Then this is the Britons.
	These first two stanzas are the Britons.
	And this is what the Britons have always been.
	Until, like, 1970 or whenever it was he wrote this.
	Mix some hot Chileans, cool Jamaicans, Dominicans, Trinidadians, and Bajans with some Ethiopians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Sudanese.
	Then take a blend of Somalians, Sri Lankans, Nigerians, and Pakistanis, and combine with some Guyanese and turn up the heat.
	I mean, you can see that being a recipe for ethnic conflict, right?
	Great.
	Just bring foreigners from everywhere and have them colonize these areas.
	Sprinkle some fresh Indians, Malaysians, Bosnians, Iraqis, and Bangladesh together with some Afghans, Spanish, Turkish, Kurdish, Japanese, and Palestinians.
	Then add to the melting pot.
	It's like, that's an American turn of phrase.
	We're not a melting pot.
	We've never been a melting pot.
	We're an ethnically homogenous island, and we had been for literally a thousand years.
	So this is just bring in colonization, right?
	Is this what you think the average British person wants for the future of their country?
	I don't think so.
	And what's crazy is these people, the way he has to describe them is coming from countries of their own.
	Why do they need to live here?
	They have countries.
	As they mix and blend, allow their languages to flourish.
	No, I don't want them speaking their own languages here.
	They've got countries for that.
	Binding them together with English.
	Nope, that's not happened, has it?
	That has not happened at all.
	There is, in fact, a kind of informal segregation across the country.
	Allow time to be cool.
	Add some unity, understanding, and respect for the future.
	Serve with justice and enjoy.
	Yeah, how's that going?
	How's that going?
	I mean, I can't help but notice that the Israeli football fans just weren't allowed to go and watch their team play in Britain because they would have gone to a majority Muslim area.
	And I guess that's that unity, understanding, and respect?
	Probably not.
	Just saying this is just a recipe for colonization, isn't it?
	That's just, you're just trying to ruin this country because you're resentful.
	And his whole life, by the way, was basically being given handouts.
	You know, he's like the court poet for like universities and whoever else, which he wouldn't have got if he wasn't Jamaican, because this is a shit poem.
	Note, all the ingredients are equally important.
	Treating one ingredient better than another will leave an bitter and unpleasant taste.
	Look, man, like, no one thinks that these people, all of these people, are as important to what it is to be British than these people.
	It's just not the case.
	Warning, an unequal spread of justice will damage the people and cause pain.
	Give justice and equality to all.
	No.
	As you can see, this is the pitch that the Greens are making to the public.
	I mean, we can hear Zach read it out, shall we?
	Dominicans, Trinidadians, and Bayesians, with some Ethiopians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Sudanese.
	Then take a blend of Somalians, Sri Lankans, Nigerians, and Pakistanis, and turn up the heat.
	I don't know if I want to turn up the heat.
	That sounds crazy to me.
	Looks like the heat's being turned up anyway.
	Anyway, yeah, so this old wife beater is the poet of the Greens, the official poet of the Greens.
	They love his poems.
	They promote his poems.
	Not sure he's the best representative of what we should have for the country.
	Then you have Mothan Ali, the deputy of the Green Party, being like, yeah, all the different shades, all the races, all the religions, all the cultures added together, mixed in a melting pot to make this beautiful land even more beautiful.
	This is what makes me proud to be British, right?
	So this Pakistani man is proud to be British when talking about foreigners.
	That's what it is.
	The American mythos of the melting pot is never something that's been applied to us.
	It's been imported wholesale.
	This is the Americanization of our politics by the left for ethnic advantage.
	The design of this is to further displace the English and British people from their ancient native homelands.
	That's what they want here.
	And they just say it.
	I mean, they're just coming out with it.
	And this is what makes them proud to be British.
	I mean, it's nothing about the native British themselves that make them proud to be British.
	And it's good that they just say it.
	Because, like I said, their pillar is woke, which has failed.
	And the way the economy is at the moment is very bad because privatization has been a failed experiment.
	That's correct.
	We can take that.
	They can't sell woke.
	And we can sell anti-immigration.
	So what we need to do is agree with them that, yes, privatization is wrong.
	And we have a solution that will not only help the economy, but will actually solve the problem more broadly because we will do two things to improve the economy.
	Well, whereas they will just do one thing to improve the economy.
	And so we, and of course, that one, the other thing, of course, is mass immigration that they want.
	I mean, like Zach Polanski literally said, immigration is Britain's superpower.
	So I'm not sure that that's correct, obviously.
	And I'm not sure the British public want to hear that.
	I'm not sure that's actually what the British public want.
	So anyway, that I think is my thoughts on what our response to this post-woke left should be.
	Yeah, no, we want to nationalize the things that were inappropriately privatized because they are exploiting us.
	They're exploiting the people of this country.
	It's not because there are people getting wealthy out of it.
	It's because it is for us a form of exploitation.
	For you, for me, for the regular person who has to use the trains.
	The reason that they're bad is because we're being exploited.
	They hate this because they think it's a way of attacking rich people, the 1%.
	So, you know, their populism is kind of abstract and not really very populism.
	Nor is it very popular.
	But anyway, that's what I think we need to do.
	And if we combine that with the anti-immigration rhetoric, I think we're onto a winner.
	But frankly, I mean, you know, looks like we might be onto a winner either way.
	Let's go to some super chats and then call it a night.
	I've had a long day, man.
	I have long days these days.
	I'm not complaining.
	I do a lot of work and everything's going very well.
	But I was walking with Pete earlier.
	He's like, man, you are looking tired sometimes these days.
	I'm like, thanks, Pete.
	Thanks.
	I appreciate that.
	Right.
	Leowolf says, voting in political office ought to be for heritage native people, meaning four generations of citizens on both sides.
	If your family or six generations of citizens on one side of your family minimum.
	I mean, I think that's too much.
	I think just tracing your lineage.
	Do you have lineage from English, Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish?
	Like, you know, as long as you have a lineage of those people, then yeah, you should be able to vote and be able to hold political office.
	But the thing is, who cares about working out the details?
	Like, you know, just foreigners shouldn't be able to vote and hold political office.
	At the very least, people born overseas shouldn't.
	And that's, I think, you know, that would be a tolerable starting point.
	Undisclosed says, Polanski is the ultimate cartoon Disney villain, the perfect IRL representation of the archetypal Man Rat.
	Yeah, one thing I like about Polanski is how hideous it is to look at him.
	Like, because no one likes to look at things that are unattractive.
	So it's actually really useful.
	And there's going to be a natural sort of response, I think.
	Oliver says, not just a problem in the UK.
	The left wants to replace us.
	The right sort us out for a quick buck.
	And us grows by the day.
	Stay strong.
	Well, I totally agree.
	And this is what's great for us, is that we can just not be ideological capitalists about it and say, look, capitalism is good when it's appropriate, and it's not good when it's not appropriate.
	And it's not good.
	It's not appropriate when it's applied to natural monopolies and things that are making us money.
	We actually don't need capitalism if something's profitable.
	So we don't need to privatize, privatize, privatize.
	And that seems to be anachronistic as well.
	I mean, I'm sure back in the 70s after Labour ruined the country, this was a rational response to things.
	But in 2013, why did we need to do that?
	That just seems to have made everything worse, right?
	And of course, we'll always have the sort of based anti-immigration sentiment, and they will have cringe pro-immigration sentiment, and they will never be able to get rid of it because they are a coalition of communists and foreigners.
	YouTube bias says, the so-called Equality Act 2010 requires employers to publicly publish gender earning differences, making it harder for men to negotiate a higher salary.
	Please do some more anti-feminist stuff.
	Well, I mean, I thought we'd done it all already over the decade or so that we've been doing this.
	But yeah, I mean, that's definitely one aspect of the Equality Act that's a problem.
	But the Equality Act in its entirety should just be repealed.
	We don't need this.
	We shouldn't have this.
	It's again putting thumbs on scales where there's just inappropriate.
	Mr. Spencer says, there's a vicarious, woeful joy I experienced as a Canadian seeing your progressive and communists laid low.
	Love from the Commonwealth.
	Well, I'm glad to hear it, man, and we're doing our best.
	Like, again, the election is three and a half years away, something like that.
	It's going to be a while.
	But if things carry on as they're carrying on, and fingers crossed, I am going to enjoy watching Nigel Farage fucking crush them.
	Like, you know, got my complaints with Nigel, blah, blah, blah.
	You know, everyone knows a history.
	And he's not going to be in any way perfect or anything like that.
	But he isn't for, he isn't one of them, right?
	And they all hate him.
	They're all calling him a fascist.
	They're all kind of coming to peace with the fact that it looks like he's going to win.
	But he's not the Conservatives or Labour.
	And what this does, if nothing else, is gives everyone permission to vote for a party that isn't the Tories or Labour.
	So he's basically opening up the political landscape and he's shoving it in their faces.
	There's that meme in 2016, the Brexit, with that guy being like, if I wake up tomorrow and if I see Frogface's grinning face or something, I'm going to kill myself.
	And someone just replies to it with this huge grinning picture of Nigel Farage going, wakey, wakey.
	And it is still my favorite fucking thing.
	And if we get to do that in 2029, fair enough, Nige.
	Well done.
	Blaze says the only way the post-work left will regain any power is by the Puritan right-wing acting authoritarian, which is what turned normies against the left.
	Yeah, I think that if we just stay sensibly centered on immigration was done to us without our consent.
	The Boris wave was brought here without our consent.
	We want millions of these people to go home, which 44% of the population already agrees with.
	And we want the borders closed because this is destroying our country.
	That's very moderate, very uninvasive.
	It's uninvasive to say, look, just revoke the passports of the Boris wave.
	They shouldn't have been brought here.
	They were brought here to suppress our wages.
	We don't want that.
	They were brought here inappropriately, basically.
	Boris was every election in the last 20 years has been one on the mandate of reducing immigration.
	So there's just no argument in favor of it.
	And it's just one of those things where it's like, no, I think these people can go home.
	And at the very bare minimum, just stop it, stop the inflow.
	Just stop the inflow.
	And that would be a huge start.
	And that would be uninvasive.
	Again, stop the inflow, turn the money off.
	Stop paying foreigners' benefits.
	Stop paying them benefits.
	Why are we paying them benefits?
	And millions of them will just leave of their own accord.
	When they realize the gravy train is over, they'll just leave.
	And again, it's non-invasive.
	Again, the sort of thing that turned the normies against the left.
	John says, Will Stellos' new course be helpful for working towards reading Thomas Aquinas?
	What's its reading list?
	Well, I don't have the reading list memorized, but yes, it absolutely will.
	Because the second to last lecture is on the Neoplatonists.
	And the Neoplatonists, you may or may not be aware, were hugely influential in early Christianity.
	In fact, Thomas Aquinas, was it Thomas Aquinas?
	No, it was Augustine of Hippo was a Neoplatonist before he became a Christian.
	And so you can see that this is the step before Christianity philosophically in the development of the West.
	So yes, it will absolutely be helpful towards reading Thomas Aquinas.
	In fact, I would go as far as say it's required reading.
	So go to courses.losis.com to get Stemios' ancient Greek virtue ethics course to teach you how to be a good person and how to understand how Christianity took the form it took throughout the Middle Ages.
	Kaido says, Would you have Asmund Gold on Lotus Eaters?
	He would almost certainly do it, and I think it'd be a great conversation.
	Of course, I would.
	I love Asmund Gold.
	I think he's great.
	I think the fact he's just the fact that he's just unapologetic to the left is the best bit about him.
	Even if I disagreed with him, I would be like, okay, Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.
	This is not something I would get up his ass about.
	You know what I mean?
	And I'd love to hear his position on things.
	And it's always funny when he comes out with like, well, Arch always says he's got the norm he take.
	And a lot of the time, the norm he take is just fucking based.
	It's really fucking based.
	And so when he comes, because he is a moderate guy, but then he comes up with the normy take, which is just like, well, why do you have any of these people in this country?
	So, good question.
	JR says, I used to know Ash Sarka intimately.
	I know, I know.
	I was young.
	She's always been a fame-hungry, vengeful with a deep vindictive streak.
	Wow.
	You saw it when she confronted Lauren Southern at a protest in like 2017, 2018.
	She came out horribly against Lauren.
	Looked really bad.
	When is the next episode of Stamford Bridge?
	It'll be in a couple of weeks' time.
	But it will be back.
	Don't worry.
	Anthony says they're making a huge push for inheritance tax now as boomers are dying and hold most of the wealth.
	We cannot underestimate how persuasive these arguments will be to millions who have nothing.
	Yeah, well, I mean, the thing is, like, if your boomer parents die and the state confiscates your wealth, wasn't that meant to go to you?
	Like, this is crazy.
	How, like, really, millennials, are you in favor of the state stealing the money in the houses that were supposed to be coming to you?
	Like, there's about to be the greatest generational transfer of wealth in all of human history to you when your boomer parents and grandparents pass on and you're like, yeah, the state should take that?
	Don't you want that?
	Isn't that going to make your life better?
	Like, don't you think you deserve it?
	Like, that's kind of wild, isn't it?
	So, yeah, you are right.
	The time is coming for the decision to be made, I suppose, if the decision has to be made.
	But, yeah, no, that should be yours, not the state's.
	Knox says, currently visiting the UK and London due to the wife.
	Well, my condolences.
	Lee says, people who screech tax the rich refuse to listen.
	Otherwise, how can we convince them otherwise?
	Feelings don't care about your facts.
	Keep up the good work, by the way.
	Honestly, I don't think we need to convince them otherwise.
	What we should just do is provide the information that I provided earlier, being like, well, we could raise taxes to Spain's position.
	We're at Spain's position.
	What are you talking about?
	That's not going to be a substantive raising of taxes.
	And we're getting 0.1% growth GDP a year or whatever it is.
	If Spain's getting 3%, that just means there's something different about their economy that they can take advantage of.
	In fact, let me have a look.
	Let's see if we can...
	How many immigrants did Spain take last year?
	Let's find out, shall we?
	So then net external migration.
	Right, so, wow, it's actually quite high, to be honest.
	So the net migration was about the same as ours, frankly.
	So, I mean, I have no idea how they're getting it.
	What is Spain's welfare state spending?
	Let's find out about that.
	I mean, it's not terribly uncomparable to our own, so I have no idea why Spain's doing well and we're not.
	But, like, it would require a deeper dive into it than I can do here.
	But the point is, we're basically at the same point, and it's not working for us.
	So, make sure that we basically keep interceding in these narratives is what we have to do.
	Brian says, most wealthy people, their estates are real estate and shares and companies.
	If someone like Jim Ratcliffe dies, what is the UK government going to do with 60% of Enios and the controlling stake of Manu?
	I don't know.
	The thing is, you've got to remember the left thinks that wealth means money.
	They think that wealth is a Scrooge McDuck vault of gold, that the billionaires are swimming around it.
	They don't understand that this is like people's livelihoods.
	Like, you know, how many tens of thousands of people is Elon's wealth employing?
	Like, it's made up of the number of employees he has.
	How many tens of thousands is that?
	You know what I mean?
	Like, these people don't understand that.
	They think it's just liquid capital in a vault, which is nonsense.
	But you are right.
	Obviously, there's no good answer for that.
	I guess 60% of Manyu becomes state-owned.
	Do all that'll do for them.
	Shaker Silver says, the less new lies that the inheritance is anti-meritocratic, unearned, seems to come from the same hatred of the unchosen obligation that is family.
	Well, that's precisely where it comes from.
	And they do hate the family, and they hate these unchosen obligations.
	So they see a way of trying to attack the right.
	Because, of course, the right believes in meritocracy.
	The left, of course, doesn't believe in meritocracy, believes in diversity, equity, and inclusion.
	So it's cynical, shall we say?
	It's a cynical way of attacking you.
	Ultra Nort says, I got my copy of Islander last week, just in time for my birthday.
	It's great.
	Well, thank you very much.
	And I'm really, really glad you're enjoying it.
	Just to be clear, we've never had, as far as I'm aware, no one has ever been able to show me a bad review of Islander.
	And I'm not even joking.
	It is the best magazine that I've ever seen in politics.
	It is just the most cutting edge.
	It is the most informative, philosophical, and we get the best authors of articles contributed.
	And Rory does an incredible job of the aesthetics.
	So the thing is a joy to read.
	And what you are reading is genuinely expansive.
	I make videos on the articles because I learn things from these articles.
	My favourite one was the Rhodesia one because I didn't really know much about Rhodesia.
	And I was reading this being like, shit, man, we just got screwed by the libs.
	Wait, we betrayed them for liberalism.
	We betrayed them for liberalism.
	What a stupid fucking thing to do.
	CJ says, Carl, when you're in Australia, we'll be joining any local podcasts.
	I think Topher Field and Carls have been trying to contact you.
	It's calling for chat with an OCAS.
	Yeah, you can email just contact at literacies.com or my sort of public facing email address that I don't want to say on the podcast on this stream.
	But maybe if they're anywhere near Sydney, I'm happy to do it.
	Eli says, hey, Carl, Uncle H and Ducci's tax rates for the average guy were generally around 5 to 15% during the World War and a little higher during the World War.
	Yeah, I know.
	It's crazy how fucked we're getting.
	It's absolutely crazy.
	Matthew says, how would you deal with second generation immigrants?
	Well, I mean, I don't want to get into like, you know, a detailed argument about policy and things like that.
	But I think that a lot of people will just leave when we are not giving them free money and a free ride, right?
	A lot of people will just leave.
	They even get the melting pot wrong.
	That was about casting off the old world identity and becoming an American, not a third world enclave-y.
	Yeah, well, I mean, they don't care.
	It's not about facts or the truth.
	What it's about is destroying us.
	It's about ruining our countries, ruining us.
	Doesn't even need to be profitable for a government program to be valuable.
	As a yank, I love being able to just go to a national park whenever I want instead of it being a mine or another strip war.
	Well, yeah, I mean, of course, there are those things as well.
	But the arguments are being done on economic lines, and that's fine because we can win these arguments on economic lines.
	And I think they're most persuasive on those lines, too.
	Khan says, particularity will win out over universality.
	That's how it's always been, but we cannot stop running this race.
	Keep up the good work, sir.
	Thank you very much.
	The lesson that white people still need to learn is that abolition was a costly mistake.
	No, no, obviously we're against slavery because we're Christians and we were Englishmen.
	We are Englishmen.
	So you really don't need any more reason to be against slavery.
	The problem was permitting slavery in the first place.
	Don't know why that was ever allowed.
	We shouldn't have permitted it in the first place.
	As a West European immigrant, I am pretty tired of people branding all the same.
	West European immigrants are a massive net contributor to the country.
	Well, I showed that in the Jimmy the Giant video by the Danish numbers.
	Yeah, the only people worth having are people who are Western European in origin.
	It's literally the case.
	Some dude says, really nice video.
	I agree that we need to take the left's only good argument from them and fuse it with based anti-immigration policies.
	I just can't see Farage winding back his views on privatization.
	Well, he has, though.
	That's the thing.
	Remember about the last steel industry and Farage came out and said, yeah, we should probably nationalize that.
	Everyone was like, well, that's an unusual thing for Nigel to say because everyone traditionally views him as a sort of ideological capitalist, a deep Thatcherite.
	And in many ways, he probably is.
	But again, you don't have to be an ideological capitalist.
	You can just be someone who deals with things as they are.
	And of course, it is mostly better and morally correct to be in favor of the market or property ownership, however you want to describe it.
	But being an ideological capitalist means you apply these principles in all cases, even when they're not appropriate.
	And we don't have to do that.
	There are times and places where that's just not appropriate.
	And so we don't have to.
	Barwon says, great.
	Now I'm picturing Neoplatonist skinheads in a gym lifting weights while wearing togas and sandals and tugging their beards in contemplation.
	I'm not joking.
	That's what I do.
	I've got audiobooks in my ears.
	And every day that I'm in the office, and everyone in the office can attest to this, I leave about quarter to four, go to the gym, spend an hour in the gym, and then go home.
	It's the only time of the day I can actually carve out any time in the gym.
	And man, it's paying off, I'm telling you.
	My wife has just been like, oh, my God.
	I'm like, yeah, I know, it's great.
	And Caleb says, our new narrative, rich wealth equals worker gets a wage.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Point being is we need to restrict the supply of labor in order for your wages to go up.
	And they will naturally go up.
	There will have to be no intervention in the market.
	No one.
	There's no argument for the billionaires to get resentful and to just pull themselves out of the country because they're not being excessively taxed.
	The market will just return to a normal equilibrium.
	And Generico says, we're all Rhodesians now.
	And my God, there is never a truer word spoken.
	That is indeed the case.
	We are all Rhodesians now.
	In fact, we're approaching the position of a stateless people.
	So we've got to get to get a handle on this sooner than later.
	This is why, again, I'm just actually very excited to see what Nigel Farage does.
	It's going to be exciting to have someone who is at least authentically right-wing.
	Like, Nigel Farage is not like a radical right-wing or anything.
	He's not, you know, going to bring in base racist policies or anything like that.
	But he is at least not one of their team, right?
	He's always been the Brexit guy.
	And he was getting to emigration in 2015 when they castigated him for it.
	He's not just a wet conservative or a communist.
	So it's at least something different.
	I'm looking forward to something different.
	And I don't even care if it's the lib dems and opposition.
	This is going to be funny.
	Watching Ed Davy and Nigel Farage going hammering tongs at it.
	Let's have it.
	Let's have it.
	This will be fun.
	This will be different.
	This will be interesting.
	I look forward to that first parliament where there's just no labor or conservative on the opposing benches.
	It's going to be refreshing to have a change, if nothing else.
	And honestly, I kind of hope Nigel's a bit smug about it.
	I genuinely, wakey wakey, I want him to be a bit smug about it and rub it in their fucking faces.
	How he ruined the Labour Party, ruined the Conservative Party, and he now is the Prime Minister with an overwhelming majority.
	i genuinely would like that to happen i would i would we we will do an election stream by the way obviously i'll load seaters over it And it'll be a banger, I don't doubt.
	Anyway, thank you for joining me, folks.
	Thank you all for your very generous donations.
	Go to courses.lotusees.com if you would like to make yourself a moral man.
	And I will see you on the podcast.
	Well, no, I'm not going to be on the podcast on Monday, actually, because I'm away next week.
	But go watch the podcast on Monday because I don't know whether you've noticed, chat, hasn't the podcast been fucking banging recently?
	I've been watching it myself on the days I'm not on, because normally I'm really busy, but I'm like, no, I'm going to pay attention and tune in because a lot of the time, like, for example, Ferras covered the Birmingham thing today, and he had a great angle on it, because he was like, look, what you are seeing here is a colony essentially declaring itself to be ungovernable by the central authority.
	This is something we saw in Lebanon, because this is what happens when you get the kind of balkanization of the country into these warring ethnic factions.
	And this is going to be like history will regard this as like the first proper time when this has happened in Britain, a genuinely ungovernable colony.
	And that's good point.
	And the guys are just like, you can feel everyone getting into a good rhythm with each other.
	Everyone knows each other.
	And like, we've taken new people on, obviously, but everyone's gotten to a good rhythm now.
	And so the podcast is a genuine joy at the moment.
	And so everyone's doing a great job.
	So go over and subscribe to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	And we'll see you on Monday.

▲