Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - After Me, The Deluge

All Episodes

Nov. 29, 2025 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:12:01

After Me, The Deluge

Some thoughts on the debate between Piers Morgan and Tucker Carlson.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I don't like Piers Morgan.
	I think that his entire career has basically been a blight on British public life.
	And this is from his earliest days as someone who deals with media.
	So Piers studied journalism and in 1985 joined the Surrey and South London newspaper group.
	He was recruited by The Sun to do their pop culture column, even though he had no particular interest in pop culture.
	What he was good at though, is self-promotion and clickbait.
	And so he spent his time getting himself photographed with the stars and writing incendiary things about them.
	And this got, well, I guess we would, in the modern era, would call it views, but I guess it was papers sold back in that day.
	And he says, I became the friend of the stars, a rampant egomaniac, pictured all the time with famous people, Madonna, Stallone, Bowie, Paul McCartney, hundreds of them.
	It was shameless as they didn't know me from Adam.
	Yeah, I believe it was shameless.
	And if there's one thing that Piers Morgan has demonstrated throughout his entire career, it's his shamelessness.
	In 1994, he became the editor of the News of the World, appointed directly by Rupert Murdoch for some reason.
	And only a year later, he ended up leaving, apparently voluntarily, after committing an ethics violation, violating the editor's code of conduct.
	And then after that, he becomes the editor of the Daily Mirror.
	So he keeps just failing upwards.
	In the year 2000, he was investigated because he had bought £67,000 worth of shares in a computer company called Viglund.
	And shortly after this, in the Daily Mirror's City Slickers column, he had tipped Viglund as a good buy.
	So, of course, this is about breaching financial conduct rules.
	And he was found guilty of breaching this code of conduct, but still he wasn't fired.
	He spent several years pissing everyone off with his gutter-level tabloid journalism, and eventually got beaten up by Jeremy Clarkson in 2004 at the British Press Awards for being just an abject piece of shit.
	And in the same year, he got fired from being the editor of the mirror because he published fake photos purportedly showing British soldiers torturing Iraqis.
	The photos were fake.
	And yet Piers Morgan never issued a retraction or an apology.
	In fact, he refused to admit that the photographs were faked, which is kind of wild.
	During the 2011 Lord Leveson inquiry, it was revealed that during his time as the editor of the Mirror, he was aware that phone hacking was taking place and did nothing to curtail it.
	He claims not to have been personally involved, but here's a quote from Leveson himself.
	The evidence does not establish that Morgan authorised the hacking of voicemails or that journalists employed by the Mirror Group were indulging in this practice.
	What it does, however, clearly prove is that he was aware that it was taking place in the press as a whole and that he was sufficiently unembarrassed by what was criminal behavior that he was prepared to joke about it.
	In 2011, during the Lord Leverson inquiry, he managed to get out of that by the skin of his teeth by not being directly personally implicated in the phone hacking, despite the fact that he knew it was going on and not caring at all.
	So we'll just take his word for it on that one.
	And the mirror had to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds of damages of that, by the way.
	And this happened during his tenure as well.
	So we'll just assume that he was good as gold there.
	And concurrent to all of this, he's also cultivated a career in television, doing various normie shows in Britain and America for NBC, CNN, the BBC.
	And I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms.
	Doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out there on the street begging for them to have their guns taken.
	We will not relinquish them.
	Do you understand?
	And in 2015, he becomes the host of Good Morning Britain, from which he quit in 2021 when he was outwoked by the ethnic minority Weatherman.
	And he famously stormed off, and that was it.
	So what I'm doing here is summarizing what I consider to be Piers Morgan's long career of basically being unethical.
	He has numerous ethics violations to his name, and he has been fired from places for doing things like this.
	And that's not including all of the other myriad things that he's done that are not themselves necessarily criminal or violations of some sort of code of conduct, but generally contribute to making the world a sleazier place.
	And the thing is, everything that I'm talking about is just pulled from his Wikipedia page.
	God only knows what he has actually done beyond this that we simply don't have access to, because he is, of course, basically the ultimate insider at this point.
	But what Piers Morgan is good at doing is self-promotion and clickbait.
	At the time of recording, it is estimated that he has a net worth of around $20 million.
	Piers Morgan has three gorgeous homes.
	He has a £4 million Kensington townhouse in one of the richest and most desirable areas in London.
	He also has a £4.2 million Beverly Hills mansion complete with beautiful swimming pool and of course he has an extensive £700,000 Sussex country estate.
	So Piers Morgan is doing pretty well for himself.
	Broadly speaking, I think we could characterize Piers Morgan as a sleazy tabloid merchant who constantly coarsens the culture and exploits people's lowest impulses in order to make himself fabulously rich and famous.
	So I would describe that kind of person as a giant piece of shit.
	Piers Morgan is one of those people who is in part responsible for the Jerry Springerization of our culture.
	I don't like the man, I don't respect the man, and I'm very tired of seeing his face everywhere.
	Because his current grift is his YouTube channel after Leaving Talk TV called Piers Morgan Uncensored, as if Piers Morgan has ever been censored in his life, where he just engages in what we would call internet blood sports.
	He invites on a bunch of people because he does have a large platform and they willingly go and then they scream at each other while he sits there looking concerned and trying to give a quote-unquote moral intervention every now and again while raking in huge amounts of money from the gullible rubes who will go on his show.
	Piers Morgan is there to get clicks.
	He doesn't have any firm moral standards and we see this in his interview with Tucker Carlson.
	In this interview, Piers reveals the profound moral confusion under which he lives, the complete lack of moral standards that he personally holds, and the fact that he is willing to say and do anything so long as it benefits him.
	This is all this boils down to for Piers Morgan.
	And it's not just in this conversation, this is his entire career.
	He is like a vampire, sucking good things out of our civilization in order to enrich himself.
	And so it was very frustrating watching Tucker Carlson try to have a proper conversation with him about serious points about the serious decline of our country, only for Piers Morgan to turn around and say, what are you talking about?
	I benefit from that.
	So before he has the debate with Piers Morgan, Tucker gives us quite an extensive monologue.
	And this monologue is as good as Tucker's monologues usually are.
	He points out that Britain is not the country it used to be.
	It's declining.
	It is dirty.
	It is unimpressive in many regards.
	And the British people themselves, rather than having a proper sense of self-respect, in fact seem much like a conquered people, a people who have just given up.
	A people who have decided we've had enough.
	We are spent.
	We are no longer able to make arguments in our own defense and actually push forward and claim what we think should be rightfully ours, such as this country itself.
	And these points are all points that Piers Morgan basically concedes or just outright denies, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, things that are so self-evidently true that you would have to be the kind of person who lives in the bubble that Piers Morgan lives in and benefits from extracting from the broader culture in order to want to defend them.
	I'll play some clips from the Tucker monologue just so you can get the tone of what Tucker is trying to put across.
	Britain was the most powerful country in the history of the world.
	And then 25 years later, it was this kind of sad, soggy welfare state, which is, to some extent, what it still is, except maybe even a little bit worse.
	What happened?
	Well, there are a couple of levels on which to think about this.
	First is just geopolitical.
	And I guess they spent a lot of money in these wars and the ruling, you know, half the class of Eaton 1910 was killed in the trenches or whatever.
	You can think of a lot of different ways to explain what happened to Britain.
	The fact remains, however, they won the two biggest wars in human history.
	They won, and yet they're still greatly diminished and to some extent humiliated.
	It's like, what is that?
	So again, the first can be described, the first explanation can be described in economic terms.
	Well, the United States took over.
	The British Empire just moved west to its child, the U.S.
	They just transferred the power and a lot of the gold to this new country, which had its systems and some of its customs.
	Okay.
	But there's something kind of deeper, actually.
	If that were the whole story, then Britain would still be recognizably Britain.
	The English people would still be recognizably English.
	They would just be not in charge anymore.
	They would have less money and less power, but the country would be, by any conventional measurement, thriving, just not running the Bahamas and Hong Kong, you know, Pakistan.
	The people of Great Britain are going through a series of crises, and they're all internal.
	Drug use, alcohol use, their appearance has changed.
	People are no longer as well kept.
	The streets, the landscape is not tidy anymore.
	It's got lots of litter and graffiti in some places.
	And to technocrats, these are not meaningful measures of anything.
	Who cares if you've got graffiti?
	Does that affect GDP?
	Well, maybe, maybe not.
	But it's definitely a reflection of how people feel about themselves.
	People with self-respect do not tolerate public displays of disorder or filth or graffiti or litter because they care about themselves and their family.
	And they understand intuitively, as every human being does, that once you allow chaos and filth in your immediate environment, you are diminished.
	It's the people who feel defeated inside who no longer exist.
	And that is happening to the West.
	And it's measurable.
	What other society hates its own national symbols?
	It's only happening in the West, only in Great Britain.
	This is coming to be true in the United States.
	It's already true in Canada and Australia.
	What other country finds it embarrassing to fly their national flag?
	What are you saying if that embarrasses you?
	You don't hate the flag.
	You hate yourself.
	But the native population in Britain is not debating abortion because it's not even a debate here.
	Everyone agrees it's just an affirmative good, of course, to eliminate your own people.
	Absolutely.
	Again, no one's making them do this.
	decided to do that themselves but now their most enthusiastic campaign is for state-sponsored suicide they've already done this in canada it'll come to the united states what is that that's an entire people saying we should exit the stage our time is done it's over let's go someone else will take our place not the first time that's ever happened This is what defeated people do.
	This is what happens when you break people inside.
	And maybe it'll just reach its terminus.
	Maybe there's no way to stop it.
	The great replacement theory.
	Yeah.
	A theory.
	Okay.
	No, it's the realest thing there is.
	And it's happening not because unseen hands are orchestrating it, though they are, but because the native peoples of all these countries are participating in it enthusiastically and then enforcing its rules against anyone who questions it.
	So in Great Britain, if you were to say, wait, what the hell is this?
	This looks nothing like the country I grew up in.
	Guess who's going to arrest you?
	Your fellow Britons.
	Now, Tucker is obviously correct about this.
	It will be your fellow Britons that will arrest you if you object about this in a sufficiently strident manner.
	It will be the powers that be in this country that ensure that you are kept down onto this order.
	You are not allowed to actually challenge it at its root and branch.
	And that's true.
	It becomes, in fact, something that Piers Morgan wants to dance around in his interview.
	And put simply, he just can't bring himself to believe it.
	But it's right.
	It is true that the country has a deeply authoritarian regime running it.
	It is true that things are getting worse.
	And it is true that demographic replacement is affecting the nature of English life in this country.
	With many of our biggest cities being majority, minority, and the English being, in some cases, an overwhelming minority in their own cities.
	This is a real issue.
	There has been a demographic change.
	New people have been brought in and the old people have fled out.
	This is real and something that has happened.
	And when Piers Morgan is presented with this, he actually concedes that this has happened initially and then defaults back to attempting to defend it.
	There's definitely been a significant change in the fabric of the country, in the makeup of the country, in the types of people who've come here, the volume of people who've come here.
	That's obviously had an effect on what this country is now.
	So Piers just concedes right off the bat that yes, mass immigration has had a huge effect on the culture of the country.
	It has deformed the culture of the country.
	Things are not like they used to be because of mass immigration.
	He admits all of this straight out of the bat.
	So what's the problem?
	Why wouldn't he just say, yeah, maybe this needs to change?
	This is something that has a profound effect on everything, not only the institutions of the country, not only the services of the country, not only the infrastructure of the country, but on the soul of the country as well.
	And that's what Tucker is trying to drive at.
	He's trying to say, listen, I think this is affecting you personally, whether you realize it or not.
	And there's evidence to suggest it.
	Mass immigration and diversity does reduce people's inclination to starting families because they feel like they live in a low trust society.
	They feel like economically they can't get ahead.
	They can't buy themselves houses.
	Things become more dangerous and more difficult and less pleasant.
	And so people don't feel comfortable enough to begin starting families.
	And if this was all done, because, well, the question was demographics and the demographic decline of the country required workers to come in.
	Well, it's a compounding problem then.
	We bring in workers and that creates demographic decline.
	So we bring in more workers and that creates demographic decline.
	And you can see how the population of Britain is in some sort of fatal doom spiral that is only going to end with the end of the people who live here.
	And as Tucker repeatedly points out to Piers, you are the native people of this country.
	He calls us like the Iroquois or the Cherokee of these islands.
	And we are.
	Why are we acting like a conquered people?
	And the answer that Piers went, he does in fact admit, but fails to really be able to draw the actual conclusions that one would actually draw from this, is that an oppressive government is doing this to us against our will.
	And this is all very demonstrable, but he can't bring himself to believe it.
	I live here half of the year at least, most of that time in London.
	It's always been a very multicultural city.
	There's no doubt about that.
	And I don't walk the streets as Tommy Robinson would.
	There's not always been a multicultural walk.
	I actually pull the numbers.
	It is not.
	In my life.
	It's very recent.
	It might be right after you were born here.
	In my lifetime.
	I was born in the mid-60s.
	But you know, the way Tommy Robinson, who has a big following in America, the way he talks about it is not something I recognize.
	Having said that, as I've always said about him, there are issues that he's raised which are perfectly legitimate.
	The biggest one is population.
	You know, in the 50s, we had a population of just under 50 million people.
	And a lot of the infrastructure, like the National Health Service, the NHS, once lauded as the greatest health system in the world, now has to deal with a population of nearly 70 million.
	That is a dramatic increase in the volume of people in this country.
	And the simple truth right now is our public services are creaking at the seams.
	And in some cases, like the NHS, pretty well at breaking point.
	And that is why there is so much agitation about the simultaneous ongoing issues with immigration.
	This is not true.
	And this is not adequately addressed by Tucker, in my opinion.
	The problem, and this is a very boomer mindset.
	Nigel Farage has a very similar mindset to this.
	We must worry about the institutions of the country, the institutions of the country.
	These institutionalists are very concerned about whether the NHS functions, whether the healthcare, like the social services function, whether the roads are functioning, whether the sewers are functioning, whether the things are functioning, and not the effect that this kind of demographic assault on the English people is having to the souls of the people.
	And that's what Tucker is trying to draw out of it.
	That's what Tucker is trying to address with him, is that it's more than just the infrastructure.
	I mean, and Piers' argument here is obviously nonsense.
	I mean, the English people were capable of reproducing themselves and did long before any of these services existed.
	So it's not a lack of services that is making people agitated.
	It's not a lack of services that is making people not reproduce themselves.
	It is not the lack of services that people are bothered about when it comes to immigration.
	These are the downstream effects of having so many strangers just randomly pop up in your towns and villages and essentially take it over.
	What happens is you feel that you have lost the possession of your own country.
	You feel that this no longer belongs to you.
	And that's all a consequence of this change that's been done to us because of our governments.
	And many other things come from this.
	Of course, the feeling of not being safe, the feeling of the people around you not being predictable, the feeling of not knowing why your own country is changing despite the fact that you never moved.
	You, the indigenous people of the country, never went somewhere or did something.
	These people have been brought here against our will.
	And instead of addressing this, Piers goes, well, I mean, yeah, there is a problem with the numbers.
	There is a problem with the infrastructure.
	There is a problem with the services.
	It's like, well, no, there are problems with these things.
	But all of these things are downstream because essentially what Piers Morgan is saying here is if we could have more investment in the public services or more houses built or more money to the NHS, then all of this would be fine.
	Then people wouldn't have a problem with mass immigration if only the infrastructure was sufficiently improved.
	And the answer to that is no.
	I don't want my towns and cities filled with foreigners.
	It doesn't matter how good the infrastructure is.
	It doesn't matter how well everything actually functions.
	Even if nothing functioned, but there weren't strangers everywhere, I'd be frustrated, but at least I wouldn't be depressed.
	At least people wouldn't be like, oh, God, I can never start a family in this.
	Our families, 100 years ago, I mean, maybe Piers Morgan's went, I'm not sure.
	But my family and everyone I know's family, 100 years ago were dirt poor.
	And it has been through a century of hard work that we've got anything.
	Being poor is not the end of the world.
	One can recover from that.
	One can come out of that.
	But being flooded by strangers who end up forcing you out of your own communities, how do you recover from that?
	But also legal migration and how we've abjectly mishandled that since really the turn of a century.
	You can chart it back to the Tony Blair years when they pretty well opened the gates to everyone in Eastern Europe.
	Way too many people came in way too fast.
	And then after that, there's just been a complete lack of any form of control.
	And we now have a situation where they've had to try and put the brakes on legal migration coming in because two years ago, we had a net migration in this country of nearly a million people.
	Now, it's not racist, as some people have tried to brand it, to say that that is alarming.
	A country like ours, if you don't have an effective border, if you have 50,000, 60,000 people a year coming in as they are illegally on these boats, and then you have a net migration of legal migrants coming in, of nearly a million people, the already crumbling infrastructure is going to come under obviously enormously higher pressure.
	As you can see, he literally just thinks it's about the infrastructure.
	He can't understand the psychic claim that the collective people of this country have to the country.
	He can't understand that we don't feel safe because there are so many people here whose behavior is unpredictable to us, who view the world in ways that are so alien to our own, we just can't understand it.
	And yet they're everywhere.
	They're just given the freedom of this country.
	And we're supposed to be like, right, okay, well, let's hope that person isn't a lunatic.
	Let's hope that person is just normal and somehow understands why we treat women in the way we do, why we have why the high trust society we had was like it was.
	And that's not happening.
	And Piers even complains about the change in the culture in the country, but fails to connect it to the change in the culture of the country.
	Like, the culture is produced by the people of the nation.
	And if new and different people of other nations are brought in, then the culture changes to reflect them.
	That is inevitable.
	And why this is something that Piers can't connect is beyond me.
	But I suspect it's part of a kind of long-running rearguard action that justifies himself and everything that he's done.
	Because of the scatshot nature of this interview, I've had to kind of rearrange certain parts so they are thematically coherent.
	But let's talk about what I think is the most egregious part, which is Piers Morgan complaining that, yes, the culture has changed.
	Immigration has been foisted upon us without our consent.
	And yes, it is doing damage to the institutions of the country, even though he also admits the culture itself has also changed.
	And the feeling, I mean, he doesn't say this, but the feeling of possession of the people themselves is what is at the heart of this.
	And then, when confronted with this by Tucker, he goes, well, what's the problem?
	But my question is, why did it destroy Britain?
	I don't understand as the victor in the world.
	It didn't destroy Britain.
	Well, look outside.
	Look outside.
	The city of London.
	Hang on.
	Look at Tower Bridge.
	It's the Tower of London.
	Magnificent.
	Well, it changed.
	It changed London.
	Why do you look at this and see a wrecked country?
	I don't.
	Well, I don't see an English country.
	So we're in the city of the world.
	What do you mean that?
	What do you mean by that?
	It's not.
	Well, people whose ancestors built Stonehenge are not here anymore.
	So the city of London is 36% white, and that's happened in the last, I don't know, 40 years.
	But England is about 70% white.
	England.
	Okay.
	Well, it wasn't.
	It was 99% 1945.
	Okay, so we've evolved.
	But you're on the way to becoming the minority in the country.
	So no one wants to say that.
	I think you can get arrested for saying that here.
	Well, it's a white supremacy.
	But it's the indigenous population of the country.
	It's a statistical fact that I think by 2100, we will be a minority white country.
	2063, as of today.
	Well, I've read a bit later.
	But these are dynamic numbers, so they change.
	Here's my question for you.
	So what?
	And this is where we get to the eternal boomer speaking.
	After me, the deluge.
	Piers Morgan was born into a country that was 99% white British, and a significant percent of that 1% would have been Irish.
	And for some reason, he doesn't think you deserve to live in that country.
	He doesn't think his own kids deserve to live in that country.
	He's got children, probably grandchildren at this point.
	And for some reason, none of this bothers him.
	Now, I'm guessing that he's insulated by his wealth.
	For him, in his mansions, whether it's here in Sussex or in Beverly Hills, none of this affects him.
	But actually, for the rest of us who don't live in mansions, who don't live out in California or wherever, in a bloody estate in Sussex or in the richest part of London, well, this matters, actually.
	As Piers admitted, the coarsening, the changing of the culture matters.
	These things are real things that actually affect us.
	So being like, well, what difference does it make if the English become a minority in England is insane?
	Not only does it matter directly to our personal lived experience of the world, when we go around and we are threatened, we are intimidated, we do not feel at ease in our own country, why should we give up our claim to our own land?
	This is our country.
	And Piers Morgan is like, yeah, we'll just bring in infinite numbers of foreigners, even though he concedes that's a problem that has caused all of these issues that he's particularly bothered about, about the institutions.
	Why would we give up our country to people who have countries of their own?
	They come from countries in which their ethnic group are the sovereigns of that country.
	They have a government of themselves, for themselves, for their own interests.
	And Piers doesn't think you deserve the same.
	For some reason, he thinks you shouldn't care if you become a minority in your own land through government policy that nobody voted for.
	This is madness, absolute madness, but it is quintessential boomer.
	And not just average boomer, quintessential rich boomer, the kind of boomer who can insulate himself from all the problems.
	These are peasant problems.
	These are not Piers Morgan problems.
	Go watch the latest shit show on his channel and leave a comment about which angry guests screeching over each other you thought was the best.
	So Piers Morgan can make more money and buy himself a fourth bloody mansion.
	Tucker rightly pulls him up on all of this and explains, look, this is a real problem.
	Actually, people shouldn't be deprived of their ancestral land and culture, as Piers has actually conceded already, and explains why this is bad.
	And the only thing Piers can say is, well, hang on a second.
	I'm just concerned about the institutions.
	My holy fucking institutions might not survive the demographic change.
	And that's the only thing I have a problem with.
	Well, let me refer to the beginning of our conversation when you said that the people who live in a country define the character of that country.
	And then you said, yes, all the things for which we were famous and in which we had pride, like our stoicism, our concern for others, our tidiness, the cleanest country in the world now, it's pretty filthy.
	All those things change when you get new people moving there.
	You said that.
	I mean, you're the racist, not me.
	So I'm just using, I'm using the parameters that you said.
	I did not say that that was down to white people.
	Well, that's who lives.
	No, but that's what you said.
	I said there was creaking pressure on public services.
	No, no.
	You also maybe foolishly admitted the truth.
	You could get arrested for this.
	I know the stakes are high.
	But you said that when the people who live in a country change, so does the culture, which is like the most obvious.
	It's like when it rains at it, it gets wet.
	That's not a controversial observation, but it's illegal here because it is true.
	And my only point is not against, I've already said, I like the Bangladeshis better than I like the liberal whites in their country, a lot more.
	They've never yelled at me.
	I'm not attacking them.
	I'm just saying the things that made Britain Britain, England, England, is there still in England?
	I have no idea.
	Those are going away because there are different people living here.
	And if you think that those are good things in the same way that the Swedes or the Chinese or the people in Burundi and Chad, they like their culture.
	It's their ancestors' culture.
	And now it's gone.
	And like, why can't we say that's bad?
	Well, because you may think it's bad.
	I love living in a very multicultural culture.
	But you're rich.
	I mean, you're rich.
	I love living in a multicultural part of London.
	And Tucker replies, but you're rich, which is exactly a correct observation because this insulates him from the real problems.
	And Piers goes, oh, no, no, it's not that.
	Yes, it is, you f ⁇ .
	The fact that Piers would claim that it is not because he is rich just shows how out of touch he is.
	But again, the eternal selfish boomer.
	Oh, well, I like it.
	I like it.
	Well, it doesn't matter if your prospects are being destroyed.
	It doesn't matter if you can't buy a house.
	It doesn't matter if you can't form a family.
	I'm doing okay, says the boomer.
	I'm doing fine, says Piers Morgan, four mansions, $20 million worth of net worth.
	I'm doing fine.
	I like it.
	And Tucker rightly says, well, it's because you're rich.
	You get to enjoy the benefits of these things without having to pay the price of these things.
	And Piers goes, no, no, no, it's not that.
	I think it's some other reason that I like it.
	It's like, no, Piers, it's because you are offloading the costs of the benefits you are receiving onto poor people, onto normal people, frankly, who are becoming increasingly poor.
	These people are the ones paying the price.
	These are the people who feel like they are losing control of their own country, losing their own grasp on their own country.
	And you, for some reason, are just like, yeah, not my problem, Jack.
	And he tries to get Tucker on a gotcha.
	But you're rich.
	I mean, you're rich and you go to the white parts of London and they're exactly the same as they were when I was a child.
	I've been coming here for 50 years.
	They're exactly the same.
	Neighborhood I'm saying is exactly the same.
	Which do you think is a white part of London?
	I'm not going to tell you.
	That's a little test for you.
	Which area of London do you think is white?
	The one I'm staying in right now.
	The one where my relatives live.
	Where?
	I'm not going to say.
	No, you don't want to say, because you know that I'll immediately say, come on, there's loads of non-white people living there.
	By the way, I'm not against non-whites.
	There's no exclusively white area.
	Okay.
	There's not.
	Well, which part of London is the white part of London?
	Yep, that's the point, Piers.
	There is no white part of London because the English have been ethnically cleansed from it, Piers.
	Because mass migration has turned them from the majority to the minority, an absolute minority in their own capital, Piers.
	That's not normal.
	That is not normal, nor is it just.
	The BBC did a documentary called The Last Whites of the East End.
	And it was literally about how the Cockneys had been ethnically cleansed out of London through the influx of mass migration.
	And these are the poor salt of the earth, Londoners, not the ones who get to live in f ⁇ ing Kensington.
	You selfish, selfish f ⁇ ing and then we get to the Piers Morgan theory of how things are bad because of the white people in this country.
	You're inferring that the more I'm not inferring anything.
	You're referring the more multicultural that Britain has become in terms of other ethnicities coming to live here, then the worse it's got.
	And I'm saying those two things in my view are not automatically.
	There are lots of white people who behave very badly in this country.
	Well, I've met them.
	Piers explains to us that actually you're suggesting that the more diverse Britain becomes, the worse it's getting.
	But I don't think those things are automatically linked.
	It's like, well, maybe not, Piers.
	Maybe it's possible that it could have been the other way.
	But right here, right now, demonstrably, things have become worse because of diversification.
	This is just self-evident.
	And it's the eternal boomer speaking again.
	Oh, oh, no, no, no.
	I'm not saying it's anything about race or ethnicity or there's anything intrinsic to these people that is making things that's making things more difficult or making things different or that is changing the nature of our culture.
	No, no, no.
	I'm a trueborn boomer liberal.
	And I don't believe that people come from places and have cultures and have customs and act differently to one another.
	I think all people everywhere are the fucking same.
	Don't you, Piers?
	That's what you're saying to Tucker right now.
	And you will interpret this.
	And they both do this, to be honest.
	So defensive.
	I'm not attacking the non-whites.
	Because you're worried about getting arrested.
	I get it.
	Who said you were?
	Who said you were attacking anyone?
	Nobody said you were attacking anyone when you accurately describe that cultures are different, that the foreign people are not like us and we are not like them.
	If we go to their countries en masse, we change their culture.
	If they come to our country en masse, they change our culture.
	This is just the nature of population.
	It is not a moral judgment.
	The moral judgment should be reserved for fat f ⁇ ing.
	The problem is the people reaping the benefits and offloading the costs, like you, like the government, like the intelligentsia of this country, making the regular people of the country be burdened with their own moral preening.
	And then this brings us to the next point that I think is substantive out of the conversation.
	Why does the British government oppress us?
	Why is it constantly oppressing us?
	And Piers thinks that it's just the government just does that, just feels like doing it.
	Although it's not really doing, actually, it's been totally overblown because he personally is not going to be arrested.
	National character.
	Let me say it again.
	Tidiness, self-restraint, selflessness, courage, fairness.
	The British system was imported around the world on the basis of one concept, fairness.
	comes from the magna carta i think a lot of has this become a fairer society It's become completely unfair.
	You put fucking Julian Assange in prison for years without charges.
	No, no, we.
	Because the CIA told you to.
	We have had a massive rising issue with the suppression of free speech.
	Which is a fairness issue.
	But that has nothing to do with ethnicity or whatever.
	Well, really.
	So what does it have to do with, do you think?
	It has to do with a very ridiculously draconian view of what free speech is.
	But where does that come from?
	You've never had that.
	Of course.
	But those are attitudes that grow from the population or else you would have a revolution.
	No, this is the country.
	That's where you're wrong.
	The population does not want this suppression of free speech.
	It's very frustrating that Tucker doesn't actually just nail him on this point because Pierce has given the entire game away.
	Yes, the population never wanted this.
	They've had it inflicted on them and now they're being tyrannized by their own government if they dare to criticize the newcomers.
	Because Piers went, oh, it's the government.
	It's just the government.
	Yeah, well, the government brought them here.
	And then it criminalized characterizing them negatively.
	That's where all the hate speech crimes come in.
	When you negatively characterize a foreign group, then there is a hate crime.
	Then you go to jail to the tune of, what is it, 12,000 or something last year, which Piers will get to in a minute, can't really believe.
	The connection is direct.
	The censorship is coming from the government because the government is protecting the new people that it has come that is brought here to replace us.
	And for some reason, Piers just can't understand that.
	He is sat in a city that is now 30% English, filled with foreigners, where you can't point out a white area of it.
	And the government will arrest you if you negatively characterize the newcomers.
	And somehow, none of this is connected in Piers' fat.
	I have to restart recording because it's just making me angry.
	But anyway, and none of it is connectable in Piers's dull mind.
	Because apparently to him, all of this is fine.
	This is completely normal because he personally benefits.
	Roosevelt and Churchill, meaning America and its cousins in the UK, were fighting against an authoritarian system.
	It wasn't just about race hate.
	It was about full control of a population.
	We were arguing against that and fighting against it.
	Of course, we were also funding it when we sent money to Stalin, but whatever.
	It was never fully consistent.
	But that's what we tell ourselves.
	And now that's what you have.
	There were three times as many people arrested in the UK last year for speech crimes as were arrested in Putin's Russia.
	And you have half the population.
	So this is much more authoritarian than Putin's Russia.
	No, it's not.
	How is it not?
	That's ridiculous.
	If you have three times as many arrests for speech crimes, I've not seen that stat.
	If that is true, it's because we have been so appalling in protecting free speech.
	Well, you're appalling.
	No debate there, but I'm just saying, how do you define authoritarian?
	The idea that we are living here in a more authoritarian state than Russia can't.
	No, no, come on.
	Those are the numbers.
	You don't believe that.
	Look, I believe in science.
	I believe in science.
	Do you think England is more authoritarian than Russia?
	Do you think you're more likely to be arrested for a speech crime in Great Britain, indeed, three times as likely?
	What would happen if you criticized?
	If you went on the airwaves here tonight.
	I'm an American.
	They're not going to make it.
	No, no, no.
	if you went on the airwaves here tonight and you start abusing and hammering and mocking and criticising our Prime Minister, which, by the way, many people are doing.
	I'll give you...
	If you did that, what would happen to you?
	Nothing.
	Exactly.
	But what if I said I thought gay sex was disgusting?
	And if you were to-hold on, hold on.
	That's nothing.
	Prime Minister.
	I'm opposed to sodomy.
	Stop that.
	I haven't finished my question.
	And if you went to Moscow and you went on the airwaves and you did that about Putin, what would happen?
	You'd be in trouble.
	Right.
	So there's a difference.
	It's just an authoritarian state.
	No, no, no.
	That's a straightforward thing.
	That's a straightforward thing.
	That's a flawed democracy.
	No, this is global homo.
	That is global homo.
	It is global homo.
	That is obviously less worse if three times fewer people are being arrested for it.
	Yes, you can't criticize the Russian government in Russia, or if you do, you're running the risk, etc.
	Yes, we agree.
	That's not great, Piers.
	But if three times the number of people are getting arrested, not for criticizing the government, but for criticizing the wards of the government.
	Piers just comes from a different paradigm in which he doesn't understand that actually tyranny can be done for reasons other than defending the government.
	It is not just that we have three times more arrests for speech crime, absolute arrests for speech crime in this country compared to a country twice our size such as Russia.
	It's that he doesn't understand that the government is still tyrannizing you, even if it's not arresting you for criticizing it.
	If criticizing the government for bringing in client groups and giving them protections isn't something that can get you arrested, then what difference does it make?
	God, it's so frustrating that Piers is just such an idiot.
	This is genuinely a thick thing to say.
	The stats are that the British government, the British state, arrests people at three times the rate of Russia, then that's three times more tyrannical, as Tucker points out.
	Just because they're doing it for a different reason doesn't make it any less tyrannical.
	Oh, the British government doesn't mind if I criticize it.
	Okay, great.
	But it does mind if I criticize one of their client groups.
	If I have a criticism of some identity group, that will get me criminalized.
	Whereas all it is in Russia is if I have a criticism of the government, well, which ones more affect my daily life?
	Which ones am I going to have much more of an interaction with?
	One of the newcomers or one of the little client groups or the state itself.
	Actually, the client groups are far more in my face and actually far closer to me.
	They are much more involved in everyone's daily lives because you have to engage in society with them.
	Usually, you don't actually have to engage with the state that much.
	Usually, if you want to engage with the state, that's your choice.
	But I don't have that choice if I have to do something outside of my own house and I am forced to interact with the ethnic minorities and various other client groups that the state has brought here and given privileges over me for.
	Like, sorry, Piers, if the government is so interested in protecting their client groups, they are still tyrannizing me just for different reasons.
	And if you don't like, if you don't think that's a problem, well, then you're the one at fault here.
	You are the problem.
	You are the person who is an idiot.
	You are the person who fails to understand that the world has changed.
	Our governments have become more tyrannical than the government of Russia.
	And I'm not saying that the government of Russia isn't tyrannical.
	It's just we have the numbers.
	They are about a third as tyrannical as our own government, as Tucker points out to you.
	This is the authoritarianism of the present and future.
	And it's not, it's the feline, passive, aggressive, female version that doesn't tell you what it is.
	They don't march into your town in jack boots and put a rifle against your face and tell them.
	They do that in Russia.
	For sure.
	It's much more straightforward.
	So they kill you.
	It's a sign.
	Oh, you kill tons of people.
	You kill tons of people.
	I don't disagree.
	Oh, yeah, you do a lot.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So let's stop at the killing people because you kill tons of people.
	But as you well know, because you know the people who do it.
	And I do too.
	No, I'm saying there's something more offensive about an authoritarianism that will not admit what it is.
	So instead, people are arrested here and thrown into jail.
	And I've been to Belmarsh Prison.
	It's awful.
	It's awful.
	It is.
	But you walk in and there are all these signs about Trans Acceptance Week.
	It is fascism wrapped in the human rights campaign rainbow logo.
	It's not any different.
	And the thing is, after Tucker brilliantly explains this to him, he just concedes it.
	He's like, yeah, good point.
	I'm an idiot.
	I wrote a book complaining about woke fascism.
	Good point, Tucker.
	I don't know why my first unthinking, reflexive response was to claim that Britain was this beacon of light and liberty when I actually know that it's not.
	And I actually agree with you on everything.
	Well, I think from what we were fighting against.
	Well, I was arresting you for saying something bad.
	This has been my big criticism of the woke left.
	I wrote this book called Woke is Dead, which is more an aspiration than a reality at the moment.
	But the point I was making was that the woke left became in the end like the very fascists they profess to hate most.
	They literally behave like fascists.
	Anyone that deviated from their worldview.
	I don't want you to devalue the term.
	No, no, I'm not.
	I'm explaining the hypocrisy of the left.
	Oh, I get it.
	Which I think we could probably agree with.
	If you start to behave like the very people you claim you hate most, you are a brazen hypocrite.
	It's not just the left, it's the right.
	Well, the right is doing that.
	Unfortunately, I agree.
	Some of the right is doing as well.
	I agree.
	Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, isn't it?
	Wherever you see it.
	And I do think that this way I'll be categorized what's happened here is successive governments, right and left, have pandered to a weird sentiment driven by very vocal but small numbers of people that we have to start getting into the suppressing free speech business.
	And it's been a catastrophic failure, which has diminished this country.
	But why?
	What we're beginning to see is the coming out of that.
	Is it really just pandering if it's gone this far?
	If people's lives are being destroyed, if 12,000 people a year are being convicted and locked up over this, if it is the law not to do this, is it really pandering?
	Actually, it seems that it's not pandering and it's the mandate of the state over the country.
	You will never negatively characterize one of the foreign groups we bring here to replace you.
	That is the law of this land, Piers.
	You are wrong.
	Your mental software is out of date.
	You do not understand.
	We are not living in the free society you grew up in.
	Again, one of those privileges that the boomer doesn't understand they had that has been taken away from the rest of us.
	You were allowed to say anything you wanted when you were young.
	We are not allowed to say these things now.
	And this is why Tucker keeps making the point.
	You're afraid of being arrested.
	You're afraid of being arrested.
	But of course, Piers Morgan is too much of a who's who.
	He's not afraid of being arrested.
	He doesn't think it'll be him.
	But moreover, he doesn't think it'll be him because he sufficiently censors himself, which is why in the now famous part of this interview where Tucker is saying the F word, and I'm not going to bloody well say it, because I do live in Britain and I am worried about being arrested, by the way.
	He refuses to say it.
	Oh, no, I just, I think it's coarse.
	I think it's undignified.
	I don't think it's the right thing to do.
	Even though I am free to say it, I'm just never going to.
	You're not free to say it.
	You're not.
	I mean, Tucker brings up the example of a woman who said it and got arrested and got convicted and is now in jail over it.
	You are not free to say it, Piers.
	You can pretend that you are, but you just aren't.
	So let's move on to Tucker pointing out that the horizons of the Britons have been deeply narrowed.
	We used to rule the world.
	We used to have a world-spanning empire that Tucker thought was the most impressive empire in history.
	We used to be the most impressive people in history.
	And now we are basically an immiserated form of that, being colonized by our and impressed by our own government for the sake of Piers Morgan being able to fill his fat face with foreign foods.
	But whatever, you could argue that.
	Well, the cost of it.
	But what's so sad is that for your whole life, you've been told that what is Britain?
	What is this project about?
	It's about the National Health Service.
	That's kind of aiming a little low.
	Like, who cares about some bureaucratic structure?
	What about England?
	What about the culture?
	Like, so in my mind, as a PG Woodhouse reader lifelong, self-restraint, duty, courage, patriotism rooted in your religious faith, our Lord the King, a phrase that was common until recently.
	All of that seems to be gone.
	So the question is: well, what is the point of Britain?
	What do the British people feel that they are doing in the world?
	And Piers' answer is basically comfortably shuffling off this mortal coil.
	We are worshiping the NHS.
	We are worshiping the benefit system.
	We are worshiping the institutions of the country.
	And as long as they last for as long as we do or the rich boomers do, then everything is fine.
	As we said, after him, the deluge doesn't matter to him.
	But this, and this is the problem, really.
	This is the one problem.
	Oh, Piers Morgan, his parents had a bad time on the NHS.
	This needs to be improved.
	What wouldn't have happened in the 60s and 70s with NHS is what happened to both my parents recently.
	So my mother had a heart attack and ended up being put on a trolley in an accident and emergency unit, but out on the corridor with 30 other people on trolleys.
	It was Dickensian.
	This was like a third world college.
	And she got hardly any treatment at all while she was there.
	Now, when she eventually got up, and this is the apex of the NHS for me laid bare.
	When she eventually got into the heart unit, she got incredible treatment on the NHS.
	Didn't cost her anything.
	She got fixed up and repaired.
	Turned out she had a blocked artery and she was home in 48 hours and was great.
	My father broke six ribs recently.
	Again, the same story, just waiting on trolleys and so on.
	This is going on all the time.
	I couldn't because it cannot deal with the volume.
	It almost seems unbelievable that someone worth as much money as Piers Morgan would leave his own parents to rot on the failing NHS while they're both either injured or they have some sort of congenital heart problem, whatever it was.
	And they might die there.
	They might not ever get treatment before they passed on.
	And he's willing to take that risk.
	Almost, right?
	Because actually, I think maybe he's telling us the truth.
	Maybe he is too cheap to pay for his parents to have private healthcare, despite how much money he's worth.
	Maybe he is too selfish to go above and beyond for his own parents.
	Because he genuinely is the archetype of the rich boomer.
	I worship the institutions.
	The institutions are our God.
	They are what we are here to serve.
	And if the NHS, can't really badmouth the NHS.
	So as soon as I got the treatment, oh, it was perfect.
	It was brilliant, which I'm sure is great.
	But if the NHS is failing, that is the failure of Britain.
	Britain is here to support the NHS.
	We're not a country with a welfare system.
	We're a welfare system with a country attached.
	This is genuinely the mindset of the boomers.
	And so it doesn't matter what happens to the country as long as the institutions function.
	To which I say, fuck the institutions, destroy every single one of them if it means we don't lose our country, Piers.
	But that's really the point that I'm driving at here.
	Rich boomers like Piers Morgan are only patriotic to the lattice work of institutions that they perceive covering the country.
	And Piers says all of this.
	He's like, well, what about chivalry?
	What about courtesy?
	What about the NHS?
	What about social service?
	What about the roads?
	What about the suicide?
	Whatever.
	All of the things that make him comfortable are the things that matter, but not the actual people themselves.
	When presented with that, he says, well, who cares?
	Who cares if the people are gone?
	Who cares if the English or the British more broadly are a minority in their own country?
	Who cares?
	Who cares?
	I get to eat my food.
	I get to use the NHS.
	I get the benefits of the institutions.
	And many boomers are like this.
	They don't understand that the people precede the institutions.
	The institutions are a product of the people.
	And therefore, protecting the institutions means protecting the people first.
	But even then, the institutions shouldn't be the primary thing we think about when we think of ourselves.
	These institutions are all products of the 20th century, basically.
	For a thousand years prior, we didn't have these institutions, and yet we were good and moral people, successful people.
	And this is one of the points that Tucker makes, you know, used to rule the world.
	What happened?
	We gave it up for this series of technological institutions that we expect to take care of us until we shuffle off this mortal coil.
	And if the whole civilization shuffles off with it, people like Piers Morgan don't give a damn.
	And so Tucker confronts him directly.
	Okay, well, tell me, Piers, if for some reason your culture was so much worse before immigration, identify the point of your culture that you are happy is gone and tell me what you like about the thing that has replaced it.
	And the answer is just remarkable.
	The answer is just remarkable.
	It is the most cliche answer.
	It's literally the meme.
	But you're saying that our culture has changed because we've had other cultures come here.
	What about your position?
	Well, it's not my position.
	It's a fact.
	And you just said it.
	I think.
	So it's better.
	So what about British culture didn't you like and has been improved by new cultures?
	Oh, no.
	Well, tell me, what didn't you like before?
	What are you glad is gone from the Britain you grew up in?
	Let me tell you, if you came to London in the 50s and 60s, the food was crap.
	Absolute crap.
	Well, it was that way in the 80s when I was there.
	Right.
	Now we have some of the best guests in London.
	You almost couldn't make it up, right?
	Like, because if I had ascribed to Piers Morgan in advance that the only thing that he could say that he likes about the colonization of Britain is the fact that the food is better, which I just want to flatly say I don't agree with at all.
	If that was the only thing that he would be able to say that is actually an advantage, I'm more than happy for God knows however many rapes and murders and for every daily indignity.
	I am happy for the British people to be, as Tucker perceives us to be, a conquered people so that I get to enjoy some nice food.
	If I had ascribed that to Piers in advance, people are like, look, there's obviously got to be more to it than that.
	Nobody is that shallow.
	Nobody is that selfish.
	Nobody is that unaware of the discourse surrounding this subject.
	Nobody would just sit there and like a giant fat idiot say, it's about me being a glutton.
	It's about me shoving their food in my face.
	And for that, I will sacrifice everything.
	And here he is.
	Yet this was literally his answer.
	You couldn't have made it up.
	And so we'll get now into Piers Morgan living in just a land of delusion, right?
	We'll talk about now how Piers Morgan is just wrong about the nature of the country.
	So he believes genuinely that things are getting better because, of course, as we've covered, he gets all the benefits of the way that things are, but he exports all the bad things about it onto you, the normal people.
	And so he's like, yeah, London's better than it used to be.
	Everywhere's better.
	Things are good.
	Line goes up.
	The Whig theory of history is correct.
	Wait, do you think it's a better city than it was 40 years ago?
	For real?
	Yeah.
	Economy has not been destroyed.
	We're still one of the biggest economies in the world.
	What is the economy here?
	What's it based on?
	What do you mean?
	A lot of things.
	Okay, what's the main one?
	Well, it's a city.
	There's a lot of manufacturing.
	That's the main one?
	Well, there's a lot of technology stuff going on.
	There's a lot of scientific stuff going on.
	There's a lot of all sorts of interesting things.
	We haven't mentioned the biggest one by far.
	Well, go on.
	Lending money to people.
	It's banking.
	Banking, yeah.
	It's a system based on it.
	There's a lot of manufacturing.
	Not as much as there was 80 years ago.
	How much is in London, man?
	Your biggest city?
	I don't know the percentages.
	So we'd have to check.
	I could take you to Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff.
	How are they doing?
	They're all doing great.
	Much better than you think.
	I don't know why he'd say this, because it's obviously not true.
	It's so palpably not true that you'd have to be an absolute moron to think it.
	Manufacturing is 2% of London's economy.
	85% of London's economy is services.
	Most of what London is, is just service.
	As Tucker points out, it's lending money and storing money for foreigners.
	London is just a big, gigantic financial hub with a very poor country attached to it.
	And so Piers is like, oh, no, no, everything's going great.
	Cardiff in Manchester and Birmingham.
	No, it's not.
	Manchester is actually better than the rest.
	It's actually more of a success story than the rest because it markets itself as being so business friendly.
	And so actually, Manchester is probably the best we've got out of the list that he gave.
	But I mean, why would you bring up Birmingham?
	Oh, Birmingham's going great, isn't it?
	Birmingham recently declared bankruptcy.
	Birmingham is having a massive bin strike.
	And the whole city smells like rubbish.
	Like, this is such a wild series of lies that Piers tells to Tucker's face because he knows that Tucker doesn't know.
	He doesn't have the information readily to hand.
	But other people do, Piers.
	Other people know.
	The people who live there know that these cities are not better than they used to be.
	London is not better than it used to be.
	Birmingham is not better than it used to be.
	We know that England itself was not better than it used to be.
	And this correlates precisely with diversity.
	One of the things I found most annoying about this is that he just concedes all of the points that the right is making on this.
	Yeah, no, things are getting worse.
	The population is in decline.
	The population is being replaced.
	And he's like, yeah, yeah, good point.
	Good point.
	But actually, I'm personally benefiting.
	But then he's like, oh, yeah, no, actually, population decline is a real problem.
	Again, the cycle that justifies more mass immigration.
	But this is a problem.
	And so he doesn't seek to do anything to address it.
	Like, for example, he's like, yeah, women aren't having kids.
	Yeah, I know.
	They're all going into the workplace, says Piers.
	Okay, maybe that's not good.
	Maybe we shouldn't have so many women in the workplace.
	Have you thought about that?
	But no, that would be anti-liberal.
	That'd be anti-feminist.
	Of course, he's not going to say that.
	Especially true in Canada.
	I think this is becoming a massive issue.
	And Elon Musk has been right about this.
	The biggest problem is not, as we all assumed, overpopulation in the world, but underpopulation, because a lot of people now, especially as the changing way society has gone with many more women working and so on, that the number of children that are being born, actually in places like the UK and the US, is reducing quite markedly projected for the next 50 years.
	And you're seeing in some countries in Asia, for example, it's getting catastrophically low very fast.
	And this is going to be a massive South Korea.
	Yeah, it's going to be huge.
	There will be no South Koreans.
	There will only be North Koreans.
	What does that tell you?
	Well, it's not a good moment.
	No, but where's that?
	I totally agree with you and with Elon.
	And again, I feel like we've all done our part to reverse that trend.
	But I feel like we spend no time asking why is this?
	Well, don't you think it's as simple in most cases as the changing work practice?
	If you went in the 1950s 1950s in the UK, most women didn't work.
	Now, when women go out to work a lot more, they probably don't have the time to have three, four, five children.
	There's no doubt.
	I'm sure they can't afford it.
	Childcare is more expensive.
	In the United States, it's more expensive than I think any other expense, but for young people with children.
	Of course, you're right.
	But there's also something a little bit deeper than that.
	It's like it used to be just axiomatic that reproducing was not just your duty, but your greatest joy.
	That was the way you create the next generation, continue your civilization.
	And that has died since the Second World War.
	And not just in the white world.
	But that is like a profound.
	Well, what is in argument actually?
	I mean, look, like I said, the population here has gone from 50 million to 70 million since the 50s.
	The really worrying graph is what happens in the next 50 years.
	But that growth in population has been almost exclusively from immigration.
	And true in the United States, and Canada is just like a completely different country.
	Nothing like that has ever happened in the history of the world.
	Why is this happening?
	Piers is, of course, committed to the boomer liberal view that everything's just getting better all the time.
	And this is one of the reasons that he's so bothered about population.
	Well, what happens in 50 years when the population collapses?
	Institutions, my NHS, my pension scheme.
	I don't care about any of those things, right?
	If the population of this country was like it was in the 1960s and collapsed to 10 million, we'd still survive.
	We could regrow.
	We could rebuild from that.
	But if we're just concerned about the institutions, well, if you replace the population and it still collapses, then we've got nothing to recover from.
	There's no base there that we could rebuild from.
	But again, I'm not that bothered about the institutions.
	I'm bothered about the people themselves.
	But anyway, like I said, this is Piers Morgan's boomer Whiggism, right?
	Everything is just a constant upward stream of progress.
	Things are just getting better.
	And so it leads him to create ridiculous caricatures of the past.
	A past in parts that he lived through.
	Why don't you explain the twofold or threefold increase in self-identified homosexuals in the US?
	I can.
	They used to be repressed.
	It used to be illegal in this country until the mid-60s.
	You literally went to jail.
	So all through.
	Hang on.
	You literally were put in a prison cell if you were openly homosexual.
	That was more here, actually.
	You guys did Oscar Wilde.
	We didn't.
	But absolutely shocking compared to the Commissioner.
	Where does it come from?
	30 years ago.
	Is it genetic and where's the gene?
	30 years ago, gay people were persecuted.
	I know, I've heard the story.
	No, they were commemorating Stonewall the other day at my house.
	You know, I'm on board with all of this stuff.
	This is an incredible piece of Whig revisionism on Piers' part.
	Because remember, not only is the present better than the past, the future will be better than the present.
	And so the world, the telos of the universe, is just one of constant liberation.
	And the past, though it's in the past, is ever snapping at our heels.
	We could always go back to that dark, benighted time.
	So before Piers was born, up until the 1960s, when he was born, gays could be put in prison for being gay.
	Oh, that is terrible.
	And I agree.
	I don't think anyone should be put in prison for being gay.
	But notice how he has this massive time slip.
	He's like, 30 years ago, gays were being persecuted.
	What?
	In 1995, when I was 15 years old, no, they weren't, Piers.
	You were an adult in 1995.
	You know that they were not being persecuted.
	The 1980s is replete with gay icons.
	Was Freddie Mercury put in jail for being gay, Piers?
	Or was he a massive internationally famous superstar?
	There were loads of them.
	Absolutely loads of them going right the way back to the 70s.
	Like, what are you talking about?
	You are mythologizing a false history that justifies you saying, no, everything is getting better and everything in the past was bad.
	And this goes on to Piers' view of the universe, the world itself, right?
	Piers, unironically, goes on to claim that the British Empire basically didn't exist.
	Well, what, in terms of people traveling around?
	No, in terms of people deciding not to pass on their genes, committing mass suicide, because that's what that is.
	Well, our families lived in this village for 2000, since the beginning of recorded history.
	In this country, unlike mine, you have a native population.
	Just because no one could change it.
	You're the Cherokee of this island.
	I don't want to give you a history lesson, but 100 years ago, everyone traveled by horse and cart.
	There was no aeroplane.
	You couldn't leave the country.
	You couldn't go to other places.
	But rather like tribes 2,000 years ago, who used to literally just sit in their little area or wherever it may be.
	Eventually they ventured out and so evolutioned.
	I mean, this is just such a preposterous reinterpretation of history.
	Such an obviously false notion of history that I'm shocked that Tucker didn't just instantly laugh in his face.
	If people, and 100 years ago was 1925, if people didn't venture out because they didn't have airplanes, how was it that we had the British Empire?
	How did the United States come into being?
	How did Canada come into being?
	How did Australia and New Zealand come into being, being right on the other side of the earth?
	How did these things come into being, filled with British English-speaking people, if we didn't travel until 100 years ago?
	It's such a preposterous, obviously false thing to say.
	It is just such a lie.
	Like, for example, during the period between 1815 and 1914, apparently 22 million people emigrated from Britain.
	60% of those went to the United States.
	Like, 22 million people left this country before the time period he's talking about.
	And you're like, oh my God, they only had horse and carts.
	As if that's not a perfectly functional method of transport, by the way.
	Yeah, you can travel on a horse and cart a long way, right?
	But they had ships.
	They sailed everywhere.
	We had a world-spanning empire and people traveled around it all the time.
	It is not merely that people have gained the ability to travel that is the reason we have mass immigration.
	It is because our governments are not only letting millions of foreigners come here and settle.
	I mean, we could just be saying no at the borders, but they are paying them for the privilege to do it.
	We are spending billions every month, into every year, on millions and millions of welfare payments for foreigners.
	We are paying for them to live here and replace us in our own country.
	We are paying for this privilege.
	And I'm sorry, I don't want to.
	And all peers will be able to say, yeah, but think of the institutions.
	I have, Piers.
	I have thought of the institutions.
	And I've decided it is an acceptable sacrifice.
	I would sacrifice the institutions before I would sacrifice my own country.
	And no amount of your total bullshit historical revisionism on people being able to travel.
	Framing immigration as if it is a natural phenomenon that was just not on the table.
	Because prior to that, we just had horses and carts.
	So nobody could cross a sea.
	None of this bullshit historical revisionism is going to wash with me, Piers.
	You're full of shit.
	You are a liar.
	You are a liar for yourself.
	So you can continue to stuff your face with foreign foods.
	So you can justify not having to worry about the state of the country you're passing down to your grandchildren.
	The nature of the way that things are is just, you don't want to think about it.
	You want to be like, okay, yeah, no, everything's actually fine.
	No, yeah, everything's fine.
	Oh, everything was much worse in the past.
	This is actually the best we've ever had it, which is nonsense.
	But it might well be the best you've ever had it, you selfish boomer.
	Those are the most important questions there are.
	Economic prosperity raises all the ships.
	Has that been true here?
	It should be true.
	Is there more poverty in London now than there was 40 years ago?
	There's more child poverty.
	Yes, I know.
	In fact, the child poverty rate is worse here than it is in America.
	A lot worse.
	General poverty.
	So how is this so great, even though they have a general poverty rate is actually lower than it is in America, but child poverty specifically.
	Is there anything that matters other than child poverty?
	Probably not, not really.
	So let's move on to Tucker Carlson pointing out that we are acting like a defeated people.
	We are acting as if our historical moment on the world stage is over and that actually we should just shuffle off into oblivion.
	And this is also basically Piers' position.
	No, the immigration is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with the institutions that are swaddling us, carrying us from the cradle to the grave.
	And so the British people, well, you know, it can't be helped that they're not having children.
	We will just exit the stage of history and hopefully be well thought of.
	Hopefully the people who replace us will look back at us and go, wow, these were quite impressive people.
	We'll write a nice little footnote in the history books about them.
	That's all this comes down to.
	But I don't want that.
	I don't want this to be the end of our civilization just for boomer pensions or the NHS or Piers Morgan's culinary preferences, right?
	He can get a recipe book as far as I'm concerned.
	This has got to stop.
	Otherwise, we will not have a country to pass down to our own children.
	And I think that's deeply irresponsible.
	I mean, I genuinely hate this kind of boomer selfishness that Piers is displaying.
	And I'm not saying that every boomer is like this.
	There are lots of base boomers who are concerned about the future of the country and for their own children.
	But man, it is very emblematically boomer to have this kind of opinion.
	Like, well, I'm doing well.
	It's a very common attitude amongst the older generations to just go, well, I'll be long gone.
	Won't be my problem.
	No, that's not acceptable.
	We have to make sure that the country that we leave for others is a worthy country.
	And Piers can deny it all he wants.
	He can make up a false history all he wants.
	This country is terrible.
	I mean, look at the list budget.
	Look at what it's done to us.
	It's genuinely bad the way that everyone is being treated and the fact that hundreds of thousands of young people are just fleeing the country.
	They don't see a future here.
	And Piers Morgan is like, well, I actually have a mansion in Beverly Hills.
	So if I get to a point where I don't see a future here, I can just leave.
	Not all of us have that option, Piers.
	Some of us don't have anywhere else to go.
	Some of us don't own mansions overseas.
	What about those people?
	Are those people worthy of your consideration?
	We're legendary for our politeness, our manners, our charm.
	That has gone.
	We've really no, but I totally agree with you.
	So when you talk about the cultural stuff that I really regret that has gone out of fashion, if you like, it is things like that.
	It's things like, you know, a British person used to speak well and open doors for women and things like that.
	Now that's frowned upon, right?
	The kind of screaming radical feminists have made it almost a taboo thing.
	Young men in particular do not know how to behave.
	When I'm out with them, I notice they don't stand up when women walk into a room or to a table.
	They don't open doors for them and stuff because they've been conditioned to think this might be toxic masculinity and all this bullshit.
	That kind of stuff really worries me.
	Do you ever wonder where it comes from?
	Because I know the answer, but I'm going to like...
	Well, you're going to say it's multiculturalism, but a lot of the other cultures that have come here actually have far more politeness.
	I agree.
	I agree completely.
	So that's the point.
	Yeah.
	That's exactly my point.
	Yeah.
	Is that the cost is to the invaded.
	You're being invaded.
	You already said there are boats showing up uninvited.
	That's called an invasion.
	It's happened a lot through history.
	And it's the people who are conquered, who are vanquished, who suffer.
	The immigrants all seem kind of happy.
	It's weaker than Bangalore, you know, or wherever.
	Well, but you are, though.
	I mean, people are showing up in boats in your country.
	I don't know what to do about them.
	Well, how about Sinkham?
	To put it in perspective, Lord Nelson would put up.
	There is, of course, a lot more in this interview about, you know, gays, the F word, hate speech, and all this sort of stuff.
	I'm not really interested in any of that.
	I thought this was the most important bit because Piers Morgan, I think, is representative of a certain kind of metropolitan, wealthy, liberal boomer who doesn't understand that actually, if we don't have a billion foreigners here, there will still be people to serve their coffee in Prat.
	Who would be serving our coffee in Prat?
	Who would be selling us our sandwiches?
	You're not going to get English.
	Those people will just be English teenagers.
	They will just be normal people, like it was when you were young.
	They'll do the kind of jobs that you probably did when you were young.
	And importing an infinite slave class to service the boomers before they pass on and shuffle off this mortal coil is actually doing a disservice to the rest of the country.
	And it's getting to the point where it just can't be denied.
	This country is falling apart.
	The demographics of this country are abominable.
	And we are tired of having our country stolen out from under our feet so you feel comfortable.
	Put simply, immigration has to end.
	And if that means your precious institutions end with it, so be it.
	Maybe you should have made different choices.
	Maybe you should have had more children.
	Maybe you should have saved for the future.
	Whatever it is.
	Whatever it is.
	If that means the institutions end, I accept it.

▲