Carl Benjamin dismantles Danny Kruger's interview on the New Culture Forum, exposing what he terms "wishful thinking" regarding Reform UK's refusal to address Britain's demographic collapse from 73% to 36% white British. He attacks Kruger's liberal civic nationalism for ignoring immutable ethnos, citing urban segregation and the Southport massacre as evidence that separating "Islam" from "political Islam" enables extremist enclaves. By mocking proposals like mosque audits while rejecting citizenship revocation, Benjamin argues Kruger's moral weakness prioritizes globalist ideals over native claims to land, ultimately suggesting that true social cohesion requires acknowledging blood ties rather than liberal pluralism. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, MahmoudAshraf/mms-300m-1130-forced-aligner, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.00, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Liberalism Leading To Ruin00:01:57
No, not a premiere this time.
I am live, Luke.
Give me a minute.
Make sure I'm getting everything correct on the back end.
Everything looks fine.
Hopefully, this is working.
I'll find out in a minute.
So, I was watching the interview on the New Culture Forum by Emma Trimble with Danny Kruger, the MP for Wiltshire East.
He is the intellectual muscle behind the Department for Preparing for Government in Reform.
And I've been mildly disappointed with his takes before.
But I was listening to this interview, and I just want to be clear I like the New Culture Forum a lot.
I actually personally quite like Danny.
I mean, he seems like a lovely guy.
I've not heard anyone say anything bad about him or anything like that.
I just feel that he has a wildly optimistic worldview and ideology in how the problems that we have can be fixed.
And I think it's worth addressing.
Just may as well just get on with it, I suppose.
But just to be clear, I like everyone involved.
I'm not trying to be mean to them.
I'm not trying to be, I'm not trying to denigrate them or anything like that.
You know, I know Emma, I know the New Culture Forum guys, they're all brilliant, and it's great they're doing these sorts of interviews.
But the problem that they have is a commitment to liberalism that is simply going to lead us to rack and ruin, as it already has done.
Essentially, what they're asking us is.
Please, can we just have more of the same?
And the answer to that just has to be no.
More of the same is what got us to this point.
More of the same is not going to fix the problem.
So that's just straight up the most flat, concrete point to begin on anything.
Contesting Citizenship Rights00:08:01
But let's watch.
Book Covenant.
I am glad to be joined by Danny Kruger.
Danny, welcome to the show.
Thank you for taking the time to be here with us today.
So last week we interviewed Matt Goodwin about his new book.
And A big part of that is the collapse of the white British population, a collapse from 73% to 36% by the end of the century.
Do you think it's reasonable for people to be upset by this?
Absolutely.
Okay, good.
I'm going to try and make it a bit louder, but the thing is, everyone's in bed, so I can't be that much louder.
Bring the mic closer.
Hopefully, that's a bit better.
Oh, great.
I mean, at least we can begin with, right.
So the demographics of the white British, and really what we mean is the English in England.
That's the real concern here because 90% of immigration into Britain has been into England, and by God, do we have problems because of it?
At least we can be concerned about it.
The problem is we're just not allowed to do anything about it.
Absolutely, yes.
We're seeing our country transformed within our lifetimes, and already you've got towns and cities which have changed utterly just in the last couple of decades.
So it's absolutely understandable.
That people are concerned, we all should be concerned, and we need a government that shares that concern.
Okay, but the problem is if the government's like, Yeah, we're really concerned about this, and then it just watches it carry on because it puts itself in a straitjacket that says, But we gave all of them citizenship against your will, we rubber stamped passport after passport after passport, and now they're all over the place.
And it's just valid that you're concerned about your own demographic security, but best of luck.
Too bad they have the paper.
That can't be acceptable, can it?
You've conceded the frame that yes, no, it is right that we are bothered that for some reason, Labour and Conservative governments, which you were a Conservative during this period, I don't think it was actually in government, but you were a backbencher, continuously stabbed us in the back repeatedly.
And so, okay, shall we be doing something about that now?
And your answer is basically no.
And again, I know I sound frustrated.
But I know Danny is smart enough to know that this isn't sufficient.
I know that he knows this.
You're a civic nationalist.
You've been quite ardent in your position.
It's something that you articulate in your book, Covenant.
How do you square that and your comments that you made on Winston Marshall's show about how a child that is born to Afghan parents in Britain is as much of an heir to our nation?
Inheritance as somebody whose ancestors have been here for generations, who have fought wars for this country, who have paid taxes for hundreds and hundreds of years.
And just to be clear, it was another former conservative, Robert Jemrick, who snuck those people into the country, putting in a legal injunction so the press couldn't report on it for like three years afterwards or something like that.
And so it's just like, oh God, I'm sorry, I just don't believe this.
Party is actually very serious about solving these problems.
Ideologically, they are wrapped up in a straitjacket and can't possibly do anything about it.
And they have the people responsible for doing it being put in charge of putting out the fire.
So I'm sorry, I just don't believe.
I just don't believe.
Would you square your civic nationalist position?
Now, Emma is definitely not about to call him a racist, by the way.
Emma's very, very good.
She's absolutely excellent.
And like I said, everyone in the New Culture Forum, absolutely excellent.
And I'm very, very glad that they did this interview with him.
Position with a recognition that it's reasonable for people to be upset about the decline in the white British population.
Because civic rights are exactly that.
And it is important that everybody who is a citizen here shares the same rights.
They also share the same obligations, of course.
And those obligations, by the way, in my view, extend beyond simply obeying the laws.
They are an obligation on us to respect the inheritance that we have.
But I think it is important to hold this line to say that a child born in this country with rights of citizenship.
Is the heir to all of the amazing inheritance which the English and the British people have produced over the centuries.
So, just on a quick point there.
Ideologically, that's what liberalism has to make us believe.
Morally, sentimentally, is it true?
Do we feel it?
Is it actually something about the world that we think is an accurate description?
And the answer is no.
When you see the gangs of urban, inner city youths smashing, grabbing in Marx and Spencer's or wherever, they're probably all born in this country.
Do we think they're the heirs of Alfred the Great?
No, we don't.
And the second point I think is worth addressing here is where he said, well, I think we should only have essentially one tier of citizen.
Everyone has the same rights.
Yeah, I don't really see anyone contesting that, actually.
What I see people contesting is them being citizens.
Why are there Afghans here with citizenship?
Why are they citizens in my country?
Oh, it's because Robert Jemrick stabbed us in the back.
And in 2025, he was like, yeah, we have a moral duty to accept them and incorporate them.
It's like, no, I don't think we bloody do.
I wasn't in favour of the invasion of Afghanistan.
Like, I'm sorry, this goes against everything I've wanted and I've had imposed upon me, and all I'm getting from reform is, well, we're going to essentially finalise the imposition.
No.
All of these people have homelands they can go back to, they have citizenship there, and just to be clear, we don't do birthright citizenship in this country.
We do citizenship by right of the blood, like almost everywhere else in the old world.
Everywhere that's not the new world in the Americas does citizenship.
By the blood.
So these people all have citizenship in their own countries because they inherit it from their parents.
So why we have to give ours away to them is a real question, isn't it?
And if we do wish to extend citizenship, the hand of friendship to foreign people, maybe we should be a bit more discerning about that.
Because I can't help but notice this only goes one way, right?
The question, oh, well, we're just going to give literally, I mean, the conservatives literally did a million plus people a year.
Labour are only doing $700,000 a year.
Well, actually, it's about $250,000.
Sorry, they've got various other visas.
But, like, actual citizenship, they're giving it to hundreds of thousands a year.
And it's like, well, I didn't agree to that.
You can just give them this citizenship over and over and over.
Okay, that's a legal fiat decision you've made.
When we get into government, surely we can make the legal fiat decision to rescind it.
And they're like, God, no, God, you can't do that.
It's like, well, why the fuck not?
Why not?
This has been done to us against our will.
Why can't we just reverse it?
These people, I'm not even saying we have to expel them.
What I'm saying is they shouldn't have the rights of citizens.
I'm not saying they can't live in our country as metics or something, like in ancient Athens, and have the right to work and own property and pay taxes and whatnot, but I don't see why they should have the right to be involved in our political system.
Why should they have the same amount of political power as any other actual native British person whose ancestors go back to Cheddar Man?
Biological Kinship And Belonging00:02:39
Why should they have that?
Make the affirmative case for me.
Show me why they should be that Afghans who we have for some reason brought here are enfranchised.
Tell me why.
Is that because they pay taxes?
So what?
So what?
Persuade me as to why that's important.
Persuade me as to why they're here in the first place.
Like, I'm sorry, I just don't buy these arguments.
Our challenge as a society is to ensure that the numbers of people that we welcome into our country are manageable so that as they in turn have children, we are.
I think that ship might have sailed.
Are creating a society that is genuinely cohesive.
So, of course, I recognize that this country is the product of generations of people who have a sense of their own kinship with the generations that have gone before.
It's not just that they have a sense of their own kinship with the generations that have gone before.
If for some reason all of Britain suffered from a collective snap amnesia, well, I don't know, some bloody asteroid hit and there was a shockwave that gave everyone in the world amnesia.
Even if we didn't have the sense of kinship with our own ancestors, it would still be there.
We have still inherited it because ethnos is not merely an inherited set of traditions, customs, cultures, habits, morals, whatever you want to say, bound up in this.
That is a part of it, but underneath it, and this is the bit that everyone seems to really want to disavow, even though it is the most core part upon which everything else is built, it is the descent.
By the blood, we are linearly descended from these people.
We have inherited our genetic makeups because the fact of the matter is, humans are biological creatures.
We exist as biological, real objects in the world.
And all of the things that you're trying to attach, the civic layer of the nationalism, is all attached to the biological layer.
We are a thing, we are physical, we live in the world, we are real, and we pass things on linearly.
Through heredity.
This is just something you can't get away from.
This is just fundamental to what a human being is.
And to a degree, whether consciously or not, they were building a society for their descendants.
The Lie Of Civic Nationalism00:10:46
And this is being given away.
There is something wrong with an arrangement that we have created for ourselves unwittingly without permission that the state has over recent decades created a.
Arrangement in which literally millions of people have come to this country and then themselves had children who do not feel part of our nation.
And that is wrong.
Okay, I agree.
It was wrong that this was done.
So, one might think if they don't feel like they're a part of this country, then maybe something has to be done.
Now, what would that thing be?
Is it going to be like brainwashing classes?
Are we going to sit them down like they do in China and force them to be integrated?
Are we going to literally say, look, you now are going to be given a husband or wife of sufficiently British stock?
So, you know, like, what are we going to do?
The simplest and honestly, I think, kindest thing is just encourage them to leave.
And I'm not saying that we have to have the British Defence League break down their door with a truncheon, club them, and then just throw them off the cliffs of Dover.
We can have all sorts of incentives and whatnot to suggest that they would actually be better off somewhere else.
But we have to do something to arrest the demographic change of the country.
It just has to be done.
I mean, the first thing and most obvious thing would just be stop immigration.
Just no more visas.
No more citizenship handed out, no more visas.
That time is over.
That insane experiment of hyper Americanism that was taken on for some reason by the British government from 1948 onwards, that was a giant mistake.
That was a complete mistake.
That was, I mean, as Zoe Gardner would put it, de yankification now.
We are not a frontier.
We are not a new continent that has been discovered and colonized.
We're not that.
So that was a massive mistake, and we should never have done it.
And maybe the people, if they're still around who are responsible for that, maybe they should be put on trial for something, I don't know, treachery or something, actual traitors.
That should never have been done.
And the thing is, Danny, you've conceded all of these things in your framing here.
And so this is why it's so unsatisfying when you don't come to any kind of logical conclusion.
There is a conclusion to be derived from the premises, and you do your best to avoid it.
I do hold this line about the rights of people born in this country to be full citizens with everybody else.
The challenge is how to ensure that we don't have too large an influx and that those who are born here genuinely understand the country that they belong to and they respect not just its laws but its culture as well.
Right.
So he wants to impose birthright citizenship on a country that doesn't have birthright citizenship.
Our citizenship, like I said, almost everywhere else in the old world, is done by the blood.
Just because your parents arrived here and gave birth does not necessarily make you a citizen.
And just because our government hands it out like it's not worth anything doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about that and actually start rescinding this.
This was done against our will, there was no democratic mandate for it.
So, Danny has what is essentially a globalist perspective.
Anyone who manages to arrive on this piece of rock in the North Atlantic just gets to be here forever, and there's nothing we can do about it.
I'm sorry, I just don't agree because any government can take executive action to open the borders, as your previous government did, and fuck us.
And the problem, I guess, is in a reformer's mind, is to be made permanent.
This is to be forever.
And it's like, no, sorry.
No, I'm just not down for this.
This is a terrible idea.
And I actually view this as a kind of profound moral weakness on Danny's part that he has come to this position.
It sounds as if your argument for saying what you did about, just to take the example of what you said on Winston's show about the newborn Afghan to.
Afghan parents, fully British citizenship, and as you said, heir to the tradition of the Saxons, Alfred, and so on, exactly the same as you or I.
It sounds as if what you're describing there, in terms of your sort of covenantal civic nationalist perspective, is that the reason for that is to bring them into belonging here, to graft them on to the British family, to the national family.
But do you think it's unreasonable for people to feel as if?
What you're really saying by that is that, in a sense, your ancestry counts for nothing.
It doesn't give you some kind of prior claim, some kind of deeper sense of belonging.
That actually, if you recognize that the family is the basis of our society and that it's about families belonging in a place over time, that actually that does give some kind of weight to ancestry and belonging.
Or are you trying to say, actually, this is just bringing people in and giving them the opportunity over time to become part of that?
Just a quick thing here.
Danny again concedes that families are the bedrock of society.
Well, families are not merely an intellectual construct, they are not merely an ideological assignment.
We are not simply a group of people who rationally say, Well, we will be a family.
No, there are sentimental ties and blood ties.
Literally, the point of a family is to create a blood tie between two lineages.
And when you do that over and over and over, millions and millions of times for thousands of years, you get.
A group of people who are all related to one another distantly.
This is what every ethnic group under the sun is.
And so pretending like we don't have that or that doesn't matter is quite surprising.
And this is where our claim to this land comes from, by the way.
And this is what Emma is making a point of here.
What Danny is actually saying, and she rightly brings him up on this, is that essentially you're saying, no, your ancestral inheritance doesn't matter to the liberal ideological British state.
That is.
Just a separate bureaucratic layer that now supersedes everything.
It's like, well, actually, I don't think it does because the lineal, the ancestral layer underneath it existed long before the British legal state.
And all of these things are basically legal fictions.
They are not actually sort of objective natural laws.
But the family and the ethnos underneath it is.
It is something that exists objectively whether you accept it, acknowledge it, recognize it, or not.
These things are immutable.
The British law is highly mutable and is being weaponised against us, by the way.
Well, I am saying, as you put it very well, that the reason for insisting that we all share the same civic rights and, in a sense, the identity as Britons, as citizens of this country, is to ensure that we have equal obligations on everybody.
And it's not acceptable to say that you have alternative loyalties elsewhere.
Okay, but millions of them have alternative loyalties elsewhere.
I mean, literally, Birmingham MPs who are Pakistanis are like, we need to build.
The British state needs to fund and build an airport in Mirpur.
Why the fuck would we want to do that?
Well, the answer is because millions of them go home on holiday every year to visit friends and family.
They have property, they have families out there.
That's where their true loyalties lie.
And they travel back and forth to Mirpur all the time.
And it would just be convenient for them.
It would just be convenient for them to have an airport in Mirpur.
So what.
If that's not acceptable, what do we do?
What is the plan?
How is this problem solved?
And he doesn't have any answers to this.
So, yes, it is an attempt at sort of enculturation, induction into Britishness is to say, you are a citizen, this is what is expected of you.
But it's a bit late.
If they've been born and raised here and they're still not British, I think that ship sailed.
Obey the laws, but also respect the inheritance of our society.
Yeah, and what when they don't, right?
What when they don't?
What when they literally say, I don't care?
Like, Ed Dutton went to Birmingham the other day, and there was some just, you know, ethnic minority kids smoking weed at the cathedral.
And Ed's like, What do you think of the cathedral?
He's like, I don't care.
Not my ancestors who built it.
But he was born here, clearly.
He's going to have exactly the same rights and duties and obligations as the citizen, but he doesn't care.
You can't make him care.
What do we do about that?
And being like, well, we need to make sure they grow up as little Britons, as he says later on.
We need to incorporate them into the culture or whatever.
Okay, have you seen Birmingham?
Like, half of Birmingham, more than half actually, is there just aren't really any English people around.
There's no English culture in which to inculcate them.
So, what do we do there?
Do we say, no, right, you guys can't live here.
We break this up, this ethnic enclave.
The government comes in and says, right, this family, Deepest, darkest Cornwall, this family going into the Highlands, this family.
Why?
Because you've got to incorporate into British culture.
That's the only way it would be done.
The only way you could do that is through really heavy handed state intervention, which I know that you're not up for.
And I'm not really up for either, to be honest.
I don't think, I don't want the government doing that.
What would be more sensible is to say, right, okay, you're not really British people.
You were only legally British because for some reason I was part, as Danny should say, of a treacherous government.
And that's going to have to change, right?
We're going to have to fix that.
You guys know where your loyalties lie.
We know where your loyalties lie.
And so, we're just going to essentially resolve the tension and everyone goes back to where they think that they belong.
That would be a really easy thing to do.
And you could literally just say, look, anyone in the last 10 years who's given citizenship, we're just revoking it.
We shouldn't have done it.
We're really sorry.
Maybe we have to pay you some sort of compensation, right?
I'm not even saying we have to be super unfair to these people and be like, right, no, we hate you.
No, we made a mistake, right?
The British state made a.
Housing As A Primary Claim00:15:37
I mean, charitably, I would say.
We'll call it a mistake.
Maybe we do have to compensate him.
Here's £5,000 or something like that.
You know, sell your property at market rates, whatever it is.
But there is a problem that we're not prepared to allow to continue to fester.
And it comes from, as Emma was pointing out, the ancestry gives one group to which you do not belong a claim on a piece of land.
And if you don't belong to our group because you didn't marry into it, and that's really the only way that's going to work, is through intermarriage.
Again, Everyone throughout all of history understood this until this moment, until we became liberals.
If you're not going to intermarry, which millions of them won't, obviously, then you need to think about your arrangements and you need to reconsider your arrangements because we've got to the point where we're just not happy with how these things are.
I also, of course, do recognize that there is a dimension to our identity which has nothing to do with our civic rights.
It is about belonging to, as you put it, a family which extends through the generations, not just laterally.
It extends.
As it were, horizontally down from our distant ancestors, they give us a strong sense of who we are.
And there is something about a nation which is for which the ethnos is relevant, so the sense of kinship.
We are a community of relationship and of blood.
However, and the great thing about it.
Right.
So he concedes this.
Everything that I've said up until this point, he has just conceded.
And so there is something that we need to follow on for this.
And yet, I think the Western tradition and the English in particular is that we are the notion of the kinship is overlaid by this idea that we are related artificially.
And that's what a covenant is.
That's why I use that term.
It comes from an ancient biblical concept of the artificial brotherhood.
Okay.
But even in the ancient biblical concept of the artificial brotherhood, they were all related because they were Israelites and children of Isaac and Abraham and whatnot.
The Bible is full and it's insufferable.
Of just lists of genealogies, and this person was this person, and they sided with this person, and they begat that.
They like it's all about genealogy, like you could the covenant.
And I'm not even saying he's wrong, but the covenant is not abstract and can't be separated from the ethnos itself, in the same way that the civic traditions and life can't be separated from the ethnos itself, because these things are expressions of the people, not things that we just coincidentally happen to accumulate.
Like, this is it.
It's such wishful thinking.
It is such wishful thinking.
And it's not going to work.
That's the problem.
It's not going to work.
This extended hand of friendship that Danny is trying to put out to these minority communities, saying, look, I'm your last chance, quick, grab my hand, and what we'll do is we'll bring you in and incorporate you.
They are at the point now in their areas where they just don't need to do that.
There's just no pressure on them to do that.
Demographic pressure is going the other way.
People are moving away from them because they didn't want to be in a colony.
And so these people are able to have ethnically, literally, ethnically homogenous areas in this country for minority groups.
And it's like, right, okay, whatever you're proposing here, Danny, this is not the solution.
By which we are related in the way that adopted siblings are related, even though there is no blood tie.
But that would require them joining the same families.
Like, just saying, well, I guess Birmingham is an Islamic state now is not them joining our family.
But it is ultimately all held together by the inheritance of generations of people who've been born and died in these islands, and we should respect that greatly.
Right, we should respect that greatly, but they shouldn't have any superior claim to the land over a bunch of Afghans who were smuggled in here by Jamrik.
These are an incompatible set of ideas that you're trying to marry together and merge into one.
It's not.
Going to work, and I'm again.
I know I sound irritable and peevish over this, but it's because it's late and I want to be in bed.
But I was watching this and I was just getting frustrated because I know Danny is smart enough to know that this is not going to gel right, this is not going to work, this is not going to come together, and I'm.
It's very frustrating.
To your suggestion or your implied suggestion, Emma, that there should be some sort of privilege for people whose ancestors are from these islands.
She didn't say a privilege.
She said, does the indigenous ethnic group of this island have a primary claim to it?
That's what she's asking.
Do the English have a claim to England above the claim of Afghans to having a claim on England?
And Danny.
Don't think so.
Over more recent immigrants or the children of more recent immigrants.
I would contest that.
I think that is the wrong way to approach our politics.
You have mischaracterised her, though.
Except in the sense that I think, in very local terms, it might be appropriate as we think about allocation, particularly of housing, to ensure that a local link is taken into account when we allocate housing.
So, in that quite limited sense of saying, if your family is from this place, then you should have a You should have an advanced place in the queue for the allocation of public housing, social housing.
I think that's an acceptable policy argument to make, and it's one that I would support in particular circumstances.
That is crazy, isn't it?
So he's just conceded that actually the indigenous population do have an advanced claim, but for some reason he wants to silo it into social housing.
Well, why should any Afghan, and again, Give me the first principles affirmative argument as to why an Afghan should be paid to live in a house by the British taxpayer.
Just give me the argument.
Lay it out for me, Danny.
None of them should be in fucking social housing.
They should never qualify for social housing because they're not born in this country.
That's why.
And so if they're going to be in this country, they have a moral obligation to pay their own way or leave.
At the very minimum.
And that's a civic nationalist position, for Christ's sake.
That's a completely normal civnat position.
And still, you're like, no, they should be able to get it.
It's just there should be an ethnic priority for the native British people.
Why?
That literally flies in the face of your own argument.
It turns you into a hypocrite by saying this.
Well, I agree in that particular case.
It's like, why not in the other cases?
What's the argument?
Why should they?
Why should the native people of the country not be prioritised?
Why should they not have a preference?
It's their government.
It's their state.
It's their country.
Everything we see around us was built by the native British.
Why do.
I mean, the thing you're trying to hand off to foreigners is a possession of the native British.
And you're like, yeah, well, in this particular case, why that case?
Why not every case?
Why not no cases?
It's inconsistent, is what I'm saying, Danny.
And it's very frustrating because I know you know this is an inconsistency that is going to demand resolution.
But I think saying that there are different classes of citizens depending on your ancestry, I think that is dangerous.
But you've just conceded it.
You've literally just conceded it.
You've conceded this dangerous principle that actually the native population have a primary claim to their land.
I mean, Keir Starmer conceded it instantly when it came to Greenland.
Well, the United States shouldn't be able to take over Greenland.
That should be up to the Greenlanders.
Why?
Because they're an ethnic group who have a primary claim to their land.
And so are we.
So is literally everyone else.
What are we doing?
But no, not when it comes to the Afghans that Robert Jemrik brought here for some reason.
Record that isn't what I was.
I wasn't arguing that's what precisely.
Yeah, to the chat.
Does he know where he is?
We're a land of ancestry based class systems.
No.
That's actually what we should do.
I was thinking more in terms of that people feel that their ethnicity in some way is being denied to say that somebody who comes here and is a first generation migrant is an equal heir.
That some people may feel that that is undermining their own sense of self.
That's a great point by Emma.
Absolutely superb point.
What Danny is doing here by essentially abolishing the conceptual link that the British have with their own land, their own cultures, their own traditions, their own government, their own customs, their own legal system, their own civic life is to literally abolish it, is to literally give it to anyone and make it so it is essentially nothing.
It is not particular to us anymore.
Now it is universal.
This is just a form of globalism, which is the point she's very subtly made to him there.
That's what they mean, what they want.
I mean, if they want privileged access to public services or that people who've been born here with different ethnic ancestry should have a lower status in our country, then I would disagree.
Yeah, but nobody's saying that.
Nobody's saying that someone with British citizenship.
Should be on like a second class list for NHS treatment.
What we're saying is, why are there fucking foreigners here who you want to give the same rights as us?
Foreigners have their own countries where they are first class citizens.
They have the rights of the normal people in that country.
Why do we have to give them that here?
We have our own country.
They have their own country.
Why are you forcing this?
No one's saying someone who's been given British citizenship should be put on a second class register, Danny.
I don't, I presume you don't think that either.
So I think that.
Or what if she did?
What if she did, Danny?
Well, it wouldn't be very liberal, would it?
That is a dangerous line to take.
I know it is popular in parts of the internet, but I think it's the line we absolutely need to please.
Yeah, well, I think you're wrong on this, frankly, and I think you're failing to understand that nobody is saying that legally, on the civic level, we should have a genuine, codified second class of citizenship.
What we're saying is there are lots of people here who shouldn't be citizens.
We shouldn't be here, and you know that's true.
So why are they here?
And why don't we do something about it?
I mean, I want to pay full acknowledgement to those, to the argument that people feel their country is being taken from them, that the rate of immigration has been way too high.
Do we have millions of.
Why do we have any immigration?
We don't need immigration.
What we need to do is accept that the settlement of the 20th century was, frankly, not upheld by the boomers.
You want enough people to pay your pensions, excessively high pensions, 40 years down the line.
Two kids is not enough.
That's just flat it.
The boomers just literally, I mean, it was literally like six kids and then two kids under the boomers.
So that's just not enough.
You have failed in your own mission here.
Sorry, the settlement will have to change.
Right?
But no, instead, it's like, well, we're just going to bring in billions of people, have a billion Bamalians.
That's what you're getting.
And it's like, no, I didn't agree to this.
And you're like, well, for moral reasons, you're going to have to accept it.
And it does mean the end of your country.
And I've got a bunch of wishful thinking to sell you.
Not buying it.
Not buying it.
People who don't meaningfully belong to our country, who yet are citizens and living here, they don't belong in the sense of having a genuine connection with their neighbours outside their particular immigrant community.
And they don't necessarily have a meaningful sense of obligation and belonging and allegiance here.
That is a major problem.
And we're going to do nothing about it, he says.
Now that's a major problem.
What's the solution?
And all through this, the problem that Danny keeps coming back around to, and he talks around this a lot, is that he's got no idea of what to actually do about it in the liberal frame.
Because liberalism doesn't have an answer for this.
It can't interpolate different communities as actually being different, nor one having a primary claim over the other, because it lives entirely in the legalistic civic layer.
And so if you're like, yeah, well, actually, we have something more important here than the Afghan you brought in yesterday who's just had a baby, it's like.
Well, sorry, I just can't see a difference between you, says the Died in the World liberal.
And Emma's gently trying to push him to a point where she's like, But there is a bit of a difference, isn't there?
And he's like, Well, no, I think that's dangerous.
Dangerous to what?
Dangerous to what?
The existence of liberalism as a spiritual instantiation over the country, maybe, but it's not dangerous to the Afghans.
They just go home back to Afghanistan.
It's not dangerous to the actual natives who get to keep their country.
It's not dangerous to anything other than the sort of psychic well being of people who want a perfectly well ordered civic legalistic life.
It's like, well, I'm sorry, fuck those people.
I don't care if you feel upset about it.
But the answer is not to strip them of their rights, it's to insist that they honour them.
Okay, so we're just going to sit there and insist.
And if they're just talking, no, fuck off, I've got these rights, I don't need to change, which is what they're doing, what do we do?
Like, insisting that they honour them is just not going to be sufficient.
And the thing is, the worst part is, What if they say, yeah, okay, but we're still going to build a billion mosques, right?
We're still going to cover this country head to toe in mosques.
And you're going to be like, well, they are honouring their civic obligations.
So I guess we've just got to accept that England becomes an Islamic state and we're all going to wake up to the call to prayer at 5 a.m.
Right?
No, I don't want this, Danny.
And if you've got no solution to the problems that Emma is raising to you, which frankly, it really seems like you don't, then you're not the person we need at the moment, are you?
Then you are actually just a blockage, a person who is in the way of actually solving the problem.
Mass Scale Inflow Problems00:03:40
What do you think would be the solution to deal with those communities that opt to remain segregated?
Because liberalism has always had a difficult time in even enforcing itself in some sense or privileging itself, privileging the creed of liberalism.
That's something that the British state has found difficult.
All of the sort of David Cameron's talk of muscular liberalism and whatnot was a sort of symptom of.
That.
What do you do with those who are British citizens but just simply refuse to integrate over time?
Because, of course, you've had.
I know that you've spoken yourself about cousin marriage, for example.
Well, partly it does come back to the question of scale because, you know, as Brits, as liberals, we should tolerate people who want to live apart.
I mean, we should.
I'm not a liberal.
I'm not a liberal.
Let me say that again, Danny.
I'm not a liberal.
There are millions of people in this country who are not liberals on both the native and immigrant side.
And you're sat there like, well, as liberals, we should probably tolerate this.
And it's a question of scale.
Again, 20 years ago, that was the right conversation.
Time has passed on, Danny.
The conservative governments have happened, Danny.
We are in a position now where, as Emma points out, we have millions of people here who are literally not interested in integrating and doing.
Being insisted upon.
They don't care.
So, what do we do about them?
We shouldn't enforce conviviality on anybody.
And there are communities, religious communities, particularly in the UK, which, for their own reasons, which we might regard as eccentric, but do no harm to anybody, live in a very isolated sense.
The problem is when you have that on a mass scale.
But we have that on a mass scale.
Whole towns, cities living separately.
And also, I'm afraid.
Yeah, but we have that.
So, what do we do about it?
I'd say living in ways that we do not regard as conducive to the wellbeing of the individuals themselves.
Oh, great.
So, now we're responsible for the foreign communities and making sure they're living lives that we think are appropriate as well.
Okay, but what do we do about it?
Having models of family and community life that are not just separate, but are actually deeply harmful to the members, the vulnerable people within those groups.
So, I think it is appropriate to challenge that.
How do we?
Okay, what do we do?
We deal with it.
Well, partly it's, again, about numbers.
It's about reducing the inflow.
And I think we need to do a lot.
Yeah, but the inflow, yeah, okay.
We need to reduce the inflow, obviously.
But the bath is full of water and we want the bath to be empty.
So what do we do?
At some point, we've got to pull the plug, right?
At some point, we've got to drain the water out of the container, or else we never get to the point where the bath is dry or whatever the analogy we're using here.
A lot more about stopping the.
The chain migration, the model of marriage that brings successive generations of people into this country who don't speak English and who don't have a sense of belonging to our nation.
Just to be clear, zero people born overseas could have a sense of belonging to our nation.
So there are zero reasons under this framework to ever bring an immigrant and give them citizenship, right?
Obviously, if you're born elsewhere, you can't have a sense of belonging here.
So just put that front and centre.
We need to be much more deliberate about the way we.
Defining Acceptable Islam00:15:36
It's already happened, Danny.
It's far too late.
The horse is bolted.
You're like, well, we're going to have to really make sure the lock on the gate is very secure.
It's gone.
Deploy the powers of the state over education, over culture.
We're going to brainwash them.
We should be much more robust in policing what is taught and preached in mosques.
Oh, great.
Why do we have mosques here?
And who gets to preach here?
I mean, Arab countries do not have the same liberal attitude that we do to the sort of management and the regulation of preaching.
Right.
So you're going to impose some kind of commission of the mosques where the central government will send representatives to these mosques and sit there.
Presumably, these would be Arabic speaking people who just happen to be highly liberal people like yourself.
I'm sure we've got billions of them just laying around.
And they're going to sit there and go, yep, Oh, no, I'm shutting this mosque down on orders of Danny Kruger for being insufficiently liberal or pro British or whatever.
Right?
Is that what you're doing?
Or is it you're just going to be like, oh, I hope we get an insider, send us a leaked video, and then we'll shut down the mosque?
Like, what's the mechanism here?
How does this work?
This doesn't sound like it's going to work, Danny.
I think there's a bunch of stuff we can do, as it were, top down.
We can enforce the law, particularly on.
On marriage, I think we need to look at the registration of marriages to look at the whole economy of some of these communities, which are held together by systems of fees and often managed through charities.
Which I think we need to look quite closely at.
Right.
So now we're going to audit the entire Muslim community in this country.
So, what's that, about six or seven million people?
We're going to audit this entire community.
And at the same time, remember, you were arguing for a very small state that's very efficient.
Is it going to have the capacity to audit 7 million people and everything that these people do with one another?
Like, I just don't think that's going to work.
To be honest, I just don't think you're going to do it.
There's an economy, there's an infrastructure there.
We should.
You're going to have to.
Well, the only thing that would actually work here is just essentially outlawing, right?
No more Deerbandi mosques, right?
No more.
So half of the mosques in this country get instantly shut down.
Then you want to find some other Salafi denominations, right?
No more of those.
In fact, what you want to do is.
Stipulate the kind of Islam that we're allowed to have in this country.
That's what you really need to do.
And of course, you're going to need to choose the most wet libby type of Islam.
No idea what that's going to be.
But this is the point you are never going to actually do these things, are you?
That's not going to happen.
Address.
And we need to be absolutely adamant that anybody who is actively promulgating Islam.
Anti Semitism or anti Western extremism.
That is unacceptable, and we should use the law to crack down very hard on that, including.
You've just said the very nature of their family structures is anti Western, that we disagree with it.
So, are we going to be criminalising the Muslim family under this?
Using powers of deportation for people who clearly should not be in our country, influencing young people to hate the West.
Right.
So, these people can be arrived at to be not supposed to be in this country.
So, we can decide that there are people from overseas who may have been born here who shouldn't be in this country.
We just can't do it based on their ancestry.
We have to do it on some nebulous measurement of hatred.
Right, okay, well, I mean, at least that's a start.
At least that's a start.
At least we can agree that, I mean, we may have audited the entire Muslim community, we may have basically banned Islam through these mosques in this country, and we may have literally criminalized the Muslim family to assuage his liberal values.
But if they're not actively hateful towards Britain, then we can't deport them.
But when they are actually hateful, and to be honest with you, when they start being actively hateful, it's probably too late.
They're probably going to be off a terror attack or something.
At least then we can deport one or two people.
Right, okay, okay, brilliant.
I'm sure that's going to solve all of the problems and is not an unworkable boondoggle.
Nigel had previously said that reform didn't want to politically alienate Islam.
I think some.
He's just criminalized basically all of Islam and the Muslim family.
Muslims would argue that what you have just described would be alienating.
There are definitely some people who would say that what you've just described there is Islamophobic, that it's interfering.
It's saying all of these things around the problem, right, rather than tackling the problem itself.
He's really creating a rod for his own back on this.
With their religious liberty.
How would you respond to that?
Listen, I have a great respect for many Muslims in our public life, people I know privately.
I have absolutely no objection to Muslims.
And, you know, as a.
Notice the instant fear.
Oh, don't call me a beggar.
Oh, God.
He goes on at length in this as well.
He goes on at length.
Just, I'm not an Islamophobe.
Yeah, okay.
Tell us how much you love who was it?
Nash Shah, I think he says at some point.
We probably won't get to it.
It's an hour long.
A man of faith, I respect people who believe in God and who live out their faith in their lives.
As a man of faith, I respect jihadis.
They're definitely men of God who live out their faith, but are they really respectable?
I get the fear.
The worst thing you can do to these people is call them racist, right?
That's basically what this boils down to.
Good thing for our society to have people who are religious.
And it's not for me to determine which religion is right or wrong.
I've got my preference of.
You are a Christian.
It is for you to determine which religion is right and wrong, right?
Literally, I mean, I as an atheist.
Could reasonably say it's not for me to determine which religion is right or wrong because I don't believe in any of them.
So, by definition, I don't think they're correct.
But as a Christian, you are making a moral and presumably intellectual and sentimental and spiritual commitment to a particular religion, which does and it must render at least philosophically the rest of them to be wrong to you.
But you must at least be able to say, argue in your own defense here.
For your own religion, surely, and say, No, I think the other religions are wrong, so I'm going to make that judgment.
I'm not necessarily going to use the power of the government to enforce it because we have a political history of religious tolerance, but surely you can't just be like, Well, it's not for me to say which religion is right or wrong.
Well, then become a Muslim, then.
And if you're not going to become a Muslim, why not?
Because you think that religion is wrong.
Honestly, this is so weak.
It's so weak.
At least argue your own case, man.
Obviously.
And I disagree with people who have a different faith, but they disagree with me.
And that's, you know, in a society of religious pluralism, that should be acceptable.
Oh, wow.
Really?
You didn't go on a crusade and cut their heads off?
Incredible.
Like, obviously.
Obviously.
Oh, God, man.
This is the intellectual vanguard of the right wing party in Britain, by the way.
So I do not have any.
Objection to Muslims, my and insofar as I'm concerned, I was worried he was racist for a minute there about Islam.
It's not in its religious principles, it's in its political manifestation or political Islam, and certainly Islamism, which preaches the doctrine that the world must be suborned to Islam by force or by deception.
So, I mean.
But that's somehow separate to Islam as a religion.
It only comes from the same book, from the same prophet, who claims to be acting as the voice of God.
But it's somehow separate.
It's somehow separate.
The political expression of Islam is somehow separate from the religion of Islam.
Okay.
Thanks, Danny.
I don't think we should be afraid of making these arguments.
I think we do need to.
Making the arguments that Islam did nothing wrong.
And I can't even say it's a false religion, even though I'm a Christian.
Yeah, I.
I mean, that honestly, I don't think anyone would be afraid of making that argument because it's the weakest, softest, most liberal argument ever.
It's literally the current status quo.
Like Keir Starmer would say, Well, I'm not a Muslim, but you know, everything Danny Kruger has just said here, like, it's just that this is not in any way pushing any envelopes or challenging any boundaries.
God.
To be very respectful of individual Muslims, and Nigel is absolutely right.
Why?
Like, some, maybe, if they've earned it, But some not so much because they haven't earned it.
Like the gangs of Muslims who took to the street after the Southport massacre and beat up a guy in the pub and all these other things.
Do I need to be respectful of them?
Because I'm actually sat here thinking, Christ, why are they in my country?
Why is it the media has called them up?
And what can be done about it?
And Danny's answer is, yes, you have to be respectful about it.
They're here because the Conservative government betrayed you and know nothing can be done about it.
And I'm not really sure that's going to satisfy, actually.
I'm not terribly persuaded by that argument.
We don't want to pick a fight with a religion, certainly not a religious group.
But I think we can't shy away from the fact that Islam and Islamic institutions in our country are providing a cover for both extremist propaganda and also for the way of living, this segregated way of life.
Why would they be doing that?
What a coincidence.
It just so happens that there's no connection between Islam and Islamism, but it just so happens that the Islamic institutions are providing cover for Islamism and promoting a segregated way of life.
What a coincidence.
If only these things were connected.
It's just a shrug.
I don't know how that's happened, but every single time it just happens to happen.
What a weird thing.
Sorry, I know I'm being a total dick about this, and I didn't want to be.
I really didn't.
Like I said, I like.
I mean, it's nothing to do with the New College Forum.
They're great.
And I don't dislike Danny.
I'm sure if I met him in the pub, he'd be a very easy chap to get along with.
And he seems like a likable guy.
But holy shit, the intellectual paucity of his worldview because of his commitment to liberalism is sad.
Honestly, sad.
I can't.
I can't be dealing with it.
That is bad for our society as a whole, and I think bad for the people in that community as well.
So, okay, but they choose to live that way.
So, you know, I'm I hope it's not just me being a kind of frightened liberal that I'm scared of, you know, picking on Islam and Muslims because I genuinely don't want to.
I genuinely respect there's a bunch of MPs in the House of Commons who I have great respect for.
And we have Muslims, of course, in the leadership of reform.
And there are people, as I say, in Parliament, my friend Naz Shah, Labour MP, got a great deal of respect for.
Sorry.
Naz Shah, who accidentally retweeted the Owen Jones parody account saying the raped girls in Rotherham need to shut up for the sake of diversity.
That Naz Shah.
You're good buddies with that Naz Shah.
Right.
I mean, I can understand it.
If you're like, well, Zia Youssef is a Muslim, Lalia Cunningham's a Muslim, and they're my superiors in reform or whatever it is.
I could understand.
That those being the examples, and because they're pretty integrated, they're pretty secular Muslims as it comes, you know, they obviously are not like, you know, hardcore Islamic preachers or anything.
So you could, you know, for them it's more of an identity rather than a religion.
And actually, the revealed preference is to live like Westerns.
Okay, fair enough.
I completely accept that.
But Nash Shah, I mean, okay, what a bizarre, what an absolutely bizarre person to suggest.
I don't want to take it back.
Magic is evil.
Magic is evil, sorry.
I just brought out a book actually about her, about the culture of the community that she grew up in.
It's pretty unflattering, too, isn't it?
Pakistani, British.
Very, very.
Pakistani.
Serious concerns there.
Because they just so happen to behave exactly like Pakistanis in Pakistan.
What a remarkable coincidence.
Again, how could it be that these British people.
Who just happened to ethnically be Pakistani live exactly like Mirpuri Pakistanis.
One day, scientists will discover the connection.
But she's brilliant.
And I am not going to start identifying either individual British Muslims, let alone Islam as a whole.
But I do think we have a problem.
And I think it's.
I'm sorry, again, I'm never going to address the problem, but I concede that there is a problem.
With this thing that somehow has all of these unrelated components, there is an issue with it.
But I'm never going to address it.
Right.
Then nothing can be done.
Then you have no solutions.
Then reform is a total washout.
Nothing positive will change.
It will be more of the same, and it's actually kind of crazy that we're even sat here having this conversation.
Why would we want to watch this?
Why would we want to hear from Danny Kruger on any of these issues?
Like, literally, anything sounds like it would be more substantive than what Danny has promoted here.
I mean, just anything, right?
To say it without being bullied by accusations of Islamophobia, and he's being bullied by accusations of Islamophobia.
I mean, it'd be very easy to just say, I don't care, wouldn't it?
I think then that it's unreasonable for people to be concerned about the increasing prominence of Islam in public, sort of particularly during Ramadan.
Public Displays Of Political Claims00:04:24
We've seen a lot of public assertions of Islam in the public space, people praying in public, that kind of thing.
Do you think it's unreasonable for people to be concerned about that and concerned about the increasing prominence of Islam within our politics?
I'm thinking of the Gorton and Denton by election, for example.
Well, in Gordon and Denton, you had another problem, which is I don't think religious.
It's to do with the clans that operate this family voting system.
I mean, that is deeply problematic.
Well, it's problematic.
But again, how could it not be religious if the religion informs the family structure and then the people are living in these family structures and vote in this way that is directly.
Formed by the family structure.
How could it not be religious?
It doesn't come from anywhere other than religion.
It is literally the moral bedrock of this community and informs how they live their entire lives.
How could it not be religious?
This is such wishful thinking to be able to separate Islam from the Muslim community.
I mean, you literally define the Muslim community by the religion that they follow.
Actually, crazy.
Actually, crazy to me.
In terms of the.
The display of Islam in public life, well, insofar as what you're actually seeing there is an assertion of a sort of political claim to say this is our territory.
That seems like a bit of an issue.
This neighborhood is a Muslim neighborhood.
I think that's certainly worrying and we should be concerned.
But they're doing it all the time.
They're doing it all the time.
And you've literally told us that the English cannot assert their own political claim to their own land.
You've literally said, well, that's dangerous.
That's dangerous.
Is this dangerous?
Is it dangerous when Muslims make a political claim to our country?
I mean, I think it's dangerous.
Do you think it's dangerous, Danny?
About it.
But I think we need to focus our attention on where we have bad politics, not where we have bad religion.
And when.
Oh, my God.
So, no, we can't do anything about it.
Right, okay.
When you see groups insisting that when what's actually happening is a sort of claim of territory on behalf of a political model, and there might be Palestinian flags or others signaling what's going on there.
Yeah, which can't be divorced from the religion of Islam.
Go on.
Then, yes, I share the concern.
But I mean, I don't want to clamp down on religious symbolism or practice.
I mean, if people want to pray in public, that should be totally fine.
Oh, right, eh?
So, yeah, yeah, this is a real concern, but we can do nothing about it, folks.
Can't do anything about it.
I don't know if I can go on.
I think Reform's intellectual muscle has explained himself well enough.
They can't address any of these issues.
They refuse ideologically to address a single one of these issues.
We cannot be voting for reform, right?
It is no good.
It would be better to vote for accelerationism over whatever this is meant to be.
I don't even know.
I mean, it just seems to be more liberalism, right?
That's the only philosophy he's actually brought up in this whole debate.
I don't want more liberalism.
More liberalism made all of these things happen.
It can't be fixed through liberalism.
It's just that simple.
We'll go through some of the super chats because this is just mental and I'm shattered.
I knew I shouldn't have done a late live stream.
But the thing is, I'm sat there like, right, okay, when do I have time?
When do I have time to do anything, right?
And I was like, I was watching this and just pissing me off.
And now is the time that I have time.
And it was like 11 o'clock.
I was like, go on then.
Why Liberalism Failed Us00:02:55
I'll vent my spleen for a bit and probably make some enemies.
I'm not trying to make enemies here, right?
But it's just, it's very clear that Danny is being hamstrung by his own ideology, right?
He has arrived at a point where he cannot allow the British people to be preferenced in their own country.
He can't draw a distinction between them and foreigners.
And Legally speaking, morally speaking, and that means those people who are here doing that can never be arrested through the like, as in that they can't be prevented from continuing this on through the philosophy that he holds.
And you've really got to get to the um, no country for old men point.
It's like, well, if the rule brought you to this point, what was the use of the rule?
Like, that's a genuine question that is raising its head, rearing its head over and over and over.
If this is what you it brought you to, what?
Good was it anyway?
Wesson says, Looking to start the channel exploring political ideology and games.
Before I do, I want to educate myself some more.
Could you recommend some good books concerning politics andor its history?
Um, well, right, you're asking a big question there.
Um, you can find all sorts of quite good books from like the early 20th century.
Someone like Ernst Barker, The Principles of Political and Social Philosophy, or something like that.
I can't remember what it was.
One of the first things I read, and it was really good.
Um, But it'll only give you an overview of these things.
To properly understand them, you've got to read them.
And I have now read them.
And it's a long journey that you're going to have to go on if you want to be an expert in these things.
You can doubtless just go on Amazon and just Google.
I mean, there's like Terry Eagleton has just got a book called Political Ideologies, which is like an entry-level thing into it.
If you're looking for that, go for that.
It's a perfectly good book.
It covers a lot of things.
It just doesn't cover them very deeply because that's not the point of the book.
No criticism of Eagleton.
So that's somewhere to start.
But what you're suggesting and doing is a very long journey, and you've got a lot of work ahead of you, basically.
Stephen says If King Charles III or future King William V offers to make you Lord Protector, will you do your duty?
No.
Someone can do that.
I just don't want to be the person who does any of that.
They are saying that foreigners have the right to exist as a distinct and unique people, and you don't have that right.
That's a great point, Generica.
Great point.
And furthermore, they have the right to be included amongst your people, yet they have a right to our land, a right to live distinctly from us, and at our expense.
And it's like, no, this is not acceptable.
Rejecting Locke For Singapore00:04:40
This is not acceptable.
The people saying that nonsense is as absurd as saying all Americans are Cherokee now because they inhabit the same geographic space.
Why can't the Americans just claim First Nation status?
If they're following the same sort of philosophy, I mean, what's the argument?
What's the argument?
Val says, at this point, there is only one way out of this.
Voting can't work.
We have too many people who are anti basic standards, can't comprehend that humans are social animals and societies are found on social cohesion via blood.
No, I don't agree.
Actually, our parliament is supreme.
We can do whatever we want, we just need a base government, and reform is not going to be that base government.
What is this guy smoking?
The Tories and Labour don't even have the same loyalties to each other, let alone having foreign loyalties, since they did, yeah, I know.
Look, Carl, the Dane Geld is a long tradition of the British people.
No, it's not, actually.
It's not.
We haven't paid a Dane Geld in over a thousand years.
And we went to war to stop paying it, right?
We fought many a war over this.
So, actually, it's not a long tradition.
It's something that was imposed on us and we fought against.
Val says Locke was right.
Sorry, Locke was the worst thing to happen to the British.
David Hume was right.
It's not even Locke's fault.
Like, back in the 17th century, Like this, there's no way Locke would have foreseen his philosophy ending up this way, I think, in 1689 or whatever he wrote.
There's no way he'd have foreseen, like, the colonization of Britain by Muslims and the defenders of his philosophy saying, Well, there's just nothing we can do about this, guys.
What biblical ritual would he have us perform on these newcomers to induct them into his tribe of brotherhood?
The formal severing of all ties and the forging of new bonds.
Should we sacrifice a goat?
Great question.
Like, what is this?
So many questions instead of answers.
Billy says, I'm 39 years old with a 13 year old son, three year old daughter, and my girlfriend has one in the oven.
Any advice for older dads starting again?
Yeah, improve your fitness because you're going to get tired, man.
Get a good night's sleep.
And I was in your position.
I was in your position only a couple of years ago.
Try and get as much sleep as you can because I don't know whether you can see the bags under my eyes.
But it's just every morning my daughter walks in and she's like, Play dinosaurs, daddy, and I'm like, oh, sweetheart, it's seven in the morning.
Let me sleep, please.
What he is saying is that you should love the children of others less than you love your own sons and daughters.
The life of your child is not more important than those who love them.
I think you have that the wrong way around, but yes, yeah.
Unless you're willing to be Singapore, this will never work.
And that's exactly right, Val.
That's exactly right.
Unless you're willing to be Singapore.
Lee Kuan Yew, I think that's his name, understood this.
Our rulers do not understand this.
As a man of faith, I respect those pagan Saxons.
Charlemagne Kruger, 782 AD.
Oof.
As a man of faith, I respect those Mohammedans who unalive fellow Christians in Jerusalem.
Pope Kruger II, 1095 AD.
Yeah, I know.
Imagine if Innocent was just taking the Daddy Kruger position on everything.
Like, come on, man.
Come on.
Thank you, Linkson Jack.
And Jovan says, Sargon, I asked a critical drink from Moreland.
They'd love to have you on any time.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, I'll send them a message or something, man, and see if they want to hang out sometime.
It's been a while, I suppose, isn't it?
So, I've just been really busy, you know.
And I haven't really been keeping that close an eye on popular culture because it all just seems shit now.
Like, everything that comes up on my timeline, I'll see it and I'll be like, well, there's no way I'm watching that.
I'm just not watching these things.
So, I don't know how useful I'll be on the live streams.
But anyway, right.
Thank you for joining me, folks.
This was disappointing, frankly.
And the thing is, I saw Connor and various other people talking about this Danny Kruger interview.
I was just like, I can't have been that bad.
So I was just going to chill and play a video game.
And I was just knocking around on ARC with my mum.
And I was watching this and I was just like, really?