Starmer Implodes as Nigel Farage Destroys the Tories | The Culture War's Across the Pond
Across the Pond is BACK! Tate and Connor return for 2026 to break down the latest high-profile defections to Reform UK, what it signals about the collapse of Britain's political center, and why Rupert Lowe current moves are completely reshaping the Right. They also dig into Keir Starmer's ongoing implosion, the leadership vacuum in Labour, and the growing sense that the UK establishment has lost control. Across the Atlantic, they react to the chaos unfolding in Minneapolis, examining how media and political elites are scrambling to assign blame, including the bizarre rush to scapegoat "Karens", while avoiding serious discussion of immigration policy, enforcement, and public safety BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Hosts: Tate Brown @realTateBrown (everywhere) Connor Tomlinson @Con_Tomlinson (everywhere) Subscribe to Tomlinson Talks on Substack for more analysis: https://connortomlinson.substack.com/ Follow me on X: https://x.com/Con_Tomlinson Listen to Tomlinson Talks on podcast platforms: Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/2lVAFqUZQQTQW8XiNhODP0 Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/tomlinson-talks/id1811957060 Amazon Music / Audible - https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/be9537ec-b746-4a5c-9d79-40f8d0a87f19
I am not as optimistic as you about 2026 being the year of the Patriot, but that's because we're currently abolishing jury trials over in the UK, potentially banning X unless President Trump steps in, as likes of Sarah Rogers has threatened to do.
And I thought that 2026 was going to be mild, but also wild until yesterday.
And the opposition party, the Conservative Party, finally decided it wanted to achieve zero seats and speedrun towards electoral obsolescence because a bunch of contingency plans of money power just came crashing down all at once.
And the presumptive guy that would take over the Yoruba girl boss, who's currently leading the Conservative Party, Kimmy Badenock, as the leader, decided to jump ship to Nigel Farage's Reform UK and position himself as the JD Vance to Farage as Trump.
Everything just turned overnight.
So my cynicism is not necessarily vindicated.
Turns out 2026 is going to be more fun than I thought.
We were coming in and, you know, I think everyone was just expecting the reform to continue trudging along.
I don't think anyone anticipated, well, maybe some Patriots in the know anticipated, but Ruperloe just completely dropping a nuclear bomb on the entire political right zeitgeist.
This was yesterday.
Can you break down maybe the too long didn't read of what exactly went down yesterday, especially because Twitter is down.
So I think a lot of people have missed quite a bit of the action over the last 24 hours.
That's why everyone's attention span has lengthened and their mood has improved.
I'm going to assume.
Something in the end.
So at the start of the week, Reform UK took in Nadim Zahawi.
It's a name that's not going to mean much to those in America, but he came to the UK when he was, I believe, nine from Iraqi Kurdistan.
His parents fled Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime.
His dad was on banknotes.
He was part of the regime prior to the Baathists.
And he enmeshed himself in Conservative Party politics.
He founded YouGov, the sort of international polling company.
So he's a very rich businessman.
In 2013, he was at Oxford Union arguing against Douglas Murray while he was an MP, demanding that Britain bring in loads of Somalians so that Somalians can send remittances back to Somalia.
Otherwise, the Somali economy would collapse.
He's that kind of conservative, right?
When he was a minister under Boris Johnson, he was our equivalent of anti-Fauci for a little bit.
He was the head of the vaccine rollout during COVID lockdowns.
He introduced COVID passports, vaccine passports.
He was education secretary and wanted to abolish homeschooling or make it at least so punitive that parents couldn't homeschool.
And then he was Chancellor for like a week and then chair of the Conservative Party, at which point he was kicked out as chair because it turns out that while he was chancellor, he failed to pay like 3.7 million pounds in taxes and had to pay like 4.8 million total with like a penalty on top.
So he's one of the crooks that oversaw the Boris wave.
And Reform celebrated him defecting.
They even changed their Twitter header to a photo of him borderline hugging Nigel Farage.
And at the press conference, he was insulting journalists who had said, hey, Reform is going to do an inquiry into COVID vaccine damage and they condemned lockdowns and passports and that.
So why are you in this party?
Have you changed your mind?
And he was saying the journalists are stupid for asking it.
He himself, I believe, is a Muslim as well.
So it's this conspicuous slow drip of not just conservative defectors from Boris Johnson's own cabinet.
So reform exists because of the Boris Wave, and yet they're trying to replace the Tories, but also replace their own personnel with the Tories that they're meant to be reacting against, very confusing.
But also this sort of filling up of reform's top brass with Muslim candidates or Muslim politicians.
And this is unthinkable to most of the European right and loads of our patriots in America who see reform as kind of Britain's MAGA movement and think, okay, London is becoming Londonistan.
You know, Britain is on the cusp of becoming a nuclear-armed Muslim nation, as Vice President Vance joked in 2024.
And then they look over at our right-wing populist party and see Mohammad Zia Yousaf, the former chairman, now apparent heir apparent to Nigel Farage's crown as the guy that called the police on Rupert Lowe.
They see Layla Cunningham become the London mayoral candidate for reform.
And she's an Egyptian Muslim mother of seven who also used to post pro-diversity poetry and go on pride marches and was nearly the conservative candidate for Rotherham.
Yeah, you know, the Pakistani grooming gang capital of Britain back in 2024.
So she was nearly parachuted in there.
So now reformer running a Muslim against Muslim Sadiq Khan.
So reform on the Muslim mayor of London.
And then they take in a Muslim mass migration mass vaccination apologist.
And so the day after that, they then take in, or two days after that, they then take in 20 councillors from mainly the Conservatives, Independents, and one Green Party councillor for some godforsaken reason.
Yeah, we're going to fight the unit party by becoming the literal unit party.
We're going to become a refugee camp for every single person from every other party who wants to save or rehabilitate their failed political careers.
And so loads of reform voters, including myself, because I voted for them before, despite being banned from the party for saying some things that the top brass didn't like, they were just ratioing them on Twitter.
And obviously Twitter isn't necessarily real life, but then the sort of average voter started calling into the radio stations and leaving comments on all of the articles on GB News and things like that, which are borderline reform propaganda outfits at this point.
I mean, literally the hosts of the shows are either reform MPs or reform MPs in waiting.
And then the hosts on talk are training reform MPs in media training.
So both of these entities are just pro-reform.
But loads of the callers started phoning in and telling the reform chairman, oh, I'm not going to vote reform anymore because you're a party full of Muslims and Muslim Tories and it's meant to be for British people first.
And then the chairman just goes, no, these people are British.
And it's like, if you have to convince people they're British, they're not British.
So after that week of abhorrent bad press to the point of where Nigel Farage had to sit there and go, we're not going to become a life raft for conservatives.
We're not going to accept any more Tory defectors unless they're beneficial to us.
It turns out that when they were about to announce their head of the Reform Scotland campaign, because we've got elections coming up, local elections and elections in Wales and Scotland in May, as he convened the press conference, Kimmy Badenock, the Nigerian immigrant who leads up the Conservative Party after she personally campaigned for the Boris Wave, she announced that Robert Jenrick, who was her leadership campaign rival in 2024,
Jenrick's the guy who's been going around doing these slick social media videos talking about the abolition of Magna Carta, the fact that we imported this Egyptian revolutionary who was sitting in a prison for the last, what, like 10 years, basically, who had a decade-long history of saying that he wanted to nuke London and do a nuclear holocaust against white people, that he wanted to kill Jews, that he wanted to rape white women, that he really, really, really hates white people.
And all of this is publicly available, but the last Conservative Party and the present Labour Party while in government were campaigning tirelessly to bring him over because his mum is a British citizen because she's an anchor baby.
And so he was eligible for British citizenship.
Like Robert Jenrick's been fighting against that, all that sort of stuff.
Jenrik's been very popular, but he was beaten out of the Conservative leadership because all of the press outlets like the Telegraph, GB News, Spectator Unheard, they were all promoting Badenock.
So he's been a rising star.
Kemi announced during Fararage's press conference that Jenrik had been caught about to defect to Reform UK.
And so she had stripped him of his Conservative Party membership, banished him from the opposition shadow cabinet immediately and said basically, good luck.
So she was trying to get out ahead of his defection, which she thought was going to happen that afternoon.
It wasn't.
Like, Reform weren't going to announce it.
The deal hadn't been cut.
So she thought she would, a bit like a jaded girlfriend who's paranoid about you cheating on her, she thought that she would dump him first and then go tell her friends just how small his dick was.
Yeah, backfired spectacularly because then Reform just changed their press conference in the afternoon to just take Jenrick in as a defector.
And then Jemrik delivered the speech that they claimed they found like lying on a photocopier somewhere that was proof of his defection.
He delivered that speech, but then threw in like loads of behind the scenes stuff about how the Conservative Party was just lying to everyone for years.
They were proposing policies they knew weren't going to work because their donors wanted mass migration for cheap labor and to drive up the cost of housing.
The fact that the current Conservative Party is full of the architects of the Boris Wave, like Brady Patel and Mel Stride, and how he resigned while he was in government, but also now from the party on a matter of principle.
And immediately he uno-reverse carded Kemi Badenock's attempt to oust him, flipped the narrative.
And so overshadowed the fact that if he had defected at another time, all of the questions about, well, weren't Farage and Zia Youssef calling you a fraud and saying that all the Afghans you brought in were the Jenrick wave like only a few months ago.
And instead, it became all about how he'd killed the Conservative Party.
The last hope for the Conservatives had just left the party.
They've got no talent left.
They've got no momentum.
Kemi Badenock did the announcement looking like she was on a Zoom call.
We'll have to flash up an image or something.
She was actually sat at home with a blurry background, a scuffed mic, like she was lecturing him because he'd left an offensive joke on the company Slack channel and was getting reprimanded by HR.
And everyone's now talking about Jenrik being the JD Vance to Farage as Trump.
And this is extra mega.
And this is like internal faction war politics is a bit autistic.
And I know I'm rambling here, so I apologize.
But Zia Yousaf has been the largely unpopular with the base heir apparent to Nigel Farage.
Farage just kept saying, like, oh, I'll retire if someone younger and better looking comes along.
He's been putting Zia on in every position imaginable.
He was co-director of reform and chairman, despite only giving like £200,000 coming from literally nowhere.
He's been doing all the media interviews.
He's been touted as the second coming of Winston Churchill, just with like diversity-approved body armor because he's a Muslim from Sri Lanka.
And apparently, and I have this on Good Word, Zia did not know about Jenrik's defection.
Zia has been flaming Jenrik on Twitter for the best part of a year, calling him a traitor, saying that he's emblematic of the last government, that we should have no more Tory defectors.
And Zia, while the announcement was going ahead, was not at the conference and instead tweeted, no more Tories, your deadline to defect is the local elections, trying to reassert his power.
But Zia is now afraid, and quite rightly so, that his automatic coronation as Farage's successor just got jeopardized because Jenrik just looked like the best speaker, that he's killed the Conservatives, and all the images are now of Jenrik and Farage with their arms around one another, completely whitewashing the unpopular previous Conservative defections from the last week.
And so when you say, what Rupert's role in this, dropping a nuke, responding to this, Rupert has come out and said, okay, this is just the una party with a new coat of pain, whether or not you like what Jenrik's been saying, because reform is just filling up with Tories.
And next week, they're going to take a Labour defector.
Okay, weird.
And so Rupert said, clearly, the Conservative Party is just done for.
They've never learned their lessons.
They're now just the party of immigrants who brought in loads of immigrants telling you how your culture includes them.
Reform is full of ex-Tories, Greens, Labours, and it doesn't necessarily stand for anything except destroying the previous two parties while filling up with its members.
And so now Rupert is teasing that by the next election, there will be an alternative.
And he keeps saying, I will promise you that it will be full of brand new candidates and things like this.
So he seems to be teasing a kind of restore party.
Now, whether or not there's the time or funds to mobilize an effort to reform's right is worth questioning.
We do know, though, that Elon Musk is a big fan of Rupert Lowe.
We know that a significant portion of Reform's base, their original base, left and supported Rupert.
Rupert has the largest social media presence of any MP in the country, including dwarfing the analytics of Nigel Farage.
He also has another independent ally in the other Reform MP that was kicked out for some sort of trivial business matter called James Luck Murdoch, good chap.
And so it is possible that Rupert sets up a marginal party to Reform's right, which could either lead to a splitting of the vote if Rupert continues to grow in popularity, because he's on his own without a party.
Rupert is polling at 9% nationally, including pretty significantly in Wales as well for some reason.
Or his marginal party efforts could force reform to move to the right and occupy that ground in the open window that Rupert has vacated for them, or even make some kind of pact with Rupert and bring him back into the fold, much to the seething anger of Zia Youssef.
Yeah, I have so many questions just to pick your brain on all of this.
I think the first one, let's get this one out of the way.
There's this tendency on the right where we're perpetually insecure whenever we do acquire power, whenever we are in a good position.
We begin to doubt ourselves and we begin to doubt our legitimacy because every institution has been captured by the left for the most part.
In the United States, all we have left is like police unions.
That's pretty much it.
And it's vaguely similar, obviously, in Britain.
Is that what's going on here?
Because I keep up, I read a publication in the UK, which is going to be very unpopular, probably cringe.
I like to read the conversation in the UK because there's something interesting.
It's this publication where it's all these academics and they're collaborating with journalists to produce all these pieces.
And it gives you really good insight into what the soy millennial like Zeitgeist is at the moment.
And every piece that they're putting out right now is glazing reform right now.
They've literally put out this piece about how Zia Youssef is professionalizing reform.
So the fact that you're getting seal claps from academics and journalists indicates that you are caving in every direction.
It's not really a surprise here.
Is that partially what's going on?
I guess to get to the original question, is that partially what's going on?
Is a lot of this just driven by insecurity among reform's elite that they still are worried about what their perception is going to be among whatever the equivalent would be of like your beltway, sort of in Britain?
Is that really what this is getting at?
Because yeah, I don't see why you would be just so eager to incorporate Zahawi into the party through on all your branding if it wasn't driven ultimately by insecurity.
So Nigel Farage's willingness to embrace minority politicians comes from both him and Gwen Towler, who has been his sort of longtime right-hand man, who was sacked by Zia Youssef and had to eat basically a plate of shit and then got reappointed on Reform's advisory board anyway and was rewarded for his loyalty.
Gwen keeps putting out these terrible substacks.
And look, I've met Gwayne.
He's very polite, but he's just an arch liberal through and through.
Where he's saying, modern Britain is a mosaic, and people like Zia Yousuf and Layla Cunningham represent Anglican Muslims, Muslims who are moderate, who keep observe that, I know, it's just absurd, who observe their faith privately.
And maybe if we all just promote these moderate Muslim candidates, we can care bear stare a moderate Muslim revival within Islam and refute the last few centuries of like Salafism and Sunnis and Shias warring to appoint the next caliph.
I mean, look, it's demented, but that is the mentality.
It's it's we can build, we can basically have Blairism as it was promised.
It was just bungled by, you know, Boris and Blair and May and Cameron and Sunak, etc.
Like they are actually like true believer liberals.
They really want John Lennon's imagined to happen.
They just want to do it through like tax cuts and the abolition of identity politics rather than the anti-racist Leviathan state.
So there is some of that.
And of course, Nigel Farage hates being called racist.
He hates being called far-right.
He keeps saying that his proudest achievement was abolishing the actual far-right, you know, like the BMP that did have some neo-Nazi sympathizers in it in the early 2000s.
And so he positions himself as the furthest acceptable fringe of the liberal consensus.
And so encompassing, you know, the first or second generation Muslim immigrant who is astroturfed in his party is for him kind of seeking the acceptance of a media and political establishment that will hate him no matter what anyway, but he's still determined to make concessions to them.
But the Zahawi defection is quite different.
So there are internal factions within reform.
You can see the contours of these in the respective interviews that each member gives and the fact that some don't know what's going on with the other.
For example, Zia Yousuf didn't know that Robert was going to defect, and that's why he really didn't like it.
And Jemrik's faction is very different to Yusuf's faction.
There's a different set of money power behind each of them.
But the faction that keeps bringing in Boris's old cabinet ministers, like Nadim Zahawi or Jake Berry, or Nadine Dorries.
Nadine Doris wrote the Online Safety Act, by the way.
And the first thing she said when she defected to reform was, well, maybe they should take Boris in.
Yeah, it's like, okay, we're going to denaturalize and deport the Boris wave.
We're not going to have Boris in there.
No.
But the one faction that's trying to bring him in is Richard Tice, who used to be the head of reform before Nigel Farage came in and took over.
And his girlfriend slash fiancé, Isabel Oakshart, she's a journalist.
She lives out in Dubai now.
She's also the editor of Talk TV.
So, you know, literally yet another propaganda outfit.
They keep bringing old Tories in to build up their support base because Tice has been personally sidelined by Zia Youssef and some of the other people that have come in.
So all this is a King Lear-esque squabbling of siblings underneath the kind of detached king who doesn't realize that his kingdom and the line of succession is itself in jeopardy.
Though that line of succession just got a lot more interesting with the influx of someone like Robert Jenrick.
So, and the other element of this as well is international considerations.
Now, I covered this on a live stream on my channel.
So, you know, those on the Tim Cost channel, you hear it on my show first.
But Jenrik represents the Zionist wing of the Conservative Party.
His wife is Israeli-American.
He himself is a Jewish convert.
His kids are Jewish.
He has a lot of the Conservative Friends of Israel donors in his corner.
That's why people thought he might actually beat Badenock, despite Badenock having all of the media apparatuses on her side, because he has a lot more of the money and the international connections.
And recently, Reform have been positioning themselves to take a more Zionist, not necessarily interventionist, but neoconservative in morality, if not tactics, foreign policy.
So for example, not long after Netanyahu recognized the sovereignty of Somaliland, Faral just been to like a Somaliland independence protest in London.
He was just at the issue.
Yeah, you know, it's very relevant to your average UKer, I suppose.
He was also went to one of the Iranian revolutionary protests in London with Nadim Zahawi and was filmed weeping.
Which, you know, fair enough.
You might have some sincere sympathies for the Iranian people, but yet again, didn't we do this like a couple of years ago?
There's meant to be this feminist uprising and it didn't amount to anything.
Yet again, I think this is more of a thing of like liberal boomers and anti-jihadists, which I have my sympathies.
Again, trying to carebear stare a revolution from our side of their borders and it just doesn't really work out.
And also Richard Tys, I mean, he goes on frequent anti-Semitism marches with Michael Gove.
He signed the international like Holocaust remembrance declaration thing.
Yeah, you know, because we were on the wrong side of that issue, clearly.
Just, yeah, it's quite tiresome.
But the reason I'm bringing that up is because Jenrik's, Jenrik brings a lot of those people, that money, that experience, I suppose, being in government, being aligned with that faction, into reform, which therefore bolsters his likelihood of succeeding.
And the other thing that it does do as well, and this is the fact that Zia Youssef is a Sri Lankan Muslim who has already pissed off a large portion of the base by calling the police on Rupert Lowe and getting rid of him means that he was already on the outs.
And so Jenerick now having a fair amount of donor clout, quite a bit of experience, having personally destroyed the Tory party with one speech, being embraced by Nigel, and just being a white English guy now makes his position in the line of succession more likely.
I mean, from the American perspective, we often get these things put on our desk because of Elon Musk.
This was another question I had.
This is probably off the wall at this point because I haven't heard the name in a while.
But Ben Habib, obviously, like, if you go back last year, there was some discussion around him, but in the States, we were hearing the name because of Elon Musk.
Obviously, he went to the press and claimed that Elon had told him to start advanced UK, this sort of thing.
Where is he in the fold?
Who is his constituent?
Because that's the toughest thing for me.
Even as someone that keeps an eye on British politics, especially now as we have this show, it's really tough to figure out where these constituencies are filtering into.
And that's the difficult thing with Jennerk coming in is it's going to presumably expand reform's base or it's going to make it even, from my perspective, even increasingly more difficult to actually put together something consistent.
Because like you said at the top of the show, reform is more defined in what they're against.
And really, any political movement that's defined in what it's against is never going to be a legitimate movement going forward.
Because again, if you're just positioning yourselves as the perpetual opposition, what happens when you enter power is you completely fall apart because you no longer have something that you're opposing.
So some of these figures, like that's why I bring up Ben.
You've seen some of these defectors in the past and then obviously Elon Musk promoting them, these sorts of things.
Where do you think Elon's head is at?
Because I mean, that's going to be a massive dynamic going forward with reform, with Rupert.
Where is the political landscape right now?
Where all these previous defectors who aren't necessarily on the Rupert Lowe train, where are the constituency, like is the constituency, are they split?
What's the situation?
I guess you would call it like the populist base, so to speak.
I mean, people may remember that Musk woke up one day and tweeted, reform needs a new leader because Nigel Farage hasn't got what it takes.
And this was as a result of seeing the treatment of Ben Habib because Ben Habib didn't win his seat in the 2024 election.
And he was deputy leader of reform and was unceremoniously demoted by Zia Youssef and became chair.
And then Ben resigned from the party because he had never met Zia, but Zia decided to boot him out.
Despite Ben, you know, being in Reform for quite some time, holding it together since the Brexit party.
But he had a bit of personal acrimony with Farad as well.
They didn't always get along.
And so I think, so for those who don't know, Ben set up Advance UK, which I want to make it very clear.
I like Ben.
He's always been very gentlemanly to me.
Rupert did kind of put a stone in the shoe of it immediately as it launched because not only did Rupert launch Restore Britain, his campaign group, on the same day as Advance UK, and also declined to become leader of Advance UK because that's what Ben wanted.
But Rupert, in an interview, was offhand asked why he didn't become leader.
And he said it's because the name and branding sounds like toothpaste.
So I think that's actually subcontinental ethnic faction wars would probably be on brand for British politics.
But Advance UK represents the kind of people who made up Reform's grassroots and then were excised from the party by Zia Youssef for saying like boomerwaffen things on Facebook and getting attacked by communist hit job group Hope Not Hate.
People are still getting fired from Reformed HQ, by the way, because of Hope Not Hate hit pieces.
That hasn't stopped.
So Hope Not Hate.
Yeah, yeah.
I met a guy that it happened to the other day, and that was this year.
It's so crazy because stateside, like Media Matters put me in one of their write-ups, and it was like one of my, it was just, because when I see these Media Matters write-ups, they're literally just giving me, because it used to be you had to scroll the timeline to get the best takes.
Now I just wait for Media Matters to drop a piece and they're literally just throwing in like the Patriot highlights from the week.
It feels like I'm watching Sports Center's top 10 plays because they threw me in there.
I think I said Somali's IQs are so low, they don't even have like a perception of morality.
Something along those lines.
And I was reading it, I was like, that's so true.
I can't believe I even said that because that's like so true.
I didn't even know I was capable.
I didn't know I was in flow state like that.
And you're just looking at all the other Patriots' takes on that issue that week.
Like Will Chamberlain dropping, Michael Knowles just throwing in something about like the Greeks.
It's wonderful.
And so in the States, when you get thrown on the highlight reel, you know, the top 10 base plays of the week, you're excited.
You're framing it on your wall.
You're throwing tweets up.
You're sending it to your boys.
But the UK, Hope Not Hate comes after you, and then you lose your job.
I'm looking forward to their state of hate report for this coming year because it's just going to have like a page on me and all my greatest hits, behind which, you know, I stand behind everything.
It is particularly absurd as well because one of their senior employees, and they say he's a junior, but he represented them in government committee hearings about the Online Safety Act talking about how to keep kids safe.
He's just been convicted as being a pedfile.
So the fact that you would ever listen to these total freaks who are just a state-funded smear outfit with the help of the intelligence agencies, the Home Office and the police, very disreputable.
Anyway, so Advance UK exists to snap up a load of the local associations that reform had and were cut loose by Zia Youssef in his centralized professionalization effort.
Like they didn't want any of their local council candidates, for example, to have social media because they considered it a liability.
So that immediately shrinks your eligible recruitment pool.
Whereas you've got the one of the lessons the Trump Revolution learned is that social media is your friend.
It circumvents mainstream media gatekeeping.
And actually, your base really likes the deportation hype edits that you're posting on the official White House Twitter account.
So maybe do more of that reform.
So Advance UK exists as a newly incorporated political entity that is basically the grassroots populist base and has a lot more of a working-class bottom-up feel, a bit like early UKIP did.
And this is why they've coalesced around the, I don't think it's unfair to call him a folk hero figure of Tommy Robinson, who is a member and a spokesperson for Advance UK.
And it's why Ben Habib spoke at the Unite the Kingdom rally that lots of Americans will have seen because Elon Musk did a sort of, he looked like the floating head in Power Rangers.
He did like a giant screen telecall into it.
Yeah.
Yeah, nearly incited an insurrection on British streets, according to the mainstream media.
And Elon clearly has a watchful eye on Advance.
But the thing is with Advance, and again, I'm not countersignaling and I'm not discouraging any effort to try to create other movements that represent the vacant space in the Overton window to reforms right that they are intent on not occupying for some reason.
Though Generic might change a bit of that because he's been to the right of Farrell and a lot of things.
Advance doesn't have any senior personnel yet.
They just have Ben and Tommy Robinson.
Whereas part of the reason for the frustration, I think, of advance figures and the broader British right who haven't attached themselves to Advance, there's a lot of anons out there, or just spokespeople like myself or Carl Benjamin that aren't members of Advance, they are members of Reform, who are looking at Rupert and seeing him as a leader of men.
He's very charismatic.
He seems to command the discourse.
He has a disproportionate impact on parliamentary politics as well as general political discussions, even though he's banned from GV News and talk and things like that.
Yeah, and it's really frustrating that he's not actually in reform because I think he would have been in the generic faction, basically, and he would be a shoe-in for Shadow Chancellor.
But that's obviously the coveted job that Zia Youssef wanted, which is one of the reasons why he probably helped get rid of him.
But now lots of eyes are falling on Rupert Lowe, because, and not just over on our side of the Atlantic, but also in America because of his Tucker interview and because of his social media output, and they're wondering what he does next.
The likelihood that Lowe can get something viable to surpass reform in any significant extent looks difficult at the moment.
But you mentioned Musk.
I mean, I, and again, I know the people involved in these conversations, so I don't wish to disparage anyone.
But if an entity were to be launched by Rupert Lowe and they're already polling at like 9%, it's not unlikely that Musk at least throws him some money over Advance.
And it could just be that Ben recognizes that Rupert has more of a mandate of heaven, doesn't exist as a party, as you said, that defines itself by what it's against.
And Advance seems to be against reform, whereas Rupert seems to be for a set of policies put forward by Restore Britain.
And Restore Britain also, I don't know if you read Curtis Yarvin's recent piece on the lack of Rubicon energy in the second Trump administration.
But in it, he proposes the sort of politics of the 20th century, as defined by Silicon Valley, as a hard party, which is centered around a charismatic figurehead with party apparatchiks that are all on the same page that give its members the illusion of democracy by having them vote on an app for things that the party already wants so that the populist faction fulfill their appetite of political blood sports in vanquishing the enemy and empowering their friends while having actually no consequence on the direction of the party,
but the party still does what's in their interest.
And what he's describing is basically Restore Britain, which at this point is an app and a cross-party membership organization that puts forward policies that the leader and the policy formulators already think of that they know are going to play well with the base.
The base vote for it.
So the base are like, okay, I'm actually engaged in crafting the policy agenda.
But the policies of they're not proposed by the base.
They're proposed by the leadership who know what the base wants.
So Rupert is kind of like a hard party in waiting.
It just matters as to whether or not there's an electoral constituency large enough to either surpass reform or justify reform having to go into a coalition post-election with Rupert in order to guarantee a majority government.
This is going to be really tough, I think, but I think we should do it.
So obviously, Starmer slipping in the polls.
He's below the Tories now, which is hilarious.
We know some people, especially you all know some people, that are still tepidly pro-reform, or at least still viewing reform as the most viable political vehicle going forward for their ideas or our ideas collectively.
Can you attempt to, in lieu of Starmer's serious collapse here, can you attempt to steel man the patriot argument for reform as it stands right now, especially with the generic defection?
Oh, absolutely, because I know people within reform who are making this argument from a good place.
Matt Goodwin, for example, the very eloquent academic who, as far as candidates go to carry on or even surpass the Farah legacy, is a good one.
They're arguing that reform is a once-in-a-generation opportunity having gained the loyalty of the Red Wall.
So the equivalent of, I suppose, Trump sweeping all of the swing states, the left-behind places like Ohio and Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016.
Yeah.
Reform are going to win there basically no matter what because they're just voting reform as a protest vote against mass immigration and both Labor and Conservatives.
And Kirstalmer is now the most unpopular prime minister since records began.
Labor have slumped in the polls to the extent to where they may win between four and 14 seats.
So they're going to be beaten by the Green Party, right?
And they're just the...
They're Zora Mandani split into two people, genuinely.
The Green Party is led by a Muslim called Moffin Ali, who won a local council seat in 2024 and shouted, Allah Bar, this is for Gaza.
What that has to do with compost and recycling, I have no idea.
And then a guy called Zach Polanski, who is a gay hypnotist who changed his name to be more Jewish.
So very strange.
So they're going to win more seats than Labour.
The Liberal Democrats are probably going to be the opposition party because they're basically a party of Martha's Vineyard, essentially.
They're basically an English ethnic party, but they're the party of luxury police because they're like, refugees welcome, just not in my backyard.
Well, it's the same thing with in America with like Ezra Klein and like the abundance, they call it like abundance liberalism or whatever his piece was called.
Like it's the Yimby party where, yeah, these policies would be viable if we lived in a country that was stable, but we don't.
So it's just a waste of time to even pursue these policies.
When I see like the Ezra Klein abundance policies, when I see Lib Dems, it's like the same exact playbook where it's like, yeah, this would have been interesting in like 1950, but we're not there right now.
It's like the party of people that don't know what time it is.
Yeah, we want a Scandinavian social safety net, but not Scandinavian demographics.
I mean, good fucking willing.
But yeah, so the Steelman case is that you have the potential for these fractured left-wing parties, including now a large faction of conservatives who are today calling Robert Jenrick a pound shop Enoch Powell and thinking that that's not an endorsement.
It's not impossible that basically every party coalesces together to form a what the German parties called a firewall against the AFD, right?
So even the supposed center-right parties work with the Communist Party to keep you out.
So there is an argument that reform is the natural home for dispossessed native voters and low-propensity voters who have been driven to get involved in politics because of the state of the country and their hatred of both parties who have sold us down the river and the Greens and the Dems, of course.
And so you just need to focus on getting them in first and then put your differences aside until after victory you can debate within the coalition who gets rewarded through the patronage network, which policies put forward.
And you know what?
That's fairly compelling.
I would almost invert the argument, and this is the purpose of a lot of what I do, and this is why I think even if Rupert were to start his own thing, it would be successful even if it weren't electorally viable, is that all of my commentary is done presuming that reform are going to win.
And therefore, it's not a matter of they're going to win.
So it doesn't really matter if I'm just one voice atop everyone else in the country saying star masox because he does.
You don't need me to tell you that.
Instead, putting reform in the best position in order to govern when they win is more important.
So for example, demanding that their election manifesto, because we a bit like in the States, you don't have manifestos in the same way.
Like you'll announce policies, but you don't have like a full prospectus that you can just sit through and read.
And the reason we do that in the UK is because if it's not in your manifesto, then the House of Lords, the unelected appointed equivalent to your Senate, which the Senate was based on, back in the day, they can block bills that go through Parliament that weren't explicitly voted on by the electorate.
And so if reform wants to do radical stuff like repoliticize the civil service, hire and fire every civil servant, abolish the Supreme Court, deport every illegal immigrant, repeal loads of laws that go back to the 70s, even the 40s, they need to put that in their manifesto.
They need to not just justify it to the public, but they need to win with it written out.
And so I kind of exist to say you actually can't just become a conservative refugee camp.
You can't rehabilitate the careers of politicians that nobody likes.
You shouldn't be putting forward Muslim candidates and total grifters like Layla Cunningham.
And you should be proposing these policies like mass legal repeal or remigration.
Because if you don't propose them before the election, they're going to get blocked by the House of Lords, which currently has no reform peers in.
And so they're at a disadvantage.
So there is absolutely the case for people saying we still need to vote reform.
We need to focus on making reform the best it can be before the next election.
The way in which you force reform to conform to a set of political incentives that aren't just directed at them by the BBC and the other parties is what's up for debate.
Well, to shift gears here a bit, it's in theme with the show that we have in general, which is that the audience accepts our presupposition.
So that way we don't have to just explain to you why Starmer is bad, why Biden is bad.
Everyone knows these things.
I don't think it's productive to continue to just hammer on about these things.
I think what's more productive is to, again, presume that reform, presume that Trump are going to be in power going forward, and to then steer the discourse in a direction that's going to be more productive in pursuit of our goals.
And why that matters, what we're trying to do, obviously is correct some potential issues with our rhetoric or our discourse that could lead to really large misfires or backfires rather.
Something that I'm seeing that Farage has been doing for years, and you're seeing it now in lieu of the Minneapolis riots.
Again, we don't need to explain to you, like we know that the shooting was clean, et cetera, et cetera.
Like everyone at this point knows, I think it would be redundant to just give our take on the whole thing because it's going to be the same as everyone on the right.
Where I'm seeing a misstep from people on the right is they have this propensity, and Farage does the same thing, is to dance around what the issue actually is that everyone knows that's right in your face and to be what I call safe edgy, where it's like you can still deliver punchy commentary in a way that the average VR home goes, wow, this guy really does not give a rip.
He'll just say whatever without actually challenging something that would be a serious threat to the sort of liberal regime as it is.
And so what I'm seeing on the right in the U.S. right now, what they're doing is they're going all out on Karens.
They're going all out on the middle-aged liberal white woman.
And they're kind of positioning the liberal white woman as the biggest issue in the United States.
And they have some ammo.
Like Renee Good falls into this description, clearly someone that's just a bonehead and sort of emblematic of this type of phenotype that they're describing.
But I think it's a mistake to go all in on the liberal white woman as the biggest issue in the United States.
Because, for example, I'm from Memphis, Tennessee.
And when I think about the issues of what makes life difficult for a Memphian, not really thinking about liberal white women, not really thinking about Karens.
And I've received some flack from the Temcast audience for my defense of Karens, where I'm saying the original definition of Karen is just a white woman that's kind of uppity and like expects, you know, that has basic expectations of customer service and these sorts of things.
And I think attacking that phenotype is actually a mistake because we should be pursuing higher standards.
We should be frustrated with how bad things are getting in the United States.
Why would you attack one person that, okay, maybe they're a little too uppity from time to time?
But generally, they're trying to keep everyone in line.
And so what I'm seeing is people just continuing to rail on this liberal white woman phenotype.
And what they're doing is they're avoiding the issue that's driving this entire Minnesota scandal in the first place, which is mass migration or immigration broadly, and also like black crime.
I mean, this is the issue in Memphis is black crime fundamentally.
We had this discussion with the arena Zarutska situation where there was this moment where everyone across the right was on the same page.
Everyone was like, yes, we see this.
We're tired of it.
It's causing us so many problems and no one wants to address it.
The black community seems to blame external factors for this issue rather than having sort of an in-house discussion on, okay, maybe we have some serious cultural flaws, cultural issues.
But the only actual anecdote that the right seems to be able to provide is, again, blaming the liberal white woman or just the middle-aged white woman broadly.
When you look at middle-aged white women in the United States, as a voting bloc, they're either 45% Republican to 50% Republican.
If you look at a map, I'll put it on the screen of states if only white women voted only, I think it was just middle-aged white women or white women voted.
you would have a similar voting map to how the voting map actually turned out in 2024.
So it's just this weird, you've probably seen it with Farage, where Farage, I think, is the epitome of safe edgy, where he knows the issues that he can tackle, where he really postures himself as like this truth teller, kind of this tough guy, but he avoids the issues that are actually threatening to the liberal regime as it is.
I just don't perceive a universe in where liberals feel threatened by people just attacking middle-aged white women.
Are you seeing this?
What's your perception on this sort of safe edgy?
Do you agree with my consensus?
Do you agree that Karens are actually like the last thing standing between us and just total Brazilification of society?
So to add to your map, if you winnow the criteria down to married white women, it's overwhelmingly Republican.
So part of the problem is the sexual revolution and the definition of ourselves as self-authoring autonomous subjects who aren't defined by our relationships, but instead are desires independent of one another.
And I think that just drives men and women mental, but in very different ways.
And so if you've got women like Renee Goode, who is an outlier who was a widower, but then got in a lesbian relationship, just very, very strange.
And seems to have just been driven demented by the kind of ideology that MSNBC spews out to the extent of where she forfeits her life to protect Somali scammers.
And in the particular instance of the one that she was trying to thwart, the deportation of a child molester.
And look, even if it were, the answer is never to take the side of a people other than your own in any context, by the way, foreign affairs, domestic affairs.
And so if you're jumping aboard the kind of third world coded white women, am I right?
Sort of sentiment we've seen coming out of both the resentment of the manosphere, but also, again, as you said, the safe edgy critiques of the right, then you are neglecting your duty as a man to show leadership in your civilization, but also in your personal relationships.
Yes.
Because if there is a cohort of women in your country that are engaging in suicidal empathy, then it's your responsibility to mitigate that for their good, the good of all of their loved ones, the good of your civilization.
It's not, therefore, a license to replace them with base browns, because that is the mentality that you get out of a lot of the right.
When you said about Farall, she doesn't really do this with women, but he just goes, oh, the left, they're so intolerant.
They say, be kind.
And they're not actually, aren't they the real hypocrites?
And it's like, okay, Nigel, but you're currently astroturfing the one semi-based, like British values, brand safe immigrant who still uses the term far right as a pejorative to her critics and Leila Cunningham.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of crimes, like sex crimes, that are committed in London, for example, are committed by men who never needed to be in the country because they're either first generation or second generation immigrants.
And the disproportionate number of those are committed by Muslims, like Afghanis and Eritreans are like 20 times more likely to commit that kind of crime.
So you're obscuring the true nature of things.
And unless you get to the true nature of things, we can't solve those problems.
And they are all problems because they're all optional because those people just shouldn't be here.
And so don't throw your own people under the bus to not get called mean names by the people whose politics enables these atrocities in the first place.
And the final point on Karom, the reason it's a particularly annoying anti-white slur for me is because I remember Karen being used originally around the time of BLM to talk about white women who are policing the excesses of black behavior.
And it was used on women.
I remember one called the police on some cookout that was happening in a park.
And you do get this archetype of overly tone policing and that you get this archetype of women who will try and manage their own internal anxieties by managing your external behavior.
This is a problem, isn't it?
It's an excess of kind of like devouring mother behavior.
Don't get me wrong.
But it had a racial twinge to it when the meme was coined.
And proper place for Karens is as a civilization affirming force.
So they should be running women's institutions.
They should be telling you not to leave, you know, litter in your car or not to spit chewing gum out on the street or to ensure that everyone gets a refund on the flight when it's delayed, for example.
Like they should be with Dave Green made this point.
He has an excellent podcast for everyone that doesn't watch it called Fiddler's Green.
He does it every like two weeks.
Phenomenal.
My favorite show.
In his most recent episode, he spoke about this particular shooting and he said, what you have to understand is progressivism has displaced tradition and Christianity and parasitized women's natural desire to be the enforcer of rules and derive emotional satisfaction from that rule set.
It's gone from saying, you said grace a meal properly, improperly, and you should, you know, say penance for that, to you didn't do a land acknowledgement before Thanksgiving and isn't Thanksgiving itself kind of racist anyway.
So you have to understand that if you just substitute the ruling morality and therefore the incentive structure, you'll get a preference cascade.
And the personality temperament that causes a Karen to enforce rules will actually be for a pro-civilizational force rather than an anti-civilizational force.
And so stop scapegoating white women when they aren't necessarily the problem.
I get a bit frustrated with conservatives where they literally chalk up every issue in regards to women, to men not leading, because that happens a lot, and especially in regards to relationship dynamics.
But I think this is an instance where that would actually be the accurate prescription, which is, no, this is because men are purposely vacating space in which they're failing to address the actual issue that is sort of driving this, it's driving the civilizational decline broadly.
Again, it's men, politicians specifically, refusing to just endorse mass deportations, refusing to, again, police black communities, these sorts of things.
And then that's when, like you're like you were saying, like Dave Green was saying, is, yeah, this, this propensity for these women with this personality types to actually deploy it in a useful manner, like where they should just be sort of terrorizing a retail worker for screwing up their order.
Instead, they're using it and weaponizing it in HR departments or as the college advisors and these sorts of things.
And it's just a massive self-own because like you said, and I think this is a really important point, is the term Karen was really originally weaponized again by like black activists during the BLM riots.
I mean, before it was just kind of a joke, like it wasn't even really a nasty term.
Like people were just using it broadly to describe like Elizabeth Warren or something, which is accurate.
But yeah, you're never, we make this point on the show all the time.
You're never actually going to beat the left by entering their ecosystem and then trying to beat them at their own game.
You always have to pull them into your domain and then beat them there.
And they already hate Karens.
They already hate middle-aged white women for a variety of reasons.
Why grant them that?
Like, why give them that presupposition?
Why accept their framing and then try to beat them at that game?
It's like, yeah, Renee Goode was a Karen.
It's like, okay, the question is, what drove someone like Renee Goode to put her life down for Somali scammers in the first place?
I think that would be the issue we should be addressing instead of, again, just like attacking sort of a natural feminine trait, which is, again, sort of policing behavior to a degree.
I mean, that's what they do with children and that's what they do as like teachers and these sorts of things.
It's just a massive self-blunder from my perspective.
And again, just to go back to it, that's the fault of men.
That's the fault of men just, again, pursuing safe, edgy topics.
It's like, oh, wow, you're attacking middle-aged white women.
Yeah, I'm sure that's a serious threat to the liberal regime who already hates middle-aged white women for being white.
Like, we're not making any progress here.
If anything, we're going backwards.
We should be, again, sort of uplifting women in that regard.
Again, you can, there's plenty of meat on the bone to critique someone like Renee Goode.
But the point you made, I mean, she's an outlier.
She's an exception.
And the exception doesn't disprove the norm, which when this tendency is properly deployed in a, again, stable society, there's actually a very useful tendency.
Yeah, so I want to pick up on something there because you said, of course, there's been a lot of critiques on the right for saying it's just men's fault for not leading their relationships, which is why, you know, you can't lament the condition of modern women because it's men that have got to step up.
I think the neat middle ground to cleave between that and also blaming all women is to say in personal relationships and in politics and on either respective political side, don't allow the anxieties of the most unhinged women to lead the conversation.
Whether that's women's getting into altercations with ICE, because what they're trying to do classically is enforce moral rules via progressive orthodoxy, just being their software code in this instance.
Whereas they forget that, well, women enforce the rules, men enforce the boundaries in which the rules are made with violence.
So forgetting that has decoupled them.
And that's why you get, you know, the Reddit soy boys on the side of the row shouting, bro, you did a murder for what?
Like, it's just, okay.
You've never engaged in a fight in your life, and I can tell.
Whereas in the inverse, and this is, I hate like e-celeb drama stuff.
In the inverse, you get the sudden defection of Ashley Sinclair to the left and denouncing the anti-trans ideology books that she wrote.
And it's because clearly the people that are least emotionally stable and are out for soothing their own anxieties or aggrandizing themselves are very fickle in their loyalties and principles.
And so you shouldn't, on the right, we shouldn't be so eager to bring women over and find a proper place for women on the right during the sort of gender slot faction wars where men are going traditional and women more progressive, especially in my country.
We shouldn't be so eager to have role models that lead a preference cascade for women towards the right that you adopt people with the same temperament of the likes of a Renee Good to then come over and set the terms for how the right engage with the left.
What it should be instead is saying no overall to civilizational shit tests imposed by emotionally incontinent women.
Not all women, but there are emotionally incontinent and outspoken women.
And both Carl Benjamin and Mary Harrington in a recent piece framed the sort of TikToks that lots of women do, calling Trump a fascist and basically scaremongering about jack boots being on the streets and kicking down the doors and kidnapping random families and these altercations that these liberal female activists are adding with ICE as a kind of provocation for the return of what they think of patriarchy is,
which is male authority, which is basically saying, I feel insecure right now.
My anxieties are getting a hold of me.
I am going to cause trouble until someone sets a boundary because my rules aren't keeping me safe.
And so what needs to happen broadly is, yes, women need to enforce rules and those rules need to be based on a healthy system.
That's just the functional women.
That's the proper place of women is to enforce moral rules with children and other women.
But men need to set those boundaries.
And if we haven't set those boundaries on the right, if we haven't, as Curtis Johnfen once said, got a plan to actually own the libs, like tell them what to do.
If we haven't figured out how to incorporate them yet, then as you said, we've got no one but ourselves to blame.
Well, because women are going to follow the incentive structures that exist and then tighten ranks around them versus men who, again, a man in a healthy condition is going to be disagreeable.
And that's a good thing.
They are the ones that actually define what those incentive structures are.
So the question is, is it the women's fault for, again, just naturally following the incentive structures, which they have done?
That's how women are engineered.
They've done this for 6,000 years.
This is just how the world works.
Or is it the fault of the men who ultimately are the ones that determine what the incentive structures are and what they are going to reward?
So men, obviously, being the ones defining the incentive structures as we've pointed out.
The question is the Trump response to Minneapolis.
This is something we've debated on IRL here on Timcast.
I've made these arguments on the morning show.
There actually is a diverse set of opinions on exactly how the Trump administration has responded because we have to keep in mind the entire thing that kicked off this entire fiasco in Minneapolis was Nick Shirley walking around Minneapolis with a camera and pointing at the most egregious in-your-face forms of fraud you've ever seen in your entire life.
I made the point on the show last night, similar to the George Floyd riots, where if that guy working the counter at that gas station would have just taken that $20 bill, we would have mitigated this entire situation.
It's the same thing.
If that person would have just spelled learning correctly on that sign, we probably, Renee Goode would be alive today just terrorizing her HOA board.
So like we could have mitigated this entire situation if we just had a little more leeway from these people.
If cousin marriage hadn't made the entire Somali diaspora intergenerationally dyslexic, there wouldn't be an insurrection being fomented in Minnesota right now.
Actually, you know what?
This is a life update.
The most radicalizing thing I've ever seen was re-watching Jingle All the Way over Christmas and realizing it's set in Minneapolis.
The peak of race relations was Sinbad getting the action figure at the end of the movie for his son, while Lord Schwarzenegger is like hoisted on the shoulders of a crowd championed as the best dad in the world for being Turbo Man.
Yeah, I mean, that's a good point is like the 90s, you know, a lot of people, especially Gen Xers, always perceive the 90s as this peak of civilization, but they also perceive 90s as the peak of race relations.
I mean, we had the LA riots and these sorts of things, but people generally felt like that was the moment where white and black people kind of finally understood each other.
And the interesting thing is they understood their very different cultures, but they kind of had come to an understanding.
And I actually agree with that presupposition.
It did feel like things were at its peak.
But what people, I don't think they accurately prescribe what happened when it broke down as part of it was, again, you just introduced a whole different, like a whole bunch of other groups into the country that began warring over the levers of power.
And so suddenly, you know, white and black people couldn't focus their, like, and the entire media apparatus couldn't focus their bandwidth on race relations just between white and black people.
Suddenly we had like Asians in the mix and Indians and Mexicans and it caused a lot of problems.
And so I think that actually could be maybe an outcome of mass migration as it actually could in a way contribute to the sort of, I guess, decline or understanding between white and black people that we're seeing again in the United States.
I don't know if there's something to that.
That's just a thesis that I've come up with after hearing about your anecdote about Sinbad and Arnold Schwarzenegger having this wholesome chungist moment at the end of Jimmy Little Way, but it's so true.
But yeah, it's when you watch these movies from the 90s, like the Home Alone movie, and the house is this beautiful, like colonial style home.
And then you see the picture of what they've done to it now.
The millennials got their paws on it and they just like ripped out everything, the banisters they ripped out, all the beautiful woodwork.
There's so much meat on the bone there of, again, going back to like the anxiety of people where they need everything to be clean and they need everything to be as innocuous as possible so they don't have to like think about it.
That's an interesting route we could go down.
But back to the original question of the Trump administration's response to Minneapolis.
So this entire thing obviously starts over the most egregious fraud you've ever seen in your entire life.
And Kirsty Noam correctly, I would say, deploys 3,000 DHS agents to mop up the situation.
Like, oh my gosh, we knew it was bad, but we didn't know it was like this bad.
Floods the place of DHS agents, causes protests, which is going to happen because leftists really just are keen on replacing themselves because they have this suicidal tendency.
Self-hatred is baked into the pie.
DHS floods the scene.
And then obviously this ICE involved shooting happens.
This is the question is a lot of people on the right.
I may get some flag for this, but a lot of people on the right are clamoring for the Insurrection Act to be invoked.
And I think I generally agree with that.
But to steel man the Trump administration's position so far is once you play that card, the Insurrection Act card, what you say to the left is, anytime you guys get out of line, we're just going to deploy the Trump card and we're just going to go all in and stamp it out, which in this instance, after they're stealing firearms on the back of federal vehicles and seizing documents like in Slenderman, you know, they're collecting papers on the street.
There's something to be said about like, okay, maybe it is time to invoke the Insurrection Act.
But to steel man the Trump administration's thinking so far, and Pat Casey outlined this really well when he was on my show last Monday.
That episode is up on the Culture War.
If we can mop this up with the three-letter agencies and force these left-wing governors into line without using the Insurrection Act, that's a bigger victory than just going all in, invoking the Insurrection Act, and just stomping this out.
Because again, that's not going to necessarily teach them a lesson.
If anything, that might actually give them more ammo.
They can say, wow, if we get out of line, the government has to use the Insurrection Act.
There might be this resistance might be more formidable than we initially perceived.
I don't know what your perception is, especially coming, you know, out looking from the outside in.
But for me, that line of thinking makes sense from the Trump administration because that seems to be where their head is at thus far.
If you pull the trigger on the Insurrection Act, then you're going to have to be prepared to fight that metaphorical, hopefully, but war on multiple fronts.
Chicago, California, they're going to throw their toys out the crown and they're going to block further deportations.
Pritzker Pritzker is, yeah, he is eyeing up deploying Chicago's own National Guard to fight the federal government like it's a 12-pack of donuts.
So you've got to be ready for that risk.
I mean, the winning conditions for Minnesota, I would assume, is the ridding of Congress of Ilhan Omar and her denaturalization and deportation.
If you can't get that done within the next couple of years, there is going to be nothing that the Trump government has no point.
There's no political consequences for ethnically gerrymandering your state and seemingly breaking the law on the immigration and asylum system while also insulting the heritage and identity of America and promising to use its government structure to redistribute funds to your ethnic cartel.
Like she just has to go, preferably in the least comfortable plane with no window seat possible.
So she needs to go.
Tim Waltz needs to face consequences for this because he seems to be at the heart of the Minnesota Democrat political machine.
He seems to have boasted about redistributing all of these funds, these fake daycares, and these medical transport and health insurance scams.
And he has repeatedly suggested that a hot war could break out and he's prepared to deploy Minnesota National Guard to shoot people.
Okay, that's sedition.
Are we going to punish that?
And I understand that that might require going in with the Insurrection Act.
So you need to be prepared to do that.
But Waltz just can't be there.
Because remember, everyone, he was nearly vice president.
Like, yeah, it wasn't that far off.
Half the country still voted for that Muppet, quite literally.
He looks like a Jim Henson character.
Looks like Hoggle shave.
And then what you want ultimately is the removal of pretty much every Somali from the United States.
Like, the reason that Iron HussiLE is a complete outlier is because Somalia doesn't look Iron HussiLE, and Minneapolis now looks like Somalia.
So it turns out that if you can judge this entire nation on the content of their character and the diaspora, it turns out that the content of their character comes up wanting.
So what people have to realize is in order to actually accurately punish this mass, not just financial, but probably immigration visa fraud network, it's going to look like collective punishment.
It's not actually going to be collective punishment if you conduct it properly, but it's going to look like it, the mass expulsion of an entire community.
And people need to steal their nerves for that because this will own it.
It's going to be the same in the UK with Pakistanis, for example, after the grooming gang scandal.
This will only be the first sort of mass expulsion event in order to save the demographics and culture of your country.
We're not just talking about the economics here because they're plumbering the treasury.
This will be the first mass expulsion event.
And the Trump administration also needs to prepare themselves for this.
And this is going to be a serious third rail.
But Nick Shirley hasn't been the only one investigating this.
Tyler Olivera put out this video today.
I don't know if you've seen anything about it.
Where he's going to a New York neighborhood and it's a lot of Hasidic Jews who seem to be brazenly ripping off the American taxpayer with none of the men working, all of them having like eight to 18 kids, and they're all on welfare.
And it's going to cause a headache for identity interest groups who are close to the Trump administration.
And hey, you know, that's just American politics.
If there are large ethnic groups situated in American states who have countries of their own and instead are not contributing anything to the country and are just taking money from the hardworking American taxpayer who can't afford to have their own families when they're having disproportionately larger families and therefore playing into demographic replacement, then the Trump administration needs to be ready to crack down on that, no matter the identity-based political backlash that they're going to receive.
And my concern is that the administration doesn't currently have the competent personnel nor the stomach to do so.
I mean, your first point, Minnesota, I think the stakes are actually sky high here.
I think this sets the tone for the next three years, which is why you need to drag Tim Waltz into a courthouse.
There is no question about that.
That is the victory condition.
Elon Omar denaturalization deportation.
Again, that is the win condition.
And then, yeah, on your point of the Tyler Olivera video, it's something people don't want to talk about.
They don't want to touch because, again, it just, there's a lot of moving parts here, a lot of conflicting interest groups.
But what you're describing, there's this town, Monroe, New York.
It's an upstate New York.
This is actually red.
This is a red area.
A group of Hasidics from Brooklyn moved up there.
This was like 30, 40 years ago.
And they formed this little enclave near this town or right next to this town of Monroe.
But again, like you said, they have 12 kids of pop, so they're doubling their population every 10 years.
They literally incorporated a town with the state of New York under like a town charter, which hasn't happened in like 20, 30 years, formed this town called Curious Joel.
And if you ask anybody in upstate New York that lives in that area, they will tell you these, they are causing issues.
They are causing problems.
Like you said, I mean, they have higher welfare participation rates in Curious Joel than every Native American reservation in the United States.
And Native Americans famously are like on government subsidies en masse.
So it's a serious, serious issue.
And this is going to cause problems because it's really complicated for Republicans because Hasidics vote as a bloc and they've been voting for the Republican Party.
And obviously Trump really wants to see New York fall into the red column.
I think probably every Republican would like to see that.
There's a lot of electoral college votes on the table there.
How do you navigate that?
How do you advocate for Americans?
Because again, these Hasidic, these Hasidics that have moved there and have taken over this town and really just ruined the lives for anyone that wanted to, again, live in Monroe going forward.
How do you navigate that?
Because it's like you're going to potentially commit an act that would be extremely politically inexpedient in the long term in the state of New York, but you have to do that because if you're going to advocate for Americans, then you have to do this.
So a lot of moving parts, a lot of questions.
I think we could probably get into that in another episode, but keep an eye.
Go watch the Tallery Olivera video and read up on it.
It's a really fascinating scenario.
But with that, I think we need to wind down the show.
Thank you very much for watching, everybody.
It's good to be back.
It's good to be back here in 2026.
Again, I'm not black belt.
I think 2026 is going to be a big year.
This show is going to grow.
We have a lot of plans in the works for what we want to do with the show.
And this is, I think, the year for Across the Bond for Patriots globally.
You can follow me on X and Instagram at Realtate Brown.
And again, we are here every weekend.
Episodes going up on Connor's channel as well as the Tim Tool channel.
We'll keep you updated if any changes happen going forward.
Well, they can follow me on YouTube at Connor Tomlinson on Substack at Conor Tomlinson on the publication, Thomason Talks, and on X. When is Walking again at Con underscore Thomason?
And I just wanted to say, sir, it's good to be back.