John Sweeney (Scrumpmonkey) is a content creator and internet personality in his spare time, and an engineer in real life. He cut his teeth streaming about culture war issues with the likes of Sargon of Akkad, but has since graduated to more serious topics.Evelyn Grant is an economics graduate, occasional guest on The Academic Agent and outspoken advocate for a revolutionary mindset on The Right. Some people call her “The Blackpill Dinner Lady.” Together they co-host a podcast on Youtube and Substack, as well as hosting events in real life via Nomos Events.
Telegram: http://t.me/EvScr123Substack: https://antipolitics.substack.com/Evelyn's Twitter: https://twitter.com/dg115511John Twitter: https://twitter.com/NomosEvents
↓ ↓ ↓
Today's podcast is in association NutraHealth365 who manufacture a superb high potency Vitamin D3 supplement called ImmuneX365.
As we approach winter, your body's defences are under constant attack from flu, respiratory diseases and the common cold. So now, more than ever, is it essential that you have a robust immune system and as we all know, Vitamin D3 plays an essential role in this.
ImmuneX365 is an exclusive and unique formulation that combines effective levels of Vitamins D3, C, and K2, as well as Zinc and Quercetin.
This unique combination of nutrients ensures efficient bioavailability of D3, thereby giving your immune system an optimum boost.
Take back your health with just two capsules of ImmuneX365 every day.
For your peace of mind, all NutraHealth365 orders come with free two day tracked delivery, Go to
http://NutraHealth365.com
to get yours now."
https://nutrahealth365.com/
\ \ \ \ \ \
If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn't in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours. https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold
/ / / / / /
Earn interest on Gold:
https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/
/ / / / / /
Buy James a Coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
- Welcome to the Dellingpod, with me, James Dellingpole.
I'm the Dellingpod, and I'm the Dellingpod, and I'm the Dellingpod.
I'm the Dellingpod, and I'm the Dellingpod.
I'm the Dellingpod, and I'm the Dellingpod, and I'm the Dellingpod, And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I really am.
Welcome to The Delling Pod, Scrump and Evelyn.
Hello!
Now I think the good thing is that this is my first podcast that I've recorded in the new year and actually we're doing it on on New Year's Day.
neutrahealth365.com A lot of you have been really enjoying their product and I think it's the perfect present to buy yourself to start the new year.
The gift of health.
NeutralHealth365.com do a vitamin D3 supplement with K2.
The two things, vitamin D3 and K2, work together and they really boost your immune system.
I've said before, and I'm not a doctor, but I think I'm right, If people had taken this stuff before the alleged pandemic, I think a lot fewer people would have got this COVID bug that is allegedly going around.
Anyway, the people behind neutrahealth365.com are our people.
They're completely onside, they're completely awake, and I really hope you can support their product.
Go to their website to read all up about vitamin D3 and K2 and all the benefits from it.
They also do a supplement to improve your creaky joints which I'm quite interested to try as well.
I've been taking their vitamin D3 and K2 and so far it has protected me from all the nasty bugs going around so I'm really happy with it.
They were offering at the moment they're offering a free two-day tracked delivery on all orders and you get up to 20% off if you buy any three.
It's also worth noting that if you were to buy each of the components individually from the high street they could cost you up to five times as much.
Anyway, their best-selling product is Immune X365 high-strength vitamin D capsule which contains not just 4000 IU of vitamin D3 but also zinc, quercetin and vitamin K2.
You can get it all at NutraHealth365.com.
Please support them.
All our sponsors deserve your support and the product is good.
I've been taking it and I can vouch for it.
Yeah, I'm expecting double time for this.
I'm thinking that we don't We don't have to stress ourselves.
It's going to be some idle chit-chat and it's going to meander and ramble.
I never normally do.
Normally, as you know, I do a lot of research and I prepare my questions in advance.
But I think today, you know, I'm just going to, for a change, I'm just going to chat shit, as I believe the phrase is.
What do young people call it?
Chat... No, it's not... Chatting shit is something else, isn't it?
What's it called when you just kind of... Shitposting.
Yes.
Verbally shitposting.
Okay.
Okay.
As long as you're not posting coal, I believe.
That's what the kids say.
That's a bit Zoomer-ish, though, I'm afraid.
Posting what?
Posting coal, as the kids say.
Oh, posting coal.
Oh, I like that.
What does it mean?
Sometimes something takes a lot of pressure and a lot of energy to build, and sometimes it's a gem, and other times it's coal.
It's coal?
Like digging for diamonds but only finding coal?
Oh, I see, coal!
Okay, so the young generation are still familiar with coal, are they?
I thought they would have been told that energy comes from wind now, and solar.
Some of them are.
Some of them are very familiar with Colt.
So I first came upon your work listening to a fascinating podcast you did about, well I know Douglas Murray was mentioned in it, and you were talking about, I got the impression that you have no faith In the British political system at all, you recognise that they're all a bunch of puppets.
Is that, does that sum up your views?
That's about the gist of it, yes.
Yeah, that is about the long and short of it.
I believe you're watching some of the arc we did where we're basically just digging into a lot of the Tufton Street stuff.
A lot of the think tanks, a lot of the policy exchange, Henry Jackson society, all those people.
Yes!
Why don't we start there?
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, we can start there.
I don't know whether either of you is aware of my own personal trajectory in that five years ago even even less actually maybe even four years ago i would have been going yay tufton street i I love the IEA.
The IEA boys and girls, they're so sound.
They believe in free markets and they're just like me, but they work for a think tank.
And Tufton Street in London, it's the kind of hub where all the brightest and best people who can't get proper jobs instead write papers and get paid money.
And that's the kind of job I'd like.
And now I'm thinking... You bunch of...
Bedwetters.
Well, no, actually, they're worse.
They're bed shitters, aren't they?
Sorry about the bad language and all you Christian listeners, but I think it does sum up what the free market think tanks did in the course of that thing that some people call the pandemic, which we know wasn't, but they all sort of failed in their duty to sort of stand up for free markets and liberty and small government and ended up They did.
A lot of our research found that they were all really taking money either directly from the UK Home Office, in the case of the Henry Jackson Society.
They took just £80,000 directly from the Home Office.
No intermediary, nothing.
They just gave them the money directly.
For what?
Was it specified the purpose?
No, it was for being the Henry Jackson Society and basically funnelling Tory policy back to the Tories.
They were very lazy with it.
I will say there was a number of incidents where the Henry Jackson Society, through its connections to its American partnership, also called the Henry Jackson Society.
Confusingly.
Yes, was able to set up meetings for prominent Tory positions to go and speak to, sort of Washington DC think tank types and sell themselves there as these sort of great thinkers and leaders.
So there was obviously some sort of handshake kind of deal going on there with that.
But as John was saying, I mean, not to go on a sidetrack, but there was a sort of point, especially just coming out of lockdown, where in the way that things are being framed in the media, things being framed by certain people that are part of media organisations either directly run or run cooperatively with the Tory party.
I mean, the classics, the Torygraph or the Telegraph, as we all know about it.
But then you also have the appearance of GB News.
All this whole new sort of anti-woke culture becomes popularised in an effort to politicise a whole new group of people.
And we saw this stuff and thought, well that's not just emergent.
There's a plan being sort of unveiled here to some extent and it's probably our duty to research the people involved in setting a lot of this up.
And that ended up leading to researching, as we said, the Henry Jackson Society.
Policy exchange.
And some of the other groups like Legatum Institute that exist to fund these think tanks.
And then of course the individual involved, like Douglas Murray, who was a bit of a naughty boy in that he was folded into Tufton Street from being an Israeli lobbyist.
He used to be part of something called Just Journalism all the way back in 2009.
He was effectively being paid by the Israeli lobby to do correct-the-record style stuff for the Israeli state.
And a lot of people have been like, oh, why is someone as based as Douglas Murray gone around shilling so much for Israel?
Well, that's why.
If you actually start looking into these people, their organisations, who they represent and where their money comes from, what they say makes a lot more sense.
Right.
Sorry, when was he being paid by the Israelis?
It's not quite clear where all the money was coming from but he was directly involved in, if you look it up, it was folded into the Henry Jackson Society but Douglas Murray from 2009 I believe until 2011 worked for an outfit called Just Journalism which was directly meant to challenge narratives that were counter to Israeli interest in the media.
That was its entire remit.
That is very interesting because 2009 is a long time ago.
I think a lot of people Loosely on our side of the argument.
Imagine that it just happened in the last three years that previously sound, wonderful, trenchant, outspoken, sound-based commentators suddenly decided to throw their credibility out of the window and start pushing policies and championing causes which are inimical to the sort of things you'd expect them to be championing.
But you're saying, no, The thing is, all this information is public, which is what makes it so interesting, that they do this in the open, effectively.
And they rely on the veil of secrecy, and really the veil of boringness in many cases, of the Tofton Street bubble.
And all these people, they cycle round, They'll be in one think tank, then another think tank, they'll be in the Telegraph, they'll be in the Spectator, they'll be a Tory policy advisor.
It's basically UBI for Tory insiders.
It is the wider Tory party.
And this is provable.
This is not just us talking.
We go through great pains in our work to show these connections and show how these connections are all already public.
Well, I was going to suggest as well, think about what's happening at that time.
2009 to 2011, you see what is the emergence of Cameronite conservatism come out into the public foray.
They have spent, you know, the period from 1997 onwards in the wilderness and have had to build something so that, you know, especially having watched Blair come in with all these plans and all these projects that they wanted to will upon the people.
They obviously had to have their own version of this.
They had to have these new, fresh ideas and this is where, as you were saying, IEA and these libertarian think tanks and Adam Smith Institute got a big bolstering in this period.
And then as Cameron gets elected, well hey, we bring all this stuff out and we have compassionate conservatism, we're no longer the nasty party.
It's Douglas Murray and his involvement in things like the Henry Jackson Society alongside a lot of other people, as you were sort of alluding to yourself, really is a consequence of them being all bolstered to sort of build that kind of moment.
And, well, yeah, can you explain what the purpose of all this is?
Just give you a sort of lead into this one.
There was a point, I can't remember exactly when it was, two or three years ago, when I realised that the culture wars were a distraction.
They were there to enable supposedly right-wing commentators to sound edgy and outspoken and against the system, while simultaneously ignoring all the things that really matter.
Is that analysis correct, first of all?
Yes.
What we found was that it's people like Tim Montgomery, who founded UnHerd, but was also part of the compassionate conservative movement with the Center for Social Justice.
It's all the same people, it's all the same power brokers who set up the Cameronite wave of Equality Act conservatism.
It is a policing of rightward movement, it is a policing of the new state of the Tory party.
Very explicitly in some cases that these people came out, they were proud of what they did.
A lot of what you'll see recorded in that period on places like Conservative Home is them bragging about how they did this, how they took over the Tory party.
That is really, you know, I mean I wish in a way we'd recorded this podcast When I cared more about this not being rude, but but I do I do remember in the days when I considered myself part of the conservative commentariat.
I remember looking around and thinking hang on a second.
How come whenever a new supposedly alternative supposedly more right-wing platform emerges.
It's always, all the articles it runs are so disappointingly limp.
And how is it that Tim Montgomery is such a ghastly dripping wet?
How is it that these people become the kind of, the voice, well the voices of conservatism.
It made no sense to me.
You are beginning now to help me understand what went on.
I mean, where did Tim Montgomery come from?
Does he even have a conservative bone in his body that...
He's a functionary.
And from our research, it just seems he's somebody who's good at organizing.
Our belief and our ethos is that the people who are nominally in charge, who are the power brokers, are not ideological.
They believe in nothing, as most of the elite class do today.
They don't believe in anything.
And therefore, they're all just playing musical chairs.
They're all figuring out how people get paid.
And as to how it is containment, as to how it contains further rightward movement, it does it by being the only people willing to pay.
I mean, if you're a right-wing commentator and you're not on the teat of any of these organisations, who's paying you?
And the answer really is nobody, because they have filled the space.
It's about filling space.
It's about having the entire conversation be controlled from the upward part.
And the involvement of people like Tim Montgomery, as a WET, but as an organiser, is a real hat-tip to this.
I still have people who share with me unheard articles about, oh well, this is great, this is based, aren't they talking about this?
But all I can see is a tentacle of the Tory party, knowing what I know, knowing where the money came from, because the money came from, it was Tim Montgomery is the ideas guy, but... The Marshall and Waste Foundation.
The Marshall and Waste Foundation is involved in things like GB News and UnHerd as well, and it's all the same money, it's all the same people, and you get the same results.
Marshall is the guy who is the father of the guy from the banjo band, isn't it?
Mumford and Sons.
Mumford and Sons.
Mumford and Sons, yes.
And so that too is part of the PSYOP, the son that was kicked out of Out of Mumford and Sons for being too edgy and now... They're just part of the elite class.
Yeah, the thing is, I don't think it's even part of a psyop.
I just think these people all know each other.
They all move in the same circles.
It's a very, very small circle.
And I will say to those people that...
I know people in your circles, and we know what you get up to, and that's really why we started looking into these people, because it's hard to find a starting point.
It's hard to know where people are, who's doing what, but once you start pulling it up, it's like a root system.
Oh yeah, I think maybe for a little bit of perspective and context, you know, I like to think the stuff that we do is good and stands up for itself and a lot of people think it's important, but at the end of the day, we're politically nobodies.
We aren't connected to any major organisation, we have no real tap towards any sort of mainstream front.
However, even in the little circles we revolve in, we notice these people coming in.
We notice the sort of consolidation of their talking points, and especially as we've begun to do our own events and try and move people ourselves, we've begun to understand how hard it is To organise anything political and make people move.
You know, you've got to have the messaging, you've got to have the organisation that the messaging can speak to.
You've then got to move people into that and then get them to do something on top of this.
This just doesn't happen.
There is plans and there is resources required for that to happen.
So the other guy was Paul Marshall, who's behind UnHerd?
Yes.
Yes.
Paul Marshall, who was the dad of the strummer.
Yes, yes.
Or whatever role he plays.
Do you know what?
I actually really liked that Mumford & Sons album before it came out.
There was a weird thing.
This is just a complete digression.
I don't know whether you're aware, I used to be a music critic and I used to get loads and loads of free CDs.
Every week.
And it was quite interesting.
Most CDs would be released and albums would either do really well or they would just disappear.
But two albums I remember which took a really, really, really, really, really long time from release to becoming enormous.
One of them was the first Mumford & Sons album.
I mean it really did nothing for a very long time and the other was the killers first album Which I was playing for I would say getting on for nine months and loving before it before it took off Anyway, that complete complete digression Why do you think it is?
Because I I used to sort of covet being part of this world I mean, I I think if you are director of the IEA As Mark Littlewood.
Is it Mark Littlewood?
Yeah.
Yes, I think so.
I knew who all these people were and now I've kind of lost interest in their world and these people.
I just don't see them anymore.
That's one thing I actually, we sort of use as maybe a little bit of a standard when we do our research.
How replaceable are these people?
You know, the Darren Grimes, the Tom Harwoods of this world, those people are replaceable.
You know, they are probably pre-compromised on their way into the media scene and they can be burnt up and replaced in a moment's notice.
But, as we say, someone like a Paul Marshall or, you know, some of the people at Legatum, these sort of institutions that are slightly shadier, slightly further behind, but ultimately live in a much longer time span, these people aren't replaceable, and they are obviously what's left of the competent element of the Conservative Party that wants to make its organisation Carry on.
Especially in the period we're about to go into.
We all know they're going to lose and I think we can already see that they are attempting to reach out to what I would refer to as dissidents for energy and ideas and support because we are a possible client group to them.
Right, but you don't think it's... It's...
You say that ultimately the funding people, the marshals of this world are, to all intents and purposes, apolitical.
They don't have any values.
They just want to have at least a couple of fingers on the levers of power.
They want a foot in the door.
But you mean to say that, is there an alternative world where, an alternative reality where they ended up sort of financing people like me who, you know, as I was five years ago, where there really were kind of libertarian free market policies being forced through?
I mean, yes, quite possibly, but it's a dead end street because we know libertarianism doesn't go anywhere.
Well, that's true.
Well, it is that they pick people up, like you, or even people like us.
A lot of them come out of university as well.
They pick them up as soon as they come out of university.
And really, there's all these wide-eyed people who go into this world thinking, I'm going to change it.
I'm going to compromise them.
They're not going to compromise me.
And it never happens, because they end up signing their paychecks.
And as soon as somebody says something that is not in line with the program, they are either given a talking to until not to do it again, or they just disappear and are replaced by somebody else.
Because everyone wants to work in media.
Everyone wants to be a podcaster.
But because of that, it's such a crowded market, you can't make money from it.
So everyone wants a teat to suckle from.
And that is how all this works.
All they do is they get you on teat, and then you're done.
That's you compromised.
Because as soon as you do talk out of turn, They're your paymasters.
They sign your paychecks and you will do as you're told.
That's how all this works.
All they do is just capture people and take up space.
And we find it over and over and over and over and over again that someone will come out, a new commentator will come out, and they've worked for policy exchange.
They've been through the Henry Jackson Society.
They've written for CapEx, which is really just an arm of the Tory party itself.
They build up, they manufacture experts this way.
If you have somebody who comes out of university, you know this world quite well.
The first thing they'll do is they'll maybe give them a very junior position at a think tank, and they'll let them write something in the Spectator, something minor, and then suddenly you're not just Joe Bloggs straight out of, you know, university somewhere, you're a Spectator columnist, and you're a junior member of Policy Exchange, or any of these places, and then maybe you get on some people's podcasts, and then maybe you're in CapEx in Conservative Home, which is really just a Conservative party, and then maybe you're a Conservative councillor.
And just through all of these little arms of the Tory party, they can manufacture you as an expert, as a politician, in any kind of way, in any kind of field.
That's where these people come from.
There is a pipeline here, and it's because they all control these different places.
If you see someone's CV and you think, oh, they've been in The Spectator, They've worked, they've written for Conservative Home, they're a junior researcher for Policy Exchange.
You think that this person's done something, but a lot of this time it only exists, a lot of the time it only exists on paper, and these people, most of them are cousins, kind of nephews, daughters, sons of other people in the elite class.
And that is how they pipeline themselves into our political space, into distant political spaces, is they manufacture legitimacy for themselves.
And people who are jobbing podcasters, who might just have a small audience, or people who are jobbing writers, go, wow, this person works for Spectator.
They get paid to be based.
I want to be paid to be based.
And before they know it, they're writing tepid nonsense that's edited to death by some Spectator editor.
It's all very boring, really, but that's how they get you.
Wow.
I was going to say, I think that the head of the IEA, I think he's on at least 350,000 a year.
And I imagine that the ones that, you know, people like Chris Snowden and, you know, long-haired German, whatever his name is, I used to know their names, these people, Christian, no, Christian Nemitz?
Yes.
Yeah.
Who used to write sort of edgy pieces about why socialism doesn't work, and then Christopher Snowden does pieces about why fags are kind of cool, and how they want to stop you drinking, and you kind of get along with this, you think this is great, yeah, more of this please, but it's not real is it?
A lot of it's just chattering, and as you said, there is definitely an outer limit to it.
There is a point that you go, and you can go no further, and that is very deliberate.
They have set that up very consciously.
Who is they?
The people who exist in this.
The Tim Montgomery's of this world, the Matt Goodwin's, all of these.
In a lesser extent, people like the Dinesh D'Souza's as well.
They all talk to each other.
All of the people who are these conservative commentators, they enforce the outer limits of what can be talked about.
You see it quite a lot.
You see it when one of them goes rogue and they all pile in.
I saw this.
I experienced this myself in America.
I went to one of those Evenings, I can't remember a particular night of week where they all gather at some, was it a Dinnish to Sousa or somebody like that?
Some awful Turning Point event or something.
It was like Turning Point, this was pre-Turning Point but it was very similar.
Full of young people out of university wanting to get on, wanting to be part of the DC system.
And something about it, and then I went to a dinner Later with again these these kind of people and something about the whole system just stank to me.
It just seemed so manufactured inauthentic is what is how it felt.
Yes.
I mean, I've taken to just referring to them as the based sprogs, because they're just, they're so replaceable, they are all manufactured out of the same template, and as you say, all they really want to discuss at the end of the day is culture war issues that politicise people who would otherwise not care, or care about something more real.
Yes, and by the way, I sometimes get grief for some of my Telegram channel people, where I say, the culture wars is a distraction.
We shouldn't engage in it because it's there so that edgy conservative commentators can talk about things that don't matter and ignore the things that do matter.
And they say, well hang on a second.
My daughter has to now share a changing room with men who've declared themselves to be women and stuff like this.
Or my daughter's in a cricket team, or no, in a boxing club saying this had been beaten up by this woman who's actually a man, or whatever.
They say that.
So how do you reconcile that with the culture wars being an engineered, a manufactured distraction?
A large part of it is almost like ritual humiliation.
The problem isn't the culture wars.
The problem is that your enemies are in charge and you aren't.
That is the big problem.
And they can do this.
They can do anything to you, really, through the power of the state.
That is the point.
The point is that you are complaining about being humiliated, and you're asking for the humiliation to lessen.
You're not actually creating power centres for yourselves, your allies.
You're not advancing any other kind of agenda.
You are asking... They have taken ten, and you are asking, please, can they give back five?
It's a haggle, in my opinion.
They present themselves as evilly as humanly possible, so when they come with the big things like UBI, like the lockdowns, they present it as neutral, as normal, and as sane, in contrast to a lot of the what is referred to as clown world stuff.
They do it...
Because it works.
They do it because it allows them to negotiate with you.
And as people engage in the culture wars, they are much more liable.
I mean, look at the culture war itself.
Nobody really is still talking about things like gay marriage.
That completely disappeared.
That has been folded into the conservative agenda of neutral, normal, positive, and part of the political furniture.
You'll find very few anti-woke people who would say, Actually, I don't think that forcing religious marriage into the framework of homosexuality works.
I don't think that's right.
And yet that conversation has been completely abandoned because wackier things have come along.
Yeah.
And that's why.
It just, it pushes things forward.
Anyway, you were going to say?
Well, I was going to suggest as well, it comes back round to the point we made right at the start, which is that the elites that Well over us are not caring about values in the most part.
So why engage with them in the culture war about values when it's always a power disparity?
The problem isn't that they're doing the wrong thing, it's that they're doing anything.
We should be doing it!
I mean, as you say, it's one thing to make a bargain when you're underfoot, it's another thing to make a bargain when you're underfoot about something that doesn't matter to the people you're bargaining with.
They'll come out tomorrow, as they have done with all this GB News stuff, and put up what we always refer to as the red meat for all the sort of
Daily Mail reader kind of types want something to be boorish about that they know has been safely Designated to be boorish about and that becomes so much more powerful culturally than actually trying to deal with it as a political issue because Fundamentally the vast majority of people are not capable of seeing it as such Yeah, I noticed this very much at What little I could bear to watch of the ARC Conference
And there was similar, there was another one before ARC wasn't there?
There was another sort of fake conservative conference whose name I forget.
A National Conservatism Conference, it was called, yes.
Apparently that was just full of bickering, though.
Well, but they all seem to... I mean, obviously, Toby Young was busily pushing both events as being of great significance.
And I was looking at the policies on the agenda, and I looked in vain for the threat of CBDCs.
The threat of Big Pharma and its fake vaccines.
The threat of the World Health Organization owned by the Rockefeller family since, you know, since whenever.
Anything that mattered was not on the agenda.
But things like Woke were.
Well, I think it's important as well to understand the worldview, not necessarily of all the people involved in these things.
Some of them are just true believers who actually think things like free speech are real, which is a whole other issue in itself.
Those who are competent in these spheres, if they have one belief that they hold, the belief they hold is that it's moral for them to present themselves as right-wing, as traditionalists, as nationalists, as whatever it needs to be, in an effort to stop real people who actually believe in those ideas entering the political foray.
You talked about National Conservatism Conference, one of the figures that spoke there was Matthew Goodwin.
Now he wrote a report as part of Chatham House, as you do, casually, in 2011, called, what was it, Right Reaction?
Right Response, I think it was.
Yeah, Right Response, yes.
And I implore everyone to please go and read this, but there's a section in there where he discusses at length, oh, populist extremist parties are rising, therefore we as the technocrats, who aren't political and aren't ideological, must contain and adapt the energy of It's so egregious, yes, because one of the things we went through was Matthew Gooden's Right Reaction document.
Sorry, Right Response document.
It is just a field manual for saying, again, Fuck you, we're going to take over this space because we have more resources than you.
We don't believe what you believe.
We'll just pretend to be populists, and that means the populist space will be filled.
That's literally what he says in the report in more academic language.
He just says it.
And that's what's being done.
We see this operation in flow now.
And again, people's political time horizons aren't long enough.
People have seen the rise of woke in the last five years, but this is a project that's been going on for Decades, really.
It's really an outgrowth of what was done with Blair, and then an outgrowth of what was done to the Conservative Party, and then an outgrowth of what was done to the right in general, and the permissible debate in general.
And all of these things, it isn't conspiratorial to say that this was planned, because it was.
Because, like I said, they put out reports via people like Chatham House.
They just say it.
They will just say it, and they think that we are so feeble that we will just accept it.
But the problem is that, in many cases, they're right.
Well, they are.
They are.
And look, I was one of those people.
Um, over whose eyes the wool was pulled for the most of my, most of my career.
And you know, I, I would have thought of myself as, as, as, as a fairly, you know, bright person.
Um, but I participated in this show without even knowing what I was, I was doing so.
I think that the current crop have the advantage of being physically repulsive in some cases.
To be honest, some of these people just come across as creeps to me.
Who are you thinking of?
Please name names.
Douglas Murray especially comes across like a bizarre egotist, especially the stuff he's been doing in Israel with the, you know, tweeting in Hebrew about let Israel win, wearing military uniforms.
He comes across as a crazy person if he's supposed to be an English nationalist.
What kind of English nationalist stands there waving an Israeli flag all day?
He's Zelensky for rightoers.
Yeah, he looks like Zelensky.
He looks, for want of a better term, like a psychopath.
And that's what I get.
That's the read I have on these people.
A lot of this is instinct, really.
A lot of the research we've done to people is because they just come across badly.
They come across wrong.
They are quite frankly disgusting in how they operate in certain ways.
And Douglas Murray's a perfect example of that.
He's as repulsive as a Ben Shapiro because he's very naked about his interests.
And once you know that he's been working effectively at shilling a narrative for a country like Israel for 15 years at this point, it becomes even more crystallized in the idea that this person is just paid to say this.
He is just a sock puppet.
...of a regime.
And I know we mentioned the Henry Jackson site earlier, but its original origin was the defense of the Iraq War.
A lot of the neocons in 2006 and 7, when it was first set up, were politically homeless.
And they put a lot of money at first into trying to set up this transatlantic, effectively neocon interventionist think tank.
And that's really where Douglas Murray comes from.
He comes from that soup.
He's somebody who is pro-war.
He's someone who is anti-British native interest when it conflicts with the interests of his paymasters.
And that's a theme that runs right through all these people.
If you dig into them and you figure out who are their paymasters, who signs their paycheck, and you find all the same people.
Again, originally, a lot of it was just, as you said, the messaging.
And I know a lot of people have been jarred with the Israel stuff, because it really is, that is the fruit of what we're talking about.
We did most of this research before all that happened.
And I think through all of the flag-waving we've seen from all these people who are connected to all of these organizations, we've been quite vindicated.
Because this is why a lot of people were so confused when the conflict started, why a lot of conservative commentators, in quotes, were just going around saying, yes, Yes, let's bomb more people.
Let's be interventionist.
Kill more children.
Yeah, kill more children.
We need to support the state of Israel.
We need to make people feel more comfortable in Britain.
We need to change the conversation around immigration, about making Israelis in Britain feel comfortable, which is one of the more repugnant kind of narrative tricks that I saw them try and use.
But all of this stems from this development, from this network, from the idea that these people are not They're not genuine political actors.
They don't believe a lot of what they say, and they are really just the mouthpieces of the current elite, and all of them are part of it.
Like I said, once you figure it out, they all know each other.
They're all in kind of little groups, DM groups and things like that, bickering to each other and sniping at, frankly, people like us.
They're all over all of these conferences, like the art conference, and it is an industry.
It's become almost like a welfare program.
I had a conversation with someone about this the other day.
I mean, we are of the consensus that we are in post-woke.
Woke has peaked.
It's over.
Its ascendancy as a cultural movement is no more because Accelerating it no longer benefits the powers that be.
They would rather squash it down and gain power that way, and pretend they were never responsible for setting it up in the first place.
This could be very easily done.
They don't need to go and, you know, burst them up in riots.
They just take the money away from all the NGO class, on the leftist side of things.
So, obviously money is part of the answer, but how did these people create woke?
Well, it's not so much whether or not they created woke.
It's that at some point woke was taken advantage of either because people thought they could gain from its promotion or there may have been people so perceptive to political futures that they perceived an advantage not just in its You know, acceleration, but also in clamping down on it.
That both of these provide an opportunity for you to set your narrative over the top of that.
And it's a loud, angry movement that makes it easy to agitate people.
And because of that, and because it's been so loud and angry, we have the cottage industry of opposing it.
And I think you'll find there's going to be a lot of interesting people who, in a couple years' time, may try to pretend that woke is still around, when, as we discussed earlier on, culturally people in Britain probably haven't really dramatically changed since the 90s.
No, in terms of social values, really.
A lot of this people just receive via the news cycle.
How much, apart from media, how much wokeness, in quotes, do people encounter on a day-to-day basis that is interpersonal?
How many, like, visibly and all, like, I know it's different in your kind of circles, but we're up here kind of in the north of England, and up here, really, woke doesn't exist outside of people's media.
It comes across as almost like a bogeyman.
And it is a bit of a bogeyman in many people's cases.
I don't get it either, where I live.
I mean, I live in rural Northamptonshire and I can tell you there is no... I've never encountered any of that stuff.
I think I once went into the coffee shop in Northampton Station and saw somebody with blue hair or something, but I really don't encounter very much of it.
Is there also the question of, like, what happens if you defeat Woke?
What materially changes?
What materially changes within the power structure?
Who loses power?
Who is gotten rid of in terms of who is, you know, lords over us?
How does getting rid of Woke change the political equation in terms of power?
And it doesn't.
A lot of these activists don't have any power.
I mean, my question is always, do people really think that someone like Tony Blair or Klaus Schwab or any of those people, any of the genuine power brokers, or even like a Tim Montgomery, do you think those people genuinely care about things like trans story time or, you know, drag queen story time and all that?
Do you think that that is what occupies most of their political activity, most of their day?
It really isn't.
I don't think these people care about that at all, and I think to say that that is their main priority is ludicrous.
It isn't.
It clearly isn't.
They are gaining power in many ways as people are effectively just running around with their heads on fire.
And it's...
It's not that it was... It doesn't matter if it was manufactured or not, really.
What matters is that it was promoted.
A lot of people ascribe the British elite and the global elite with these magical powers, that they can magic things out of thin air, that they are effectively gods.
But they aren't.
Their main power lies in the framing.
They have control over large parts of media.
They have control over large parts of what people receive.
And that's what they do.
They don't create a lot of these things.
They either amplify or derank them, and then they frame them in a certain way.
And it's not this total control, the string pulling.
It's to do with the environment, to do with the framework around things, and the way people perceive things.
And if you disengage with mass media, if you, as we do really, see all of mass media in a totality as a show, Then things make more sense.
If you think about the reality around you every day, your actual interpersonal interactions, your reality in real life that isn't false, that isn't unreality of the media, then things make a lot more sense.
But it's just that people have been, they effectively have like a fire hose pointed at them, and they're against the wall with just all this information, all of this agitation, all of this stuff that really, it isn't real.
All you're seeing is media.
It's on a screen to you, but it's become people's reality, and that is the real crux of it.
Isn't it a blessing we are all forever stuck with these things?
That that'll just be on our side, constantly bombarding us with just messaging 24-7?
As a stranger's side, I thought of like a black mirror, like a sci-fi thing, where someone travels back in time and shows someone a smartphone, and the Victorian person goes, this is just a blank rectangle.
And there's nothing on the screen, it's just all in his head.
It's a scrying mirror.
It's all in his head, but that's a bit of a tangent there.
I've noticed that actually, that I can't bear to watch...
Films, I was talking about this with my son actually, about when the cut-off point, when films cease to become bearable.
And it's essentially, one can't really bear to watch a film from the iPhone era onwards.
Before that, you look at films and it feels like a golden age of freedom and normality, for want of a better word.
Yeah, I mean, it probably sounds obvious on the face of it, but as someone who has done a lot of reading in terms of Jacques Ellul and George Friedrich Jünger and a lot of people who wrote at length about technology, Whenever I think about politics I always then have to add on the filter of what it's done to people and the unshapely mass that it has allowed them to become, and especially with the internet.
I think the internet has fundamentally changed man the social animal.
And if anything's going to improve in Britain for any reason, we're going to have to spend decades rehabilitating people into actually being a social creature as opposed to a virtual creature, might I say.
Yes.
By the way, tell me, how did you two meet?
I mean, how did you get into this?
And how did you How did you not become part of the system that you're railing against now?
We're bizarre outsiders, to be honest with you.
That's just the truth.
We're like high-powered weirdos in many ways.
Politically, especially.
And that's really how, in that we don't really fit anywhere.
And so, if you make yourself somebody who, for a moment, can't be bought, or they struggle to know how to buy you, then people don't come looking.
I think, honestly, a lot of it's just the fact that Up until now, we've been working our quiet little corner, deliberately trying not to attract too much attention to ourselves, just because you end up being squished that way.
It's much safer to talk to an audience of slightly more insider people than it is to try and cultivate a mass audience.
I think cultivating a mass audience is useless.
Yeah.
I think we need less, you know, we need better people, not more people.
This is one of, we've come up with basically a series of mantras that we use to try and slice through it.
Cause it is like that.
You have to constantly, almostly, almost be deprogramming yourself from this online bubble thinking in which you think, well, there'll just be one more election.
We'll just, um, our people will get into these places.
And then you end up with this Rube Goldberg machine of victory conditions where really what we did was we just rejected everything outright.
Some people consider us incredibly blackmailed or miserable, or people who don't believe in anything, because we don't buy into things like the democratic process.
We're not people who believe that there is an electoral solution to any of this, because there isn't.
We're not people who believe in any of the ideological facets of what the regime puts forward.
We have very different ideas.
Because the big thing you'll notice with all the Tufton Street people and stuff is that they have extremely left-wing views on things like race.
To a ludicrous degree, in many cases, that many of them will deny things like the existence of British people as an ethnicity made up of, you know, English, Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish people.
It's very obvious.
In the 1990s, that was basically whole cloth abandoned in Britain, despite it being normality before.
And I think that In a sense, we're so out there that it's very difficult for, one, certain people to interface with what we're saying, because it just sounds like if you're someone who's just been reading the Daily Mail, or even if you're someone who watches GB News, what we talk about seems like insanity in some cases.
You know, we're talking about the fact that you shouldn't vote for the Conservative Party, and that really you shouldn't vote for Nigel Farage either, because he's very clearly a political insider.
And a lot of people think that saying that is saying that there are no solutions.
But you have to look outside of what is being presented to you by the very people that you claim to hate.
It's very weird that people would say, I believe the global elite are all child-eating paedophiles, and then go, I'm going to vote in an election controlled by the global elite.
It doesn't quite work.
It's one thing to write essays or engage in rhetoric that is against equality or besmirches the idea of democracy or universal suffrage, but it is a whole other thing, and I've said this in a number of places, I believe it to almost be a bit religious, to internalise And go beyond just critiquing democracy, but to think in authoritarian terms, because that's ultimately how politics works.
There is no authoritarian politics, there is only politics, because it must derive from some authority.
To think undemocratically and actually Manifest that in the way that you think about how the world works is a very different thing from just saying it's a bad idea therefore X. We've kind of just dragged ourselves into our own framing place really where we don't we don't try and engage with anything in terms of quote-unquote how you're supposed to in politics but hopefully that's an answer.
Well yeah I'm sorry you mentioned Farage I think we've got to tell me give me your thoughts on Farage.
Usually when we ask about Faraj we just play clips of him.
Yeah there's a there's a great one of them from months ago where there was that whole big sort of consolidated move and it's I can almost remember it word for word now at some point he's like it's not complicated the sovereign nation of Israel is under attack War has been declared.
For the sake of decency, we must stand unequivocally with his... It's just him standing in front of a camera, basically doing a pledge of allegiance.
It's just... There's all kinds of stuff like that.
To a foreign country.
Yeah, and there's also him about boasting about destroying the British National Party and, you know, I persuaded people not to be racist.
I persuaded people to engage with my party.
He's also just a figure, very obviously, that collects political energy, then disbands it.
Over and over and over again.
He did it with UKIP at the height of the moment.
The moment he could have gone right.
UKIP's a national party.
We're not a single issue party anymore.
The Brexit referendum is only the beginning.
What did he do?
He pissed off to America and became a political pundit.
He disbanded.
He collected then disbanded all the political energy in UKIP.
A party that managed to get 15% of the vote at points.
He just, he collected all those people and then he put all that energy into the ether.
And then redirected it into the Tory party.
And that again is what people like GB News do.
It's what people, like any of these outfits, they will collect hope, they will collect energy, they will waste your time, and then they will melt away.
And all the energy is neutralised in that fashion.
And that's how it happens really.
You end up on a hamster wheel.
What meaningful action can people take if they are quote-unquote right-wing in Britain to advance that agenda?
What outlet do people have that is not simply vote harder in Britain?
Is there anything to your knowledge?
No.
Sorry, I was going to say as an aside, because I know to some extent some of the stuff that your audience gets into, they will strongly latch on to the idea of rituals and the importance of rituals.
I and Scrump as well do fundamentally believe that when someone like Faraj is marching around showing how much he loves Israel and the people of Israel and then a couple months later he's now a TV celebrity because he's eating camel testicles, is that not one of the most brilliant examples of a public humiliation of a man before he's allowed entry into the elite class?
Yeah yeah you're right I mean it is it's a it's a it's a big club and we're not in it that that club that extends from the Spectator to the Telegraph to Tufton Street to to Westminster to Elements of the entertainment, of TV, they've got it sewn up, haven't they?
Because there are so many participants, organisationally in this, it makes it look organic, because people think, well it couldn't be, they couldn't all be involved in it, you know, how would they organise this conspiracy?
Well, that's one of the things, though.
You have to fundamentally understand some of the things put forward by the elite theorists.
I would recommend everyone go read a book of our good friend Dr... I'll not use a joke name.
Everyone knows who the academic agent is anyway, I presume.
His book, The Populist Illusion.
If you hadn't read it, you all should, because it's...
A fundamental gateway into understanding elite theory and how politics works.
And there's one writer he picks up called Robert Michels.
And he puts forward the iron law of oligarchy.
I'm ruining my words here now.
But where there is organisation, there is oligarchy.
There is no just free collection of people that decide collectively amongst them in all equal capacity to do one thing.
There is, you know, the Pareto distribution.
A square root of the number of people involved in the total operation do half the work, and then you can do that sum again, and what you get to is two or three people who coordinate 30 to 40% of the vision and elements and the important organisational structure of some larger organisation, and as you say, People think that the anti-Walk spin that's being brought in the media is an organic result of a cultural backlash against Walk.
No, it's not.
It's people who write the scripts writing a different script.
They still write the script.
Where are they writing these scripts?
I mean, we're talking at a level above the WEF, aren't we?
It depends.
A lot of it is they get marching orders.
I don't know if anyone remembers this.
Many years ago, during the Obama administration in America, there was a controversy around a mailing group called Journalist, in which it turned out that many of the large publications like the New York Times, basically all of them, were coordinating media narratives via a mailing group that wasn't supposed to exist.
They were doing the whole news narrative crafting and collusion thing.
A lot of it is that this is quite well stratified, in that there will be one or two people who give the marching orders, in general, within an organisation, or within a group of people, and the rest of them will simply follow.
Because many of the people they put in, and especially journalists, as you see, they're all enthusiastic followers.
They don't really need marching orders.
As soon as they get a whiff that marching orders might be taking place, they'll throw themselves into it wholeheartedly.
It's not this idea that there's people going around in dark rooms, even though there are people going around in dark rooms doing dark things.
It's that what they do is they gatekeep.
They gatekeep people.
And in being in the elite class, they are bound together.
They are bound together mostly by mutual blackmail in many cases.
I know you're aware of that because of some of your dealings with people like David Cameron and other people like that, and that kind of set, the Bullingdon Club set, it really is just as simple as, you know, your uncle's my uncle, your cousin's my cousin, therefore we have a connection together, we're part of this world, and we will be loyal to each other.
It really is, it's hard for people to conceptualize because a lot of people don't have, have never had that.
They've never had a group of people in which there is proper loyalty instilled.
But that was the real power of the British elite, in that no matter how explicit or implicit the cooperation, they are always loyal to each other as a class, and they do work as a class, and then they do move as a class.
And when you get power brokers who signal the movement, most people will follow because they don't want to be left behind.
Yeah.
They should have let me in.
They've made a big mistake.
Bye.
I'm afraid that you're not, uh, you haven't, so you were never introduced to the pig as it were.
I mean, I talk about this far too often, but, but I wanted to be in the Buller.
Cause I mean, what's not to like about that?
It's like a hunt coat with, with cream facings.
And, and I think, you know, and, You look good in it.
Well, I thought you did at the time.
I mean, actually, I'm really eternally grateful that I didn't get admitted to their world.
But there is that thing that the upper classes have where they're a hellfellow well-met and they're good at being charming, but there is a cut-off point.
It's kind of like the frame of the Overton window, and you are not allowed Beyond that that frame, you know, they've got you in your in your way where they want you and because you're not part of them.
They won't they won't go any further.
Well, that's just my current working theory as to why I never ended up in any of these jobs.
I mean... A lot of these people are very good at wearing masks.
And that's ultimately part of the whole process, is how many masks are they willing to take off?
And in the vast majority of situations, they might not even take one off, never mind show you who they really are.
That's probably an even bigger problem you've just identified there.
I've never been any good at the lying stuff or the pretending stuff.
They'd seem to threw me straight away so I never bothered.
Maybe that's it.
They didn't like my frankness.
Well, it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Again, it's what gives what they do some sort of extra momentum, is that an organisation that prides itself on manipulative practices will naturally attract manipulative people.
It's a filter, yes.
What they do is they filter, quite honestly, honest people out.
That's what they do.
A lot of people come to us and say, you're conspiratorial.
You believe that all the people in the power structure act in this Machiavellian way, and people don't really think like that.
It's like, well, these aren't necessarily just people, are they?
If you've managed to get yourself up the greasy pole, Of the British elite, of any power structure, of any state, it is much more likely that you are somebody capable of extreme acts of Machiavellian action, if not extreme acts of violence in many cases.
The higher you are up in the power structure, the more likely you are to be able to wield power, simply because of your position there.
It's, again, it seems like a bit of a truism, but it's something that people don't hold in mind, that the political class, the elite class in Britain, are not like you and me.
They do not think like you and me.
In many cases, they would see you and me as idiots, as fools, as simpletons, because of the way that they think.
And people can't grasp that, that these aren't just a collection of random people.
These people are filtered, distilled, and stratified.
To the point that if you get anywhere near the top of any of their structures, you cannot be trusted, because you have to be compromised.
By definition, you have to be.
They don't let people get anywhere near the genuine levers of power, because the democratic levers of power lead nowhere without them being compromised, and you find that over and over and over again.
So, knowing that, we never looked for allies in the power structure, because we knew there wouldn't be any.
At least there wouldn't be, there'd be very few, and if there were allies for us, they'd be people who were deeply paranoid, because they would be crushed.
And to be, you know, not to give the game away too much, but we have encountered some of those people.
I've had some very serious conversations, I won't talk about how it came out, but at one point we both ended up asking a couple of questions of Alexander Dugin just before the Ukraine war.
And he wasn't supposed to, but he uploaded that to a VK video, which is still around somewhere.
But there are people on our side who are up there, who are very, very senior people, and they cannot be public.
Because, quite honestly, and I've had conversations that went this way, they are scared legitimately that they will just be murdered by their Featherwood League class.
That is how they think, and that is how they know to think.
And this isn't just something we've come up with as a fever dream.
Through our knowledge and through the people we've been able to speak to, we've had a lot of this confirmed to us, which is... It can be a little bit scary sometimes when you're in conversations with people who are serious people, and they are saying what you're saying.
And to a degree, you're never quite sure if you're right or not.
You see the shape of the way things are from the outside, but you must have that idea that you can be wrong.
You might be seeing a false shadow.
Because it's... they're a bit of a black box, really.
You never quite know what they really want, you never quite know what they're saying is true.
And if you're able to look both sides of the curtain, then you can get a very good idea of what it looks like in there.
And quite frankly, the state of the British elite is so degraded and so paranoid of itself that it's quite scary.
That the whole structure could just fall over at some point.
Yes.
How do you think Mrs Thatcher was compromised?
Through her son?
My idea of Mrs Thatcher is that she is somebody who thought that she could wield the political machine to her advantage.
That she made the classic mistake of buying into the power structure and the levers of power.
She was constantly at war with bureaucrats, and that's what took up lots of her time.
Quite honestly, what they did was they just wrapped her up in red tape.
They wrapped her up in red tape for her entire premiership.
It doesn't matter if she was compromised or not, because you can't be Prime Minister of the country and wield it like a sword.
It doesn't work like that.
The people who are in charge of Britain are the permanent bureaucracy.
And quite simply, I think that Margaret Thatcher, in many of her opinions, was relatively genuine, but she was never in power.
Well, that was ultimately why she was compromised.
She was compromised by her own, sort of... Belief.
Yes, belief.
If, I've got to say, if Margaret Thatcher genuinely believed in, like, rightward movement in the political system, she would have ended up more of a Mussolini figure.
It's the very fact that she was actually willing to hand over power, even after extending the power of the state quite heavily under her remit.
I mean, she's the one who came up with the national curriculum, for God's sake, and then handed it over to John Major, who sat there and looked at his watch until the Conservative Party got in.
That's my read of Margaret Thatcher, anyway.
Right, right.
I'm dying to hear your opinion of Toby Young and the free speech.
You mentioned free speech, and Evan, I think I share your view on free speech.
It's another distraction, isn't it?
Yes, well, it's not just a distraction, I think it's actually dangerous.
I would thoroughly recommend people go look at some of the stuff on our Substack.
Antipolitics on Substack.com.
We forgot to shill, we're terrible at shilling.
Yeah, no, go on, say it again.
It's antipolitics.substack.com.
If you just type in antipolitics.substack into Google, it should come up.
But we've done quite a few things about, like, we made a thing on our channel as well called Stop Demanding Free Speech.
And that is kind of one of the things that we talked about.
But anyway, you go on about Toby Young specifically.
I was going to say, but free speech in the first place, I believe the idea is genuinely...
Damaging to what we are trying to do.
In the same way that Farage is a damaging figure because he takes loads of energy, builds it all up into something, loads of money, loads of resources, lots of time, lots of young minds that could have been used for otherwise better purposes are expended on a two or three year effort to, as you see, run this big election for UKIP and it all gets disbanded and benefits the Tory party at the end of the day.
For someone like Toby Young to use the value of free speech to build up all these resources behind the Free Speech Union, all these resources behind sites like Democracy 3.0 or his little thing he was doing with other people, the British Friends of Israel, all this stuff is built up and built up and built up and then nothing politically forward happens with it.
It's always Passive.
It's about protecting free speech, it's about protecting neutrality or primarily about protecting Marxist academic feminists who don't like trannies.
Because that's what you do as a right-wing, you know, legal court.
Instead of going out and defending people who are trying to make, you know, structures for alternative funding or alternative patronage networks Or, you know, guaranteeing insurance to people who might actually be racist as opposed to people who just believe in the sort of Martin Luther King vision of the world that we're all equal and we're all the same, which is a load of bollocks.
The whole thing about the free speech union that I always... I discount it straight away because they say, oh, we defend legal speech.
It's like, well, okay, then you're a pet of the regime then, because the laws around speech are extremely tight in Britain compared to, you know, how they used to be.
That's concession straight away.
So, it does.
If you look at the Free Speech Union, they use a lot of what I would consider weasel terms, which is things like legal speech.
It's like, well, if the speech is legal, is it really worth saying, and is it really worth defending?
Because you're just saying, well, if we, if the law deems that your speech is illegal, we agree with that, because we're for legal free speech.
And also, Toby was just a pet of the Tory party.
He was a policy advisor.
He went back and forth with the regime itself.
I do not trust anyone who would involve themselves in the Tory party, really, in any capacity, unless afterwards they come back and basically grovel and say, I'm sorry I went near the Tory party.
I know they're a bunch of dirty, dirty, dirty people.
I mean, as far as I can tell, Toby Young is at least second generation British elite as well.
His father, Michael, who wrote multiple policy papers and early policy plans for the Attlee government in 1945.
He then wrote a book called Meritocracy, which is one of the things, sort of, at least his claims really helped clamp down on Unfair and hierarchical private schools and elite institutions.
You know, this man of the Fabian society who, so of course his son would become a modern conservative because Fabian values of the 1940s, you know, Clement Attlee himself again.
We should mix all the races in the world together so there can be no more wars and now we find out the conservative immigration policies about integration and actually blending British people out of Britain for the sake of Making multiculturalism work?
He's just another functionary, as far as we can see.
And like you said, he is second generation.
And most of them are.
Right.
Yes, I'm trying to think.
Can you give me some other examples then?
There was a great example recently of a Tory minister who talks about one of his ministerial aides only being on, say, £25,000 a year and living in central London.
I need to search it up quickly to get the actual details, but it turned out her father was a brigadier in the British Army, and that she had gone to a very prestigious elite private school in York.
One of the most expensive privates, and certainly the most expensive private school in the north of England, and that she wasn't just some ministerial aide that had been brought into a Tory MP, that she was somebody who was the daughter of an OBE, and somebody who was very well healed.
And it's all of that, you'll find that right down to the ministerial aide level.
You'll find that right down to, like, the granular level of some of these people.
Who else is a good example of that?
Because there's quite a few we've seen.
See, the problem is there's almost too many to mention, but if you spend enough time thinking, oh, such and such is a nephew of Lord this and that and the next thing.
I mean, Darren Grimes, who I mentioned earlier on, he runs a little thing called Reason UK.
Reasoned UK was set up by a gentleman who is the son of a conservative lord whose name escapes me at the moment but I believe is half Israeli and also possibly Darren Grimes's boyfriend.
I have no idea whether or not that's true but it would seem to me like they are because they're both sort of the soft type and I would know.
Again, I've met a lot of people who are in these lower positions in Whitehall who are curious about this kind of world, and a lot of them are nephews, nieces of moneyed people, or they are sons and daughters of existing functionaries.
You'll find it with most people if you look into who they are.
I'm trying to think of another good example.
Boris Johnson's a classic example as well, yes.
Yes.
Boris genuinely does believe in nothing, doesn't he?
I mean, he's just...
He famously couldn't decide whether to stand for the SDP or the Conservatives at Oxford when he was hacking for the Union Presidency and I think that nothing has changed since.
There's an interesting point to bring up around Boris Johnson and these kind of more charismatic characters, the only few politicians that maybe you could consider liking.
Boris Johnson at one point before we did lockdown, and Trump possibly.
And also Nigel Farage is in there for quite a few people too.
But it's something to consider, especially when you look at what Boris Johnson did over Covid.
It is our belief, because I know a lot of people early on in 2020 said, oh, the elites are bringing in lockdown to stop populism.
Now we know populism doesn't work, even if the populist revolt that existed in 2020 was real or not doesn't matter too much in the equation because we fundamentally believe that the narrative of populism and the positive feelings it gave people ...is what allowed them to do lockdown.
Lockdown did not happen despite populism, but because of it.
Or at least it was sort of a bojo work.
It was at least as successful because of it, because if you think of the conciliation that Trump did towards things like the vaccine, the conciliation that Boris Johnson did, can you imagine the difference in the reaction of the UK right if there was a lockdown under someone, even say like Keir Starmer, Or a Corbyn.
God forbid, like Jeremy Corbyn.
Or Diane Abbott.
It's the fact that these populist leaders get in and then do horrible things, really, and all do things that the regime wants to do in terms of compromise for their own agenda.
A classic one in the US is Donald Trump, and a lot of people don't know about this, but he's redefining what a firearm is.
He effectively dodged a political question after the Vegas shooting in terms of the ATF, and he allowed the ATF to redefine on the fly what a firearm is.
And that has caused a massive headache, more than any kind of restrictive law would for the American firearms community.
But a lot of these populist leaders end up getting in, and either through ignorance or through being compromised, just bolster the regime.
Boris Johnson's a classic example.
Donald Trump, whether he was compromised or not, he was survived at the very least, and the regime thrived under him.
And a lot of this is, it's just that even if people do get into power who are not the right kind of people, through the correct processes, all of these can be sidestepped.
And there's some great examples of this.
We made a video called, Why You Can't Take Over the Tory Party.
And we just kind of go through step by step, including the example of Corbyn.
Corbyn's another good example that he was completely humiliated by the Labour Party.
He's no longer an MP.
The Corbynite movement was destroyed.
It was scattered to the four winds.
They were politically naive and they paid for it.
They have had total defeat, and it has been a full-spectrum Starmer victory, and they are a great example about how the establishment can survive you, even if you do take over.
Corbyn was never in power in the Labour Party, neither was Momentum, and they, when the time came, were simply laughed at.
Yeah, and where would Starmer's legitimacy within his own faction be were it not for the fact that he could turn round to old-school Labourites and go, look at all this woke stuff I've smashed.
I mean it's a thing I don't think actually gets discussed enough.
Where are the old school sort of unionist types?
Where are, and it's something Jonathan Bowden spoke about at one point, where are like the militant Leninists that used to be around in the 70s and 80s?
All these people are gone because the leftist sort of political movement that is active has been dominated by ideas that lead nowhere in the same way that the right will continue to be dominated by ideas that lead nowhere, especially as we enter this sort of wilderness period for the Conservative Party.
Yeah, and this is all by design, isn't it?
You don't think there was ever a time when politics was authentic?
Well it doesn't, the problem is it doesn't matter because anything that is authentic in one moment can be used for inauthentic purposes in the next by people who have got greater resources and greater competency than you.
I mean look at, again you could do the whole Trump thing in January 6th and how all this energy built up in the million man march.
Million mega march?
Yeah, all this stuff.
But really what did January 6th benefit The establishment that already existed in America who could further clamp down on their own population, turn DC into a green zone for whatever benefits that gives them, purely and simply for the fact that someone else's movement went out and did something.
Especially, you could even get into Q here.
You could argue that something like Q maybe started as real, but someone in some government office thought, well, people are really receptive to this stuff.
We call it cook stuff, we call it conspiracy theories, we have a way to delegitimise it.
Let's put things that are true into it so we can delegitimise things that we don't want the people to know by saying that they're false.
The problem is that...
Sorry, go on.
No, no, keep going because I'm going to ask you.
I was going to say, the problem is that politics is really boring.
And what makes politics tick is actually incredibly boring in that these people get along by being able to extract compromise over and over again.
They get along by actually being quite competent at the basic things.
They're competent at raising money, they're competent at narrative crafting, and most of all, they're competent at being loyal to their own class.
They are loyal to each other, and I know I've mentioned that before, and that really, it's not whether or not politics was ever genuine, it's just that our understanding of politics as an entity is completely different than the way politics works.
The way politics actually works is considered like a Machiavellian dark fever dream to many people.
They do believe in the myth of the civic structure.
They do believe, almost in a childish sense, that the MP is their avatar.
If you look at the system as written out, The MP has to be this pure, like, avatar of the people's will for him to be legitimate.
He must actually embody the will of his electorate.
He must be somebody who is above reproach.
And of course, it's all nonsense.
Yeah.
None of these people are above reproach.
And having a system like that is essentially based on trust, obviously leads to the exploitation of people who are far more Machiavellian.
It'd be much better having a system that's far harsher on the face of it, and is far less whimsical in how it puts itself across, but is a system of political realism.
I don't think politics has ever been genuine in quotes, because politics is a struggle.
It is a war.
It is, in a Schmittian sense, a struggle of us versus them.
It is.
It is always predicated on the implicit threat of violence as well.
People don't think about that.
But really, if you look at who is in charge in Britain, ultimately, if things degrade, it's the people who hold the guns.
That is the fact in any country, anywhere.
And the idea that we would have... I don't think liberal politics, in quotes, has ever been genuine.
I always think it's been cynical.
I do not think anybody within the power structure buys into liberal democracy unless they're someone like an airheaded woman they've brought in to fill a seat and basically laugh at, as many of these people do.
There's a lot of people you'll find within the structure who are just seat fillers, who have completely empty heads, who are there to be non-threatening to their superiors.
Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you're right.
You're called blackpilled.
I mean, you're not offering any solution, are you?
Not that I'm really asking you to.
Oh, well we do.
The whole point is that it's very difficult... Sorry, go on then.
Well no, I was going to say that there is no solution yet because the political system exists in deadlock.
You're not going to, as we said earlier, you're not going to get in there and move all the democratic levers and make Britain work as you want it to because we don't have enough competent people.
We have a fifth column of foreign population in our own country that will not do whatever it's told to do and can't anyway despite their best efforts.
We have infrastructure that's collapsing and the people that are generally just in a complete and utter malaise.
Things cannot be fixed in this moment.
We are in, you know, the Francis Fukuyama end of history and everything's going well and there'll be no more wars.
We ultimately need history to return.
Things need to not be what they are now.
Some level of collapse has to happen for enough people who are in the elite or new possible elites to turn around and say, well, who are the people that can fix these things?
Or who are the people that can convince us that these things aren't worth fixing?
The thing is, our solution really is to... you have to do things yourself.
Yes.
We do something called NOMOS events, which are our in-person events.
We generally get, say, 60 to about 80 people.
We've done three of them successfully.
We've had a couple of false starts due to certain other problems and venues cancelling and things like that.
Not to do with political stuff, but just to do with the fact that Britain's kind of falling apart a bit, especially the catering industry.
It is, it's just venues are just failing left, right and centre, it's kind of sad really.
It's very interesting you say that.
I notice this all the time, that just people not doing their jobs, that like delivery companies just not even being asked to pretend that they've delivered.
Or that the excuses are so implausible.
Trains not carrying passengers to their destinations because the driver didn't turn up.
You think failure is now so built into the system that we've...
Yeah, sorry.
I created something recently, you talked about practical solutions, called You Don't Want Practical Solutions.
Is there a side chat?
Yeah, there is a little chat thing.
Alright, I'll put it in here just for people's benefit, I don't know.
It's kind of a roundup of some of our work.
Ah yes, it's kind of a roundup of some of our work that is practically focused.
We have done these in-person events and in the in-person events we focus on what people can do.
The first thing that people can do is think of themselves as a community.
Because people don't.
People don't have connections to each other.
We encourage people to meet in real life and go out and do activities with each other.
We have personal friends we've met through all of this and we try... The real thing that doesn't exist is this community.
There is no sense of community within people who are, for want of a better term, dissident, who are politically homeless.
They have been so atomized that they don't have connections to each other, and rebuilding those connections really is the first hurdle.
The first hurdle is to exist.
It's to exist as a community, and people talk about a movement, they talk about a dissident movement, but it doesn't exist.
It's just people on the internet.
Yeah, it's just people on the internet talking.
And our solution is, look, we've seen blackpill from people's point of view because we have no faith in the electoral system.
But our message is, stop voting and start doing.
Build communities yourself, build these alternative spaces.
One of our ideas during lockdown was kind of the idea of the speakeasy, in that, you know, go to people's houses, do drink, do break lockdown.
Talk to each other.
It's vital.
Rebuild the pub in your home.
And that's still relevant.
It'll be more relevant with a lot of the demobilization stuff that we've seen.
But from that, really, there needs to be a class of alternative leaders who are brought forward.
There needs to be a class of people who are competent.
Because private business is full of that.
I'm not a professional content creator.
I work as an engineer.
I won't be more specific than that, but I'm a relatively senior engineer.
And I work with a lot of people who are nominally dissident, but they have nowhere to channel that.
The private sector's full of competent, working-age British men who are very receptive to our message, but they're all so atomised, and they're all still very drawn into the idea of they can just vote.
The reason that we seem to have no solutions and no faith to certain people is that they only look within the system.
They only look within the confines of political action, and political action isn't walking around holding a sign, protests are useless, you go to a place, you stand around a bit, people speak, you leave.
Nothing happens.
And then your face gets scanned.
Yeah, and then your face gets scanned by the police.
What you need to do is you need to have connections in your local area, you need to just be, in the same way the Muslims do in some sense, you need to think of yourself as a parallel British society, because the British state as a whole is very hostile to you, and in many ways all you have and all the people you can really trust are each other.
So build that, build that community, and that really is the first step.
But it's so frustrating because that doesn't exist yet.
Yeah, everybody's too busy running around screaming, we're gonna red pill everybody and that'll fix everything but it's pointless because a fundamental element of any political propaganda is that you have the organisation, the physical component to point people to once you have psychologically influenced them.
We need to be Permanent.
Permanently organised.
There needs to be a way to ensure that people can be related to something that we are doing, that isn't just an online movement, that actually lasts and then maybe we can think about changing things after that.
You know, you didn't just have the Labour Party show up one day and implement socialist policy in Britain, the Fabian Society existed for years if not decades before it and they sat and made a very long and well thought out plan about how they're going to implement their brand of change on society.
You know, we need to be doing the same.
We don't need to spend all day engaging with the culture wars we made points about earlier, or even making online content.
Because fundamentally, if all we've got is the thin end of the wedge, then we have nothing.
We need the whole wedge.
Yeah.
Sorry, I got distracted by you telling me you're an engineer.
What, you mean you build bridges and stuff?
Uh, kind of, yes.
Kind of?
I don't build bridges.
I'm involved in building services.
I do the mechanical services within a building.
Yeah, I'm always impressed with people who've got practical skills, because I ain't got any.
Oh, I can ride a horse!
Well, that's the problem.
There's an embarrassment of riches of artists, of writers, of people who think of themselves as intellectuals.
I am not an intellectual.
And really, the side we come from this is a practical side, in that everything that people think of as political action in the modern world doesn't work, by design.
It's like that old meme, we taught him wrong as a joke, like the Kung Fu guy.
And that's really what people's political education is.
They're taught wrong as a joke.
And the realities of politics is that, look, If you don't have a structure behind you, if they feel like they can get away with it, the security forces can just come and kill you.
There's a lot of stuff in the PRISM leaks about that, about the fact that GCHQ has all these internal documents that say, pretend to be somebody's victim, change their social media photos, pretend to attack their business.
Things like, this is all public knowledge now, that GCHQ will just go out there to British citizens and other people and just go, I'm going to accuse you of being a rapist because you don't agree with me.
And that is how the British state operates.
And we should be under no illusions that's how it operates.
Because it does.
And because there's a wealth of evidence.
Uh, that that's how it operates.
It's all contained, really, in a lot of security leaks that people just kind of passed off as, you know, Edward Snowden snooping, but a lot of it is to do with their doctrine and how they handle people.
And they really do just view the British population, and I guess the global population, as cattle.
And, well, what is going to stop them from doing that, is the question.
And people talk about, you know, what can we do?
Well, we're starting, unfortunately, from a very low position.
To do something.
Yeah, we're starting from a position of where a lot of people want a quick fix.
They want to know who they can vote for.
But because we don't have an answer about who they can vote for, people go, oh, you have no solutions, there's nothing going on over there.
But it's that they can't, they literally can't think outside the framework of, well, are you establishing a political party?
Am I going to be able to vote for you?
It's like, no.
And why it's, it honestly, it discourages when people say that, because it shows that they don't have The mindset necessary to deal with modern politics.
It really is naivety in many cases that people talk about the fact that, you know, you have to kill your inner liberal, and then they'll come out and repeat a lot of the liberal points of the modern world.
We're very hard-edged on that stuff.
We're very hard-edged on not buying into or repeating, even for what we consider tactical reasons, that framework.
Because it's poison!
It's a mind cancer!
Oh, I hate all that!
I hate having to kind of precede your allegedly right-wing statement by paying lip service to all the liberal parties.
It's so tiresome.
Well, public opinion doesn't exist.
Public opinion is what you say it is.
That's why polling was invented.
Not to measure it, but to found it.
Right.
Change it.
Yes.
We see political polling as a form of consent manufacturing, that if you can normalise in people's minds the idea that someone is going to win, and then they do win, then it's much easier to sell that person.
They must have had the right ideas.
Only the good guys win, we know this from history.
Because there was all that stuff in polling about Donald Trump and Brexit, and the reason that the polling was wrong is because they were supposed to lose in both cases.
The establishment was putting forward the narrative of what they thought was supposed to happen, rather than measuring the opinion and trying to do an earnest job.
But why would they?
Why wouldn't they use polling as a political tool for, like, FOMO?
For people going, do you want to be on the winning side?
Or if they're going to do something, say, a little untoward, making it a bit less impactful when that person loses.
I don't, I can't see any part of modern politics as genuine.
And I think to view any part of modern politics as genuine with these horrible things peeking out of the elite class we can see, you know, things like Epstein.
Epstein gets conspiracy-jacked a lot.
So what we talk about actually in one video I'd recommend to people is when we talk about the White March in Belgium and the Detroit Affair and the fact that large parts of the EU elite class were embroiled in An absolutely harrowing case of, like, child imprisonment and murder that happened in Belgium, and that 1% to 3% of the Belgian population actively protested about in the streets.
All on the same day?
All on the same day, and then nothing happened.
And most people have never heard of it.
What was it again?
I think we... Guy Verhofstadt was quite involved in that too.
Was he?
Yes.
As were a number of people that are prominent in the EU, I mean, we ended up actually slotting a clip into our stream about that from a German documentary that discussed the Dutroux affair.
And they interviewed some woman who was the widow of a police officer, I think.
Yes, she was the widow of a police officer.
And this police officer was going to give evidence in the case to what he saw in, I think it was either Mark Dutroux's house or one of his other houses where children were proven to have been stored.
And before he could give his testimony, he died in suspicious circumstances, along with nearly 120 other witnesses for that case.
And when do you ever hear of this?
What are you talking about?
When do you ever hear of this?
No one wants to discuss the White March.
No one wants to think about the consequences of that and it's something we didn't cover as some gritty, sad, edgy, true crime thing.
We covered it because we exposed it as a fundamental flaw in liberal democracy.
The system does not work as they say it does.
People like Guy V. Lofstad get involved in the Mark Dutrow affair and not only are they Yes.
What happened was a case of child murder, multiple child murder, kidnapping.
Paedophilia was bungled.
It was covered up.
And the people who covered up were promoted.
They were rewarded.
And it's a very clear process.
A very sad process, really.
A lot of people found that a bit of a hard watch.
And it is a bit of a hard watch.
But all of this happened.
A lot of people talk about, oh, there's no evidence.
There's no evidence.
There's a wealth of evidence.
There's a wealth of evidence that these people who exist in these unaccountable internationalist and national elite positions are evil.
And I use that term genuinely.
They are genuinely evil.
The things that they do are Unimaginable to most people.
And the things that they've been involved in covering up are unimaginable to most people.
And this isn't conspiracy.
This isn't us coming out and saying they're lizard people.
It's incredibly well documented.
And in fact, what we find most depressing is how well documented it is.
They can do this so much in the open, and they can do this in such a matter-of-fact way.
It almost is like a power exercise.
It's all there if people want to look at it, but because of that, these harrowing things that peak out of the elite class, I don't think you can trust anything.
No, I don't think you can trust polling.
I don't think you can trust the news.
I don't think you can trust the politicians.
Not because I think there's some grand conspiracy of lizard men, but because those people are in power and it is in their interest to remain in power.
And if they can just lie to you, which they can, because they are in power, they will.
But I don't, they don't need to be lizard men.
I mean, I think that's a, that's a kind of straw man in a way.
I think, and I, I think in a way that David Ickers has poisoned the wells with regards to this one.
The people say well, you know, I don't believe in lizard people.
Therefore.
I don't believe in the whole conspiracy, but but that They are they are Satanists which is is all you need to know isn't it I Well, it doesn't matter, because when we have the ability to act politically as we please, we will paint them as whatever we think is useful to paint them as.
The issue is that they do...
Again, they understand how power works.
These people do read Schmitt.
One of the biggest delusions that I found was that we need to get our message to these people.
I need to tell Jordan Peterson about race realism.
I need to make Jordan Peterson the IQ question.
I need to tell Jordan Peterson about Oswald Spengler.
Or I need to go to David Cameron.
If David Cameron just knew the truth, he wouldn't do what he did.
It's like, these people know what they're doing.
Yeah.
They're not misguided.
They have to understand our ideas to counter us.
They have to understand the ideas of conservatism and, you know, actual right-wing thought in general that goes beyond conservatism to be able to act in the way that they do, to be able to wield power.
They have to understand things like the Smithson exception.
And a lot of them do study it.
They all study it in university.
They've got caveats around it.
What's the Smithson exception?
Sovereign is he who makes the exception?
Yes.
The idea that you could have a system of law and it has all these subsets of rules...
And that this, in and of itself, is not power.
Power is when, in a moment, you can say, well, these are the rules, but there's also this new rule.
There's always corner cases, and the real power within any organisation is deciding the corner cases.
It's being decisionary.
It's deciding who the law applies to, and who it doesn't apply to.
Right.
The power is in the exceptions, and that's what Schmitt says.
And it's true.
I mean, look at the lockdowns.
The lockdowns are one big exception.
They're one big, here's where normality doesn't apply.
We have all these normal limits of liberal democracy, and we are powerful because we decide when the norms of liberal democracy do not apply.
And that really is their real power, if you look at what they do.
Well, there's an interesting component as well, because Schmidt talks about, in the political sense, sort of historically, he suggests that it's not so much that Or that the exception exists so that you can turn around and say, well, we have this constitution, but a crisis has unveiled itself.
That means for the time being and for the solution of that crisis to happen, we have to suspend the constitution and we will re-implement it in good faith once the crisis has been solved.
Whereas what we get is, well, there's a constitution, a crisis has happened.
We are going to initiate an exception so that we can never return to the previous constitution.
Yeah.
Which is what's happened.
Yes.
Very successfully.
It's extraordinary, isn't it?
And everyone thinks that it's all over, that the pandemic was this thing that we all got through.
It's still not finished.
It's a little bit hard going because Carl Schmitt was a jurist and he speaks in quite dense legal language, but the concept of the political is a very good essay.
Yes.
And I would recommend it to anybody who would undertake the slightly daunting task of reading it.
It would be that and political theology.
Yes.
Both of these are both very good essays.
If you want to understand like actual political theory, and this is what the elite schools teach the future elites, they teach them effectively incredibly far-right ideas.
And then couch them in very liberal terms about, ooh, that's naughty, you shouldn't do that, wink wink.
Because they understand how power is wielded, because they are in power, and they have a much better understanding of right-wing ideas than the vast majority of people on the right.
It's the way they twist it and turn it as well.
I mean, there is a book, I believe it's called The Challenge, or A Challenge from Carl Schmitt, that features many prominent leftist academics, even Slavoj Žižek has written an essay on it.
And the foreword at the start discusses that, you know, even though Carl Schmitt fundamentally denied liberal democracy, he even thought that the principles really don't work because to have liberal democratic governance is to have the negation of governance, it's the negation of authority, it's always turning around and instead of implementing a solution it's about having a never-ending conversation about the solution.
And even though this is all the stuff that Schmidt has to say, these leftists turn around and say, well, we should use his methods to preserve liberal democracy.
There's such a paradox there.
Either liberal democracy means whatever they want it to mean, or they have no idea what it means.
And I think it's maybe the first one and not the latter.
Yeah, yeah.
I was being distracted then because I was wondering what time the swimming pool closes because I've buggered my back riding horses and I'm trying to sort of rehabilitate myself.
I'm thinking that we should do another podcast sometime because you're endlessly fascinating on On an area that I don't cover that much, I mean, I sort of, I've largely cut loose from the world of politics because, well, for the reasons you understand.
I mean, it's, you know, it's puppets, isn't it?
Puppets and deeply compromised, sad People that used to be my friends and I now realize I was I was thinking you know that you where people said to you Yeah, get to Jordan Peterson explain to him about this and I was thinking about the times I I pressed my copy of watermelons into the hands of Michael Gove and and we had long conversations about how he he totally understood the nature of the Zero yeah, yeah, that's it.
They are Do you but before we go do you think?
I mean, on the political level, obviously they know.
How conscious are these players, you know, the Toby Youngs or the Tom Harwoods or whatever, how conscious are they that they are just stooges of this corrupt system?
Do you think they know?
Well, I think it varies.
I think some of them are... some of them... that's what I said earlier on.
I think it's looking at how replaceable they are.
Do they bring a unique set of skills or do they have behind them a unique set of resources?
I mean, it's a fundamental component of all intelligence community projects.
That you do not just tell everyone the whole project in one big spiel and then it happens.
You tell lots and lots of people little bits that they've got to do that has, as far as they're concerned, no connection to anything else.
And it's by making all these different people do all these different little things you have the one big thing you want to achieve actually happen.
I mean, even... I think they've even discussed the fact that terrorist groups use this method.
They get people to, you know, you're not moving...
See, I'm just trying not to get you in trouble here.
You're not moving ammunition, you're helping my brother Amir move a pile of bricks.
Just don't peel the wrapping back off.
Yeah.
And that's, you know, Tom Harwood's moving his pile of bricks, he's just been told not to peel the wrapping off.
I think the issue is, as well, that you mentioned the security services, that when we do a lot of our research, they're not too far away from any of this.
All of this is integrated within a lot of the language of MA5, counter-terrorism police, and how the British state sees the British right, which is an imminent danger to it.
We talked about the Henry Jackson Society that Douglas Murray worked for.
They have used direct language from MI5 documents in terms of a term that MI5 came up with called cultural nationalism.
There's a report, I think it's called Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism from MI5, which talks about the idea of cultural nationalism.
Not even if you believe in a British ethnos.
If you believe that integration in Britain is not working, and if you believe that mass immigration is a threat to the cultural norms of Britain, then you are a right-wing extremist.
That is defined in the literature as a form of right-wing extremism.
It's what basically most of the outer edge of the Tory party say in public.
But really, behind closed doors, they've created documents that categorize you as a terrorist for having that.
And then you'll get a lot of the places like the Henry Jackson site which repeat this language verbatim.
They'll talk about the threats of cultural nationalism and cultural nationalist tech.
They'll have round tables about it.
And all of this language is from nowhere else apart from MI5.
Right.
So they have to have got their marching orders from there.
And like I said, they're also an outfit who took £80,000 from the Home Office, which runs, you know, UK security state stuff.
So you can't just see these people as integrated with the Tory party, they're also integrated with the British security state, to quite a high degree.
And some of them must know it.
I think that there are people who are delusional, who don't think that they are a functionary.
We even talked about this earlier, there's people who don't know they're a spoon, you know, they don't know they're basically a utensil.
But anyone who's a power broker, anyone who is somebody who's putting money into this, As an influence campaign has to know you don't just accidentally create a massive containment pen for the British right.
It doesn't just happen without intention to it.
So that would be my contribution anyway.
It is literally where some of them garner the legitimacy from.
I mean, we spoke of him earlier on, Matt Goodwin, but Nigel Farage has done the very same thing.
There's a clip we used to play and still will probably still continue to play on our YouTube channel.
Where he's on Russia Today discussing the fact that, well, you know, you can't call me an extremist, you can't call me a racist or a Nazi or a fascist.
I shut down the BNP.
And, you know, he's trying to garner his legitimacy by seeming like some sort of custodian that keeps the radical right-wing Nazis, whatever you want to call them, out of the political foray.
You know, not only do they do it, but they think of it as the main thing they should be doing.
I mean, this is why everything we do...
It should be separated from the Conservative Party.
If we can totally separate ourselves from it, we never have to run the risk of someone coming in going, you've got to stop what you're doing.
Because we're not beholden to them.
We're not beholden to them in a monetary sense.
Maybe one day, because of certain circumstances, we'll be beholden to them in a security sense.
But maybe we'll have to play the game of chicken and see if they've got the gonads for it.
One last thing I would say, ultimately it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if these people know or not, because at some point they'll butt up against the limits of what they can do and they'll be told.
They'll be told to either go away or they'll be told what's up.
It doesn't matter if someone is... If someone's trying to kill you, it doesn't matter if they're doing it because they're crazy or not.
What matters is they're trying to kill you.
It's kind of that.
If somebody is effectively acting as a bulwark to stop any kind of rightward movement in Britain, it doesn't matter if they genuinely believe they're a good person or not.
The effect is still the same.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Where can people find your stuff?
You can find us over on YouTube.
I have a kind of a legacy channel.
It's just called Scrump Monkey.
That was my old internet handle.
But we do a lot of various stuff over there.
You can find us over on Substack, antipolitics.substack.com.
And you can also occasionally find us doing NoMoss events, although those will generally be announced on our platforms.
We're kind of in a little bit of a hiatus with that.
But we're hoping to do something in the new year because we do like to put our ideals into action and actually meet with people in the real world and have a few speeches, but mostly just get some talking done, get some networking done, actually make the thing real for at least a small period of time.
I was gonna say, we do also have a Telegram channel.
I'm sure we can, once we're done, paste you some links to copy over, and we can also be found on Twitter occasionally, but we... We get banned a lot, yes.
We also suggest to people just to avoid Twitter anyway, for it's a mind virus.
Yeah.
Well, this all sounds very, very sound advice.
Well, thank you very much.
It's been great meeting you.
And I hope to have you... Thanks for having us on.
No, it's an absolute pleasure.
And thank you for being my first podcast of the new year.
And thank you...
As always, to my wonderful viewers and listeners, please carry on supporting me, those of you who do support me on Substack, Subscribestar, Patreon, and Locals, and buy me a coffee.
Those of you who don't, yeah, give it some thought.
If you like what I do, it's not about whether you think I'm a nice person or not, because I'm horrible.
It's about supporting the things you believe in, and if you believe in what I say, then I think you should bung some money my way, to help me make a living.
