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/EvScr123
Substack: https://antipolitics.substack.com
Evelyn's Twitter: https://x.com/dg115511
John Twitter: https://x.com/NomosEvents
Buy their ‘Antipolitics’ book: http://wyflings.com↓ ↓ ↓
↓ ↓ ↓Brand Zero is a small skincare and wellbeing business based in Nailsworth in the heart of Gloucestershire, with a strong eco-friendly, zero-waste, cruelty-free ethos. Brand Zero sells a range of wonderfully soothing natural skincare, haircare, toothcare and wellbeing products, mostly hand made, with no plastic packaging or harsh chemicals. All our products are 100% natural and packaged in recyclable or compostable tin, paper or glass.
Discount code: JAMES10
www.brandzeronaturals.co.uk
↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children's future.
In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, James tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/↓ ↓ ↓
Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
Welcome to the Dellingpod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I just wanted to tell you about something really exciting coming up quite shortly.
It's James Dellingpole's birthday bash.
His big birthday bash, I believe it's been called.
Can you guess why?
Well, unfortunately, I've got a big birthday coming up.
I don't normally like to celebrate these things, but this one is kind of unavoidable.
It's not actually on my birthday.
It's on August the 1st.
My actual birthday was held on the anniversary of the day when the atomic bomb didn't go off over Hiroshima because nukes aren't real and it was a napalm strike.
But that's another story.
So my big birthday bash is on August the 1st.
And the highlights include, well, I suppose the highlight is me chatting on stage, doing a delling pod live with Bob Moran.
Now, apart possibly from my brother Dick, who's obviously easy to talk to because he's my brother, I think Bob is one of the people I most enjoy chatting to him because he's bright, obviously.
He's got hinterland.
He doesn't take prisoners and the conversation could go in any direction and it probably will.
I'm really looking forward to our chat.
So thank you, Bob, for appearing on a stage with me.
Also, we've got Dick.
Dick will be there, of course, and he'll be playing bass with unregistered chickens.
I've also got some of my friends from the world of natural health coming up.
And if you arrive early enough, you might be able to try some of their potions or even their treatments.
I'm not sure what they want to do, but there'll be stalls and things to look at.
And there'll be pizza.
There'll be pizza.
Really delicious.
The last time, last event I had, we've got the same caterers.
food is extra obviously but uh the pizzas were really good and they also did these really nice i These nice, I think it was pooled beef, something like that.
It was just food you'd want to eat.
I think the best thing about these events isn't even about me.
It's about all the other wonderful people that turn up.
You'll be amazed.
These are like the best friends you've never met because you'll suddenly feel, hang on a second, I'm not alone.
There are other crazies just like me.
They're really, really fun, these events.
I would do them much more often, but unfortunately I get so knackered because of my tedious illness thing.
I mean, I've barely recovered from the last one.
It's in the middle.
It's in central England, I will tell you.
It is surrounded by beautiful countryside.
There'll be BNBs and stuff you can stay in.
I would do that if I were you.
It's on a Friday night, August the 1st, I mentioned.
But you might want to make a weekend of it because there's lots of stuff to see around about.
Or you could come early and have a walk.
I don't know.
Whatever.
Anyway, I hope I will see you there.
August the 1st, James's big birthday bash.
It's going to be fun.
Limited number, strictly limited number of tickets.
There's only going to be 20 VIP tickets for reasons which will become obvious if you buy one.
They're for people who want to have special quality time with James.
Otherwise, I just get a normal ticket.
You will have fun, but please be quick because there aren't limited tickets.
They're being very strict on numbers, the venue.
So get in there as soon as you can.
And won't it be great?
Like, August, I think, is a really boring month.
Everyone goes away.
You'll need something to cheer you up for the fact that you're not in Ibiza or Greece or wherever you would like to be.
This will make up for the fact.
And we'll be able to commiserate with one another and have a really, really good time.
I'm so looking forward to seeing you there at James's big birthday bash.
Thank you.
Can't wait.
I love Dellingpole.
Go and subscribe to the podcast, baby.
I love Delling Pole.
And listen on the top, subscribe with me.
I love Delipo.
To the Delling Pod.
With me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but before we meet him, let's have a word from our sponsor.
If you're anything like me, and of course you are a teeny bit because you enjoy my podcast, you've probably reached that stage where you are trying to get rid of all the big pharma crap in your house and replace it with all natural products.
And I would heartily recommend that you follow my example and get loads and loads of stuff from Brand Zero.
I've talked about them before.
Brand Zero Naturals.
And they do all sorts of goodies.
My bathroom cabinet is now stuffed with Brand Zero Naturals goodies.
Probably my current favourite is the Pain Balm.
Pain Balm with Magnesium DMSO CBD oil.
It's the business.
You've got backache.
When I've got sciatica, I'll use Pain Balm.
I woke up in the middle of the night the other night with knee pain.
I rubbed the pain balm into my knee and it went.
My other favourite at the moment is this magnesium oil spray, which you rub into your calves and the soles of your feet and it helps give you a really good night's sleep.
There were some new products recently.
Prickly pear seed oil, which is amazing for the skin, especially around the eyes.
The Moroccans call it natural Botox and people say it makes a real difference.
Rose Balm.
Oh yeah.
Moroccan Dagmus honey.
It's amazing.
It's medicinal.
It tingles in your throat and it makes you feel makes you feel better.
There's loads of CBD products.
5%, 10%, 20% CBD.
A special gold blend with the nasty planty taste taken out.
The toothbrushes, I love that.
I use their bamboo toothbrushes every day.
It's a lovely company, run by a lovely person called Sasha.
And obviously there's no nasty stuff in there.
It's not tested cruelly on animals or anything like that.
And it's not made by Big Pharma.
I really, really love their stuff.
Recommend it heartily.
You'll find them at brandzeronaturals.co.uk.
That's brandzeronaturals.co.uk.
enjoy um scrump and Not Evelyn.
Yes.
Scottish pronunciation.
I don't know.
I've always known it as Evelyn, but we Live in enough of a proximity to Wales that I get both, and people always say, oh, which one do you want?
And it's not really bothered.
Neither Oral do.
Yeah, I do like your accent.
I know that Scotland has got about 250 billion different accents.
What is yours?
Oh, just a mess.
Neither of my parents are native Glasweechians, but I am.
So I didn't get the full-on twang from them, which is maybe why you can at least somewhat understand me.
But then I picked up the whole talking too quick thing, which I always get chinned for.
I like that.
That's definitely.
You picked up a little bit of the north of England as well.
And Evelyn, we had lots of questions last time.
Are you a boy or a girl?
Does it matter?
Well, I suppose people are they going to be satisfied with that answer?
I would consider myself an MTF transsexual if people really want to desperately know.
MTF.
Yeah, well, people did ask.
And in a way, it's quite...
I mean, I don't think that we're exactly aligned.
But people are interested in that kind of thing, aren't they?
Depends for what reason.
A lot of people are interested in it and are not well-intentioned.
And that's not necessarily me suggesting that they're not allowed to dislike me.
You're allowed to dislike me for all sorts of reasons, but not your own psychosexual trauma that you have suffered.
That's not my fault.
We do come across a few people who use, let's say, this space as a shelter from their own feelings sometimes.
So we don't have as much trouble as you think with it, to be fair.
Most of it's online.
But of those people that we've met who do have trouble, it's usually or genuinely to do with the fact that they become quite hyper-focused on it.
Most people, frankly, don't seem to care, especially kind of down the pub stuff.
It doesn't, yeah, it doesn't really affect too much of what we do, but I suppose coming from very unusual backgrounds is part of why we do what we do, really.
We were there at our local on Saturday, and I did not stick out like a sore thumb, but there was an African gentleman who had turned up, and this is not what we normally have in our local, and he stuck out like a sore bloody thumb in a way that I don't.
So take that for what it's worth.
How did he get on that evening?
Was he given a friendly?
No, he sat with his own little group of friends, I believe, who are probably just recently school leavers, judging by their taste in drinks and music.
I've just been, actually, I'm not going to, I'm not going to name it because it's unfair, but I've just been to an English holiday resort where when you see a black face or an Asian face, it's really quite, it's really quite, you know, they stick out like a sore thumb.
And it's interesting that when I was a child, that was what England was like.
It's very weird to be of an age where you really remember just everyone white.
And now it's not the case.
Really?
I'm only my 30s, but it's, yeah, the slightly rural northern England in the early 1990s, 1994, 1995, when I started to remember things properly, extremely.
You didn't see them.
You really didn't.
Especially out here where we are, which is quite, you know, not in a big city.
We're adjacent to the countryside.
And you really just, it was jarring and it was different.
But being told that you can't see that as jarring and different was also jarring because it's, well, it is different.
It is jarring.
This is a place where...
There was a sort of transitional moment in my Weltanschauung, if you like, where when I was...
We do ramble on this podcast.
There was a period of my life when I was writing for the Times, because I was very friendly with Sarah Vine, for example, who was a...
She was really, really good.
One of the best editors I've worked to.
And she liked my writing and just would be happy to point me at any subject.
And I sort of got in with the Times people for a bit, with Giles Coran and, what's her face, Caitlin Moran.
And I remember going out for one evening with, I think, Caitlin and realising that her view of the world and my...
We're all mates and we're all in journalism and we can all be, you know.
But that evening, I realised, no, there was a massive, massive gulf between how these people saw the world, these liberals, I suppose you'd call them, and how I saw it.
And that was one of the key differences that they felt that you shouldn't notice.
It was just fine.
You'd like roll over.
What's wrong with the racial characteristic of Britain changing completely?
Who cares?
Hey, man, it's all real people.
And I was thinking, why are you making me feel like a freak for thinking the way I do?
Round it, it's more that southerners are a bit treated with suspicion, never mind foreigners.
And that's the way it is in most of England.
If you're from a different part of England, back then you stuck out like a solid thumb.
It's very obvious people who were from the south of England, who were wine bar types, if they went into a pub here.
You could tell.
And that's just regional differences.
National differences are even bigger.
Well, what I find quite funny is if we can almost look at ourselves as like a staggering of both ages and geography, working our way up to where I was up in Glasgow.
You know, I went to school in the 2000s.
It was still a case like we had the token minority who was mixed race, had a Scottish accent, and I think the only other minority we had at one point was some Chinese girl that got because she had good grades for some school elsewhere.
And that was it.
Whereas in the time that I was at university in Stirling, over the three or four years were there, it went from disregarding the student population and the demographics of that.
Even the locals in the town all of a sudden said, well, this is like 10, 15% brown now.
It was white when I got here three, four years ago.
And now there's just these Pakistani men looming the corners of streets and stuff.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And we're not supposed to notice or think it's a problem.
How does your demographic and veld and shawan, which is one of my favourite words, sorry, differ from mine?
I mean, would you consider me a bit too out there and kind of crazy conspiracy for your for where you are?
No, I wouldn't say So I think a lot of people misjudge, I think, what we do because we don't go down as much of the conspiracy stuff maybe as we used to at one point.
But I think it's become as an aside thing to us.
It's more about dealing with the core problems.
I'm not really bothered about X, Y, and Z specific conspiracies.
I'm more bothered about the theory of state.
It's also operates.
The most awful things about the modern world are incredibly boring and very difficult to talk to people about.
The salacious conspiracy side of it, the side that grabs people and makes them do self-initiated research, we find often leads them into cul-de-sacs.
Or to put it another way around, my conspiracy obsession is liberal democracy.
Yeah, the real conspiracy is decline and it's going on all around.
To be fair.
To be fair, that is a pretty good conspiracy to be dealing with.
I mean, that is a lifetime's work in a way.
It's maybe some people would consider it a generalization, but it's how we have come to terms with, you know, you used to use the phrase a Welton Schung, you know, worldview.
It's sort of how we've got there ourselves is ultimately being so cynical that we actually turn around to other people's sort of conspiracy stuff and go, well, yes, and what about that?
That's horrible, if it's true, and yes, something should be done about it, but what?
Well, there's very a lot of stuff is what we consider conspiracy jacketed.
Take for example, fluoride.
The scientific consensus is that heavy fluorination of water lowers human intelligence.
That is the settled science on fluoride.
And yet if you talk to people at water fluorination, they'll treat you like you're talking about lizard people on the moon.
But that's part of it.
That's part of the design of it.
Fluoride and Fluorination have been pushed off into the conspiracy sphere.
And therefore, even though there's masses of scientific evidence that this lowers human intelligence, people just disregard it like they disregard all things that are hyper-real to them.
It might as well be Bigfoot to many people.
And that's what we find is quite a disturbing effect of the conspiracy sphere is that in talking about something like it is a conspiracy, rather than settled reality, you make people disregard it.
Whereas we don't talk about these things like the conspiracy.
They're not conspiracies.
They're out in the open.
They will just tell you these things.
I think a fantastic example of this is the stuff as ARIA and Dominic Cummins and this whole institute that developed all these new techniques for basically blocking the sun out to combat global warming.
And, you know, this has been prime red meat conspiracy material for 20 years at least.
You know, post-9-11 especially.
And then, you know, The Guardian at one point said, this stuff's not real.
They'd never do this.
And then you've got Daily Mail paper coming up.
Well, two weeks later was just a government announcement.
And the government said, yes, we're going to be blocking the sun out.
We live in a post-conspiracy world where The Guardian has a little cartoon about air release.
You know, it's got the cloud coming out of the plane to block out the sun.
And they're going, this is what the government's proposing to do.
And it's just, it's madness because people go, wait a minute, I've seen that, but that's conspiracy.
But I'm confused.
And I think confusing people is a very overlooked power that the current order has.
If people are simply confused by the absolute din of politics, then they're paralyzed to act.
They don't know what's real.
But fear not.
The solution to your confusion is here.
I was wondering.
Listen, I'm really sorry.
You know, I've been away on the holiday.
Oh, it's fine.
Should I read it?
Would I enjoy it?
Yes, I think there's quite a lot you get out of it.
And I think actually there's some things that we could probably discuss within it without really getting too into the meat.
I've always wondered for your sort of sake of argument, do you care for free speech at all anymore?
I know you've spent enough time associated with, at one point, Mr. Toby Young, or Lord Young, sorry, to give him his official title.
And whatever else.
The whole free speech thing was just a kind of distraction, wasn't it?
Just another trap.
Freedom of whom to say what.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay, one guy gets released from prison because he put up Nazi stickers, but now you've enshrined a right for thousands of journalists to continue to denigrate Britain and its people.
Does that put us on a better footing?
I'm not really sure.
And I think that's really a large part of what we've tried to do with this book is we've taken all our little different essays and snippets and collected bits of work that really is our more contrarian and controversial stuff, even on the far right, if you want to call it that.
Because we just don't play up to any liberal priors.
We don't believe that.
For example, one of our things, the book starts with a series of very short, not quite essays, but mantras as we describe them.
One of which is man is not born free or equal, which is true.
But if you truly believe that man is not born free or equal, then there are massive implications if you use that as the basis for your worldview.
Because it's clearly true.
Man is not born free because we are beholden to each other, our families, our communities.
We're not born alone.
And we're certainly not born equal.
If you meet people in general, you can tell that people are not equal and they never will be.
But these two precepts are what the modern world, you know, the opposite of them is what the modern world is built on, that people are born free and equal.
And it categorically is not true.
Who is responsible for that bollocks?
Is it Russo and people like that?
Yes, I'd say there's quite a big collection.
And it's the discussion that was ended up sort of happening.
Mills, Bentham.
All of these people initially closed it in Christian niceties, especially Bentham, who was an atheist.
What humanism develops from?
But humanism develops from universalist weirdos couching their ultra-universalism in Christian terms.
And that has been a huge problem in the Protestant world, especially.
And it seems that really there was no defense against this.
People thought, well, that's nice, isn't it?
I think the problem is that it's nice.
It really appeals to the sensibilities of Middle England.
Middle England laps that up.
It's how they would like the world to be.
Can you define universalism?
Well, it's the, again, it's the idea that all people are free and equal, the universal man.
You know, in the economic terms, it's homework and amicus.
But universalism is the idea that really people are interchangeable, that they are blank slates, that we're all one race, the human race.
There's not immutable differences between us.
And with enough resources and care, anyone can achieve anything.
Right.
And you're right.
That is absolutely one of the dominant ideas of certainly Western civilization.
We wrote the book in stages because we wrote these essays that are based on the idea that, okay, we know this, now what?
We know that democracy isn't real.
Now what?
We know that we're ruled from above.
Now what?
We know the tragic vision of man is true and that man can never be free or equal.
Now what?
What does that mean in the modern world?
Yes, I think, especially with those mantras, it's a great little introduction for people because it's us going into the notion of, oh, well, it's not just the fact that multiculturalism is bad.
is that multiculturalism is a force that destroys our culture.
If you hand me the button...
No, ours gets destroyed by this pluralistic culture because all the divisions, all the particularities, the things that made it unique, powerful, have been derasinated, universalized, if you will.
Yes, Nima Parvini, academic agent, wrote us a lovely introduction.
Sorry, lovely foreword, I must say.
God, I shouldn't mix those two up when he wrote the book.
He wrote us a nice foreword, and I must thank him for that.
But I would tell you what, if you want to get a sense of the book, it's not very long.
I could just read you the quick introduction.
Why don't you do that?
Okay.
Anti-politics, noun, rejection against or re uh sorry, uh, reaction against or rejection of the practices or attitudes associated with traditional politics.
We want to live in a different world, one in which the structures of power are displayed honestly and the top-down nature of sovereignty is presented openly.
What you were reading this series of essays and speeches written and presented between 2021 and 2024, because we did present some of this stuff in person in front of crowds of people, which are actually very edifying, I must say, is our attempts to grapple with what is meant, what it means to truly reject all assumptions and priors of post-war liberalism.
To reject the abstract mental technology of ideology and describe political reality as it is.
To reassert first principles as simple as the fact that for human organization to exist, someone must be in charge.
To achieve this, we seek the synthesis of top-down and revolutionary thinking that is not the self-parody of shave-gabbar t-shirt leftism.
Figures such as Smith, Alul, Francis, Spengler, Burnham, Moscow, Prato, the juvenile Lenin, Hopper, Gottfried, and many others hold pieces of a model that scythes away the political waffle that comes before the statement all governments make and therefore we rule.
To engage earnestly in politics and the abstract rules of the political process is to already have been defeated.
This is why we engage in anti-politics and why we gave the project that name.
We aim to systematically strip the security blanket of the process from people's minds and lay bare that power is still the same as it was in the age of kings.
It is simply wielded by lesser men with backs too weak and shoulders too narrow to wield it openly.
You can have a good king or you can have a bad king, but someone will be in charge.
The mental technologies, the framing devices of post-war politics cannot alter this reality.
A set of simple heuristics on Manchester Surviving Modernity precede the long form essays in this book and acts as a primer for the framing our work takes place within.
Most political writing, even on the supposed far right, wraps controversial issues in liberal mores the way you would disguise medicine to feed to a dog.
We will not do our readers the disservice of attempting to cushion the blow.
We instead take top-down ideas through to their natural conclusion and to the maximalist position.
Very little in this book is truly original, bar our turns of phrase and exact language.
The tragic vision of man as simultaneously risen animal and fallen god was understood throughout history.
That man can free himself from his nature through the application of political magic is the great lie at the heart of the modern world.
You cannot vote yourself back into the garden.
Yes, and we do a couple of thankers after that, but that's the introduction to the book.
I like the thing about the dog.
Yeah, it's just what I'm saying.
I like your refusal to play that game.
The dog's got to have his medicine.
It's like, well, you are not a dog, and you know, we will not treat you like one.
It is that people do that, though.
They do.
They wrap these controversial ideas of immutable racial differences, of differences in civilizations between people, of differences even in internal morality in this liberal coating.
Yes.
Again, like you would.
And they go, oh, look, guys, don't worry.
It's hard on the inside, but it's got this liberal coating to make it easier for to swallow.
And that liberal coating is always nonsense.
I mean, it's one of my pet peeves.
Someone will delve into ethno-nationalist arguments and they will abroach this idea that, you know, races are not equal and that we can't necessarily function together.
But then they'll still say that this is a problem of integration.
They have not gone the whole step and realized, actually, you can't integrate them.
You can only destroy.
And that's really understanding the sort of entropic and tragic elements, really, of things like multiculturalism or democracy.
To us, I think is much more interesting than the day-to-day sort of almost like heap magazine style pro-wrestling facade that it all really is or punching duty, whatever you want to call it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Now, I'm reminded now why I found you so distinctive the last time I had you both on.
You don't sugarcoat the pill.
And it's good because it's very, very hard.
I mean, I consider myself pretty hardcore.
Well, pretty or no, pretty intellectually honest, let's say.
I don't like, I have a very low border threshold and I don't like, I don't like throat clearing.
I like to get straight in there.
But even I sometimes catch myself doing that thing, that sort of, I'm going to make a tough argument, but I'm going to make it.
I'm going to show you first of all that I'm a nice guy who cares.
And here's what I'm going to do.
You don't bother with that.
You must first own the liberal within.
Yes.
And I think, to be fair, it has been a long-winded process, but I think we have both got to a point where we understand certain aspects of the state in general and the British state that we don't really think it's worth giving anything the benefit of a doubt.
I think naivety is one of the most dangerous political forces out there.
I mean, one of the little essays I wrote in the book, The Masses Are Red Pilled.
Now what?
And the whole notion of this is, well, let's say everyone did know that COVID jabs are killing everyone right in the midst of 2021.
What would they have done about it?
I mean, where was the organized force that was going to go take Matt Hancock out in the streets and seek justice for the people?
That was not going to happen, was it?
No.
So are you proposing solutions?
No, because there aren't any.
In the traditional sense of my language.
Well, there are no political solutions.
That's why we engage in anti-politics.
But the solution is to not let this destroy you.
It's to realize that politics isn't real and what is real is your own life.
Yes.
It's your own community.
It's your own family.
People ask us what they can do.
It's like, well, you're you.
You know where you are.
I can't answer that question.
Only you can.
I don't know your situation.
And I tell people, look, if you don't feel like you're in a position to help, you're probably not.
But if you do feel like you're in a position to help, you better bloody help.
There's very few people who are involved in actively destroying this country.
When you understand top-down politics, I don't blame the masses.
In fact, we see the masses as passive, and they are.
It's not normal people's fault that this country's in the state is in.
They have just been going to work, eating their meals, doing their job, and living quietly.
Most people just live quietly, and they are not to blame.
And really, I think that's one of the main things I want to communicate to people is you don't feel like you should have to do something.
you should do is look after yourself because it's not your fault you didn't do do this You didn't vote for this because the ballot box isn't connected to the levers of power.
The levels of power, you know, they go nowhere.
The people in power subject people to power and it's not the masses' fault that the country ended up this way.
I think people who think that way are cruel, really.
It's not normal.
Normal people are subjected to power.
That's the main thing you learn from a truly top-down vision of the world.
And to blame them and to chastise them and to try and punish them in a hypothetical new world would be, in my view, insane.
But a lot of people accuse us of being extremely pro-violence.
But it's very few people who are destroying this country.
Very few.
I'm totally with you.
And it's one of the few occasions where people normies are always spouting platitudes.
But whenever I catch somebody who purports to be awake or semi-awake, coming up with the line about man's inhumanity to man and about how we can't be trusted and we're left to our own devices, we'll always do bad things.
And, you know, we've got all these characteristics within us which tend towards disaster.
I'm thinking, actually, no, what you're doing is you're spouting propaganda on behalf of the tiny minority who control you, who want you to think that.
They want you to think that, well, we can't be trusted.
We have to be controlled.
I don't think it's true, is it?
I think it would depend what you mean by that.
I think it's man's...
if we look at you know think of him as like a herd animal I think it is man's natural want to be ordered around to be told what to do to be directed in life whether that's by a king a lord or a priest You're right, people don't need to be forced to accept order.
When order is in their benefit, they gratefully accept it.
Yes, it's not order is not the problem.
It's the shape of the order and what it relates to.
And I think to be in service wholly to one master is a much more fulfilling and morally sort of, I don't know, positive life, at least in my view, to being subservient to hundreds of thousands of people because you're part of some economy and you've got to be involved in the political process and you've got to be media literate and you've got to do all these different little things so that you can do your bit to be a responsible citizen.
Instead of just providing service to someone, which is what we've done for thousands of years prior.
So you're saying we want Augustus or Marcus Aurelius, maybe.
I don't think it really makes a difference what you call it.
It's fundamentally about recognizing that there are people in power and they will do what they will.
And any form of popular revolt or popular sentiment will not change their actions or their decision.
It's also that you used to be subject to power locally, but mostly you were subject to extended family.
Your extended family is what kept you in line.
It's what kept you prosperous.
And your extended family, again, your patriarch of your family would probably have a relationship with some kind of lord who would have a relationship with some kind of baron.
And these natural human groups develop into societies.
Not to get too autistic about the politics of it, but if you look at medieval England, it's a propertarian anarchist state.
Everything has contracts and fealty and oaths.
Everything's signed.
Everything's on paper.
Even the serfs have a contract.
point is that people don't mind belonging somewhere it's that when you when the when And he explains the process of creating mass society.
We live in a mass society and that didn't exist in the old world.
People lived in their families.
They live in their extended families.
They lived in their villages.
They lived in their wider communities.
And very rarely they saw outside of that because that was their everyday structure.
What the state did is it came in and it smashed all of those things.
And it said, well, yeah, you've got no one to depend on now.
Guess you depend on us, eh?
It atomized them.
To become a mass society, you must first smash the natural small groups that people belong to, which are the family, the church, the village, and the manor.
And all of those things have been diminished.
And when did this happen?
When did this start?
Well, it's been an incredibly long process.
I think you can think about it as far back as you want.
I mean, I think one of the essays I proposed to one of the Shieldings events, I went all the way back to try and create like a slightly absurd, but I thought quite useful example of, well, at some point, there would have been patriarchal gods for each house.
And at some point, the conglomeration of those houses into a polity for their own protection or their want to seek some kind of imperium over another set of houses would have required these people to agree upon some characteristic amongst their different patriarchal gods in their own homes and in a way have this entropy, sorry, entropic process where they're sort of universalizing the beliefs and the political formula to justify expansion, expanding the polity itself.
And this is just a continuous process.
So then you're no longer someone of this house, you're someone of this local god, and then you're someone of the village church, and then you're someone of the country.
Right.
The big difference, though, is that in previous ages, kings subsumed local groups and aristocracy.
They didn't destroy them.
They got them to swear fealty, but they didn't smash them to pieces because they saw their utility.
I think the big difference, really post-18th century, is the lies, is the veneer over it.
The people who've convinced themselves that someone doesn't have to be in power, that we cannot have a king, rather than using different euphemisms for it.
I mean, the French Revolution being a great example.
Oh, yeah, we don't have a king, we've got an emperor.
But that's the way human organization works.
We can't think unless we think of somebody being in charge as a person.
And that's just how human thought works.
We can't conceive of anything else.
I think that's the thing.
And the real problem isn't this process, when it's done honestly, when it's done openly, it can have its effects.
But as long as people understand that, okay, I am being ruled by an empire.
We are a vassal state.
When conquest happens, conquest happens generally honestly.
You are a subjected people and we are in power.
That isn't a lie.
That's the truth.
It's a horrible truth for the subjected people often.
But it is at least the truth.
What really happened was that ideology, which we regard as basically not real, ideology exists in the realm of thought.
Ideology isn't real in the same way that the exercise of power is real.
It isn't real in the same way that in the old world, being put to the sword was real.
It is a framing device.
It allows us to filter reality, but it doesn't change reality itself.
Or in most terms, post-hoc justice.
Yes, It just is justifications for those in power.
And when the justification for being in power stopped being, I'm the most powerful, or, you know, well, I'm the most powerful and therefore God put me in place.
Or the natural order is that I am more powerful than you, and you are subjected to it.
That was the ethos of the old world.
And people say it's horrible, but at least it was honest.
The world that rescued us from that is simply just telling us that it's not real.
It's telling us that power doesn't exist.
And I think it's the lie that's the big difference.
We've had a process of centralization and, you know, aristocracy.
Hans Hermann Hopper, what did he do?
From aristocracy to monarchy to democracy, which he described as a decibelization process.
We're not quite sure I fully agree with.
But there is this idea that centralizing things does destroy some of the unique character of what lay there before.
But lying about it, having this idea that we don't need somebody to be in charge.
In fact, you are in charge.
We've got a democracy.
Everything's your fault.
If you can observe the world as it is, that is clearly a lie.
But that is the stated beliefs of the British state.
Is a continuous lie.
And that is the problem in that power isn't the problem.
But lying about power and not exercising it in a way that is honest and heroic is evil and it always will be.
Yes.
But I don't want to interrupt you too much with this thought.
Oh, because it's probably not where you're coming from.
But it occurred to me.
Isn't that why the Christian vision is the best solution, inasmuch as Christians acknowledge a supreme authority, which is God.
We're answerable to God.
We're answerable to nobody else.
Okay.
So there's the stuff in Romans 13 about, you know, you've got to work with whichever arbitrary authority is in power at the moment.
But ultimately, you are answerable morally to God.
I mean, isn't that a way a form of anti-politics?
Sort of, but in that sense, we are out of the garden.
We are not just answerable to God anymore because at some point we are subject to mortality.
But the problem with that is that politics is the realm of men.
We do get back though, you know.
I mean, we don't go back to Eden, but we do, but we do, like, the deal is it's not, it's not, God didn't just go, right, piss off, you know, you mess with the snake, off you go.
I've had it with you.
That isn't quite the deal.
As we've identified and seen on Twitter and in YouTube debates a million times over, there is a fundamental problem of universalism with Christianity and the people who are in control of or who have greater influence over what Christianity is in the public eye, they will never allow it to be that sort of force that you want it to be, where it's a metaphysical absolute.
It steps over the universal because it's your worship of God and it transcends all this.
I've been having a discussion about this recently about the Catholic Church and the height of Catholic Europe.
And if you look at the height of Catholic Europe, what they do is they modify the gospels quite heavily.
They have liturgy, they have confession, they have transubstantiation, they have the monastic orders.
The power of the church was as an organization and as a very absolutist organization, the high medieval church is not very Christ-like.
It is extremely powerful, extremely pious, and incredibly rich.
But it's also the civilizing, one of the civilizing forces of Europe.
But the civilizing parts of it, the organized parts of it, the non-biblical parts of it, are European.
They're not biblical.
How do you go from foot-washing insurgent slave religion to high medieval Europe?
Well, Europeans do it.
And they do it by the uneasy fusion of Christianity with power.
Because what the Reformation shows us, and Martin Luther was just autistic about it.
He went, that's not what the gospels say.
But he didn't realize that Christianity and Christian universalism isn't appropriate for people under a certain intelligence threshold.
Protestants want people to have a lovely personal relationship.
It's like, you know, democracy of the people by the people for the people, but the people are retarded.
Have you seen that clip?
It's, oh, God, it's a famous little clip about America.
It's some, to be fair, he's some weird Middle Eastern cult leader, but he's just goes, it's democracy for the people, by the people, of the people.
But the people are retarded.
And it's true, but it's funny.
But that's the problem with Protestant universalism, is that not everyone is mentally capable of having the abstract idea of God held in their head.
Not everyone's capable of having a personal relationship with God.
That's where the priest emerges.
That's why the priest creates the initiatory religion.
If you look at high Catholic Europe, the height of Christian Europe, it is not a personal religion.
You get God via the priest.
And if the church says that you don't have a priest, well, you're out of luck.
You're separate from God.
That isn't biblical, but it's initiatory.
And that's what a religion like that needs to be.
And when that breaks down, when you don't have the, this is the word of God, we will interpret it for you, because quite frankly, if you interpret it yourself, you'll get it wrong.
That's not allowed to be said anymore.
But that was the spirit of high medieval Europe.
Okay, but this is about Booth, before you go on, Evelyn.
It's all about definition of terms.
I mean, I stated what I think is the essential nature of Christianity.
And you then turned it to be a thing about the church, which I think is not the same thing.
Of course, it is.
How do we interface?
It's clear that it's the church.
Well, no, it's not.
The Catholic Church, you said yourself, it's a political force.
It uses the essence of Christianity and adds a few bells and whistles and traditions and stuff to use it as a way of creating a new hierarchy.
The relationship between the priest and through the medium of confession, for example, through the medium of mass, through the medium of the liturgy, often originally in Latin and so on.
All this stuff is clearly designed to put a power structure around, to build a power structure around Christianity.
I don't look at the Catholic Church and go, yeah, that's my Christianity.
I think we're talking about completely different things.
I'm just inviting you to agree with me that if you are to take the position that I am answerable only to God, I look at what the teachings of God through the Bible, through Scripture and so on.
And it is very, very clear to me, from my understanding of that particular arrangement, that that is my anti-politics.
Because I'm not, I don't give a toss what's the perv in charge at the moment.
What's his name?
Keir Starmer or whatever.
I don't believe in these systems.
I want to live outside the system and I mostly do.
I think possibly maybe not necessarily the mistake you're making because ultimately it's something that becomes up for interpretation.
And I'm not attempting to make some appeal to atheism or Nietzscheanism or paganism.
But to me, from the stuff that I have read, I think there's a bit of it in Francis Parker, Yorke, there's other stuff in some of the older things I've read about Rome and Greece and whatever else.
What I think more is that what you're trying to get at, this thing that keeps you, as you see yourself as a Christian, sort of controlled and accountable by, is really more a unique mode of operation and way of life that European man engages in.
And that's the difference.
It's that you have a sense of unity with your fellow white man that isn't shared in other races.
That sense of kin.
I mean, I think that's a large part of what people are trying to get at when they go and seek Christianity out themselves.
They want that sense of kin and that sense of being something higher, which is in themselves if they recognize it.
Well, that's one of the tragedies of Catholicism is that the Reformation happened because Northern European men knew that transubstantiation didn't happen.
They knew that it doesn't literally become the body and blood of Christ.
And they also knew that the liturgy and many of the power maintenance things of the Catholic Church were made up by them.
But also they needed to be there.
It's the irreconcilable nature between somebody who was religious who has like 120 IQ and somebody who's religious who has 80 IQ.
They are religious in very different ways.
You may have a rich inner spiritual life that you can draw on at will that centers you.
And we tell people to do this if they're capable of it.
There's an essay in there called the Holy Mountain.
We are not people who are atheists.
In fact, are you not atheists?
I don't know if it's a cop or not, but we consider metaphysical absolute.
No.
Do you believe in the supernatural?
Annotists, really.
are metaphysical absolutists.
Do you believe in...
And it's that simple.
And so just briefly, we were made by God in his image.
It depends on the broader sense of the phrase.
Man definitely has part of the divine in it.
What that part is, is one of the great things that we try to find out.
That's one of the great questions of human existence is man is clearly in some way part divine, but how and what that means.
And even if we can conceive of what the divine is, if we are merely ants trying to understand, you know, the picnic that we're feasting on, we don't have the whole picture.
If we understand that transcendent beings exist and that we really exist in a lower form of reality, then how do we hope to understand those things?
It's one of the irreconcilable, you know, it's one of the great spiritual journeys that people go on.
But most people just need organized religion.
They just need to be told what to think.
The spiritual self-discovery journey is not for everybody.
I mean, I think maybe to make it more simpler, we would agree much more with the idea that we as human beings are devolved from something higher, not evolving from things that were lower.
I would probably get us on the same question.
And it's slightly controversial in that Christianity works in Europe because it's very European, but I wouldn't try and convert Muslims to Christianity.
I think Islam works in the Islamic world.
It doesn't work in Europe.
Because it's an Arab spirit.
That's their metaphysical absolute.
That's their expression of what they believe is God.
And to try and strip that from them, I think, would damage them as a civilization and a people.
Right.
And just briefly, do you believe in angels and demons?
Are the supernatural forces that manipulate people?
People are definitely summoning things within themselves through things like AI that I think are about as close as I could get to seeing something as a demon.
I think if you're sitting there engaging with some AI all day and it's becoming your new social partner or whatever, that in a sense you really have summoned some sort of, if it is a consciousness and it's an intelligence, as people say it is, you have summoned something otherworldly that as far as I'm aware was not made by God.
So if you want to use the word demon for that, I think that's about correct.
The reason I'm asking these questions, it's not because I'm obsessed with Christianity.
It's more that I'm curious to see where you're coming from.
You see, we do believe absolutely, absolutely, that the divine realm, the spiritual realm is real.
We believe that God is real.
But I don't know if he calls agnostic, because we definitely do believe that God is real.
But there's so much to study in that realm that's been hidden and bastardized by the modern world.
I think really a new world, a new political world would need a new spiritual conception.
How do we create, because it's clear that Christianity had no defense against managerialism against mass society.
It was utterly waylaid by it.
The church has failed to prevent the modern world from emerging.
If anything, it was a foundational step in the world.
Yeah, Protestant universalism was a huge foundational step in where we are now.
And that was Luther, who invented that bit.
Who introduced?
Not exclusively.
It's inherent in it because Christianity is an insurgent religion if you read the Gospels.
It's not meant to be a ruling religion in the words of Jesus.
So it's very difficult to reconcile that.
And again, we're not trying to denigrate Christianity.
This is just what happened.
Christianity didn't prevent the modern world we live in from emerging.
So how do we come up with a religious conception that is able to withstand managerialism?
Because Christianity and Christian universalism clearly isn't that.
Right.
So you wouldn't push it as far as I would, which is that essentially Satan is the God of this world and the people who run the world are and always have been under the spell of Satan and they get power in return for their service to the Dark Lord.
I think in a sense that I think the closest sort of maybe Christian thinker that I would align myself with would be someone like Thomas Carlyle.
I think his more perennial sort of ideas around it and his way that great men relate back and forth to religions and that they are aspects of it in the world.
And that particularly during the creation of these new categories of identity and statehood and being a citizen, to him was very much marking out the fact that you were no longer a citizen of God's kingdom.
You were a citizen of Britain, the parliamentary system, and therefore you were taken out of the hands of God.
And there was only one other set of hands in his view that you could go into.
And in a sense, I do sort of agree with that view.
If you're to see it in a kind of polarity or some sort of representation of good or evil on a much more organized basis.
It's extremely clear that no matter what you call it, that the people are in charge of evil.
Some of their actions are only explainable by the fact that they are evil and that they want to do evil.
There are things that cause them pragmatic harm that they do purely out of spite.
The reason that we don't go for denominational catch-catch or denominational setting for what we talk about is that really it is non-denominational.
There are people who are, again, like yourself, who would be aghast about what you said about Catholicism because they think that's the one true Christian religion.
And that's the problem.
I don't think you've got to publish it all the time.
I mean, I love my Catholic people, but they do think they're the mother church and that everyone else is a heretic.
Well, it's just like, I'll talk about the problems of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church doesn't work for self-initiated, high-intelligence northern European males, and that's why the Reformation happened.
But also, the Catholic Church is, you know, is right in many ways, in that most people who are farmers who can't read need an intermediary to interface with God.
And really, that circle is squared by the fact that these people aren't equal.
They aren't the same.
And it's a lot of people aren't willing to accept that the differences in people make them experience the divine realm differently.
And that there cannot be universalism because man is not universal.
And that is one of the great squared, you know, unsquared circles of Christianity and of proselytizing and mass conversion religions in general.
I believe that religion should be much more initiatory.
That really there should be an elevating circle of things that you understand rather than a flat line of, well, just say you love Jesus and everything will be okay.
Because again, if you're of high enough intelligence and you are someone who's studying theology and history and mysticism and the you know angels, demons and good and evil, you understand that there's more than the Sunday school version of Christianity, which is why we don't pitch our flag to any denomination.
Because really, metaphysical absolutism is non-denominational.
As long as you believe in God absolutely and you're able to be moral and have a moral code and you're able to acknowledge that you know great men exist and that you know we believe Jesus was a great man of history.
He was.
He's had a massive impact on history.
But what does that mean?
And what does it mean moving forward?
And what does it mean in a world where we can't unlearn science?
We can't unknow that certain things are superstition.
But again, it's this a lot of people want to move backwards.
They want to move backwards to the 14th century or the 18th century when we really want to move forward.
The way out of this is through.
Again, you said you can't vote yourself back into the garden, but you can't LARP yourself back into the 19th century.
There needs to be some new conception of politics, which, you know, I've not written about this, because again, it's very controversial, but I think there needs to be some new conception of religion that will probably fuse old with new.
And yes, it should be that's what the new age wants.
Well, not really.
That's what the bad is.
That's what Lucifer wants.
Well, Christianity has failed.
The world you live in now is a failure.
Yes, it has.
I think it's actually the dancing drag children.
Is dancing drag children part of Christendom?
No, no, no.
You can point to me loads of stuff in the world that I think is the work of the devil, so, but I don't.
To say Christianity has failed, I mean, that's a big claim.
I mean, elements of the it's been infiltrated and corrupted as as inevitably would happen when you're the enemy of the liberal of this world.
Yeah, we live in a ni-global communist atheist system.
This church has been routed to such a degree that our leaders openly disrespect it.
In fact, disrespecting it gives you social kudos.
Christianity has failed politically.
It has failed to chain the political world.
It has failed to prevent the world that we now live in.
And people need to recognize that.
I find Christians very frustrating because they go, oh, we just need to pray about it.
It's like, no, your prayer circle has failed.
I'm sorry.
But you cannot pray the global American empire away.
I still have to do things in the political to do this.
But I'm going to have to do it because I don't hate to do it at all.
I haven't learned this one yet, so I can't quote it from by heart.
But you should really check out Psalm 73.
Because Psalm 73 is all about the stuff that you've been talking about.
And the person who's, I don't know whether this is a Psalm of David or not, but the psalmist says, I was grieved at the wicked.
I do also see the ungodly in such prosperity, for they are in no peril of death, but are lusty and strong.
They come in no misfortune like other folk.
Neither are they plagued like other men.
And this is the cause that they are so holden with pride and overwhelmed with cruelty.
Their eyes swell with fatness and they do even what they lust.
They corrupt each other and speak wicked blasphemy.
Their taking is against the Most High, for they stretch forth their mouth unto the heaven and their tongue goeth through the world.
Therefore, fall the people unto them, and thereout suck they no small advantage.
Tush, say they.
How should God perceive it?
Is there knowledge in the Most High?
So basically, the people who the wicked do, is the same God.
Where is God?
What's he doing about it?
We're getting away with it.
But just because they've got away with it for so long doesn't mean it ain't going to happen.
You just got to be patient.
I often feel like, I don't know, everyone feels like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendigo waiting for God to join them in the fire, but God never joins them in the fire.
That's what's happening now.
Well, they did, but I. Well, no, but people are.
It's not a big deal.
Our civilization is burning.
Yeah, we totally agree on that.
On that.
And actually, we agree mostly on the solution, which is to opt out.
I just think that you are and you're slightly in denial of this because you've created this fudge where you describe your spiritual position.
Either you believe in the supernatural stuff that I've been talking about, or you don't.
And if you don't, it's fine.
No, we do.
We just don't.
I believe, like, I'm sorry, but organized religion.
It's a half-assed version of it.
Well, organized religion is for stupid people.
But the atheists are right about that.
But they're defending organized religion.
I'm talking about Christianity, which is something slightly different.
All right, no, boys, boys.
It's play nice.
No, no, I'm just reading a bloody shiller book anyway.
Yeah, show your book.
No, no, no.
Tell you what, I'm going to read a snippet from my essay on Thomas Carlyle.
And then everyone's probably going to be able to do that.
I wouldn't know what you've got to say about Thomas Carlyle.
I'm sure it would be much more intelligent than Scrum's bollocks about.
Ooh.
Burn.
What?
No, this is from an essay I did quite a long time ago.
Thomas Carlyle, The Divinity of Order.
I did it back, I believe, when we're doing, we're trying to create a calendar of different political events so that, oh, you don't have to have Black History Month.
We can have British History Month.
You don't have to celebrate Martin Luther King Day.
You celebrate Thomas Carlyle's birthday now, you know, as an alternative calendar of age.
So to finish, but I will say that I'm not denigrating religion by saying that.
Most people are stupid.
That's why I organize religions for stupid people.
I'm not feeling threatened by it by Scrum.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
I'm not thinking, oh, he has attacked my religion.
Probably most people do.
Go ahead.
Right, anyway.
Carlyle, even in the days of a mere 20,000 voters, could see that this is not the way a society must be ordered.
An entity more supreme than the hereditary monarchy which sought its legitimacy from man itself as opposed to anything higher.
If the divine order of kings, patriarchs, and heroic leaders is a product of God's work, it is clear then that democracy, suffrage, and a society ordered purely by political consent is the work of the devil.
Once evil becomes the sovereign force in society, it is only a matter of time until it creates a cascading effect.
The lower classes become ever more embroiled in the political process, looking less to hard work, good leaders, and divine ideals for their guidance.
Instead, they demand privileges under the excuse of hardship and strife, otherwise thought of as the prior natural state of man.
So the lower classes are fooled into believing that they somehow rule themselves.
The aristocracy is unshackled from its duties as the chief social organizers, allowing for idleness, opportunism, corrupt profiteering, and outright subversion of any lasting vestige of true or right ideals.
All rungs of the societal ladder are at once emancipated of their duty to God and thrust into the hands of Satan.
And Carlyle says, hallucinatory visions rise in the head of my poor fellow man, make him claim over me rights which are not his.
Now, I think somewhere in there is something that we can agree upon.
Yeah, totally.
Yeah.
Yes.
I will say I did.
There's an essay in the book called The Holy Mountain, in which I do tell people basically as an urgent point to be religious.
I believe people should be religious, but I believe that, as you said, arguing over specific conceptions at a time of such atheism, of such non-belief, I believe even non-specific belief, even agnosticism is better for most people.
It's difficult because the muscle of faith has been atrophied.
People find it very difficult to believe in anything honestly.
And so I get very frustrated with Christians because they start attaching all this dogma to people's nascent spiritual feelings.
They go, oh, well, do this, do this, we this, we this.
And people are still really feeling their way out.
They're still not even fully sure if the spiritual realm is real.
And trying to have a debate over ooh, Catholics, ooh, Protestants.
I don't know who these frustrations Christians are.
I mean, they're just people.
You shouldn't feel threatened by them, Scrum.
Well, I'm not.
It's just that they insist that any political movement becomes a prayer meeting when it's a political movement.
It's the same reason that I don't want it to become about Islam or paganism or about, you know, someone save the badges campaign.
I find that people get very sidetracked from the very specifics that we deal with again in the book of politics, of power politics, of how do we deal with power?
And again, politics is the realm of man.
That's why it's so awful.
And unfortunately, it does seem that the religious impulse has been so heavily stripped out from most people that in whatever comes next, we're going to have to try and read.
We need like convalescence.
People need to go in some sort of retreat so they can feel spiritual.
Because people want that.
I know people who are like, I wish I could feel religious, but the world I live in has made me unable to feel that.
And they feel bereft by it.
People feel very bereft.
That's because of the Enlightenment.
Scrum, and Evelyn.
I was going to say I'm not changing the subject, although I am changing the subject.
Please do.
Yes, we like changing the subject.
There is a particular reason for this.
I do remember that the part of our last podcast that I most enjoyed was where you named names and described the I quite like your specific real-world examples of, for example, just plucking an example from the air.
I was incensed and nauseated at the weekend to glance at my wife's copy of the Telegraph and see some chunky-faced, sort of conventionally handsome, probably thickest pig shit, former defense of chief star, chief of defense staff, sitting on a motorbike with a penis substitute in his mouth.
And he was looking like, like, look at me, ladies.
I'm a man and I'm tough, and I used to be head of the armed forces.
And inside there was an interview with this man saying, why, we've got to be ready in five years.
We need five years' time to be ready to go to war with Russia.
And I'm thinking, you've got a very small penis.
You're probably really, really stupid.
All you did was go into the army and the people who rise at the top of the army are the kind of people who are not afraid to drown kittens or send men to get machine gunned on the wire.
They're not the brightest, are they?
They're political animals.
They obey orders from whatever the people in Whitehall and whoever's in Downing Street will tell them to do.
And here is this man being bigged up by the Telegraph as somebody whose opinion we should take seriously.
And he's telling us, get your sons ready for the next satanic blood sacrifice because it's coming.
Did this be one Tobias Elwood, the 77th Brigade's strongest soldier?
No, he by any chance.
Tobias Elwood is a different hate figure of mine, but he's a lesson.
Because I did see you reacting to the post and the paper, so I wasn't sure if it was that one.
Tobias Elwood was, I think, reposting the cover of this guy.
Ah, right, right, right.
What kind of signaling is going on here?
I suppose he's speaking to the women of the country, isn't he?
And it's like, women, get ready to send your sons and your husbands to die in the meat grinder to be droned to death by I think that's a very, very small part of it, to be honest.
I think the largest war agitation effort that we have on the go is all the counter-jihad stuff.
I mean, talk about that.
Yeah, fine.
But I think that's actually much more psychologically effective in achieving that result.
Because what you do is you put people in a constant state of shock and a constant state of anger.
Something needs to be done.
We all run around screaming, you know, hoping that every next Twitter post by some Indian who puts false information about what's happened in Bradford or something is going to change everything.
And that the Overton window is going to, ooh, we're all going to fall out of it or whatever.
It's all nonsense.
And in that same way of democracy and suffrage being evil, I think this is the exact same.
And I think so many people would benefit from themselves by just taking, you know, their little scrying mirrors, their nightmare squares, as we call them sometimes, and chuck it in the bin.
It'd be lovely if tomorrow everyone that was involved in the grooming gang scandal across Britain all got arrested And deported or whatever else happened to them.
But it's not going to happen.
So why are you getting angry about it on social media?
And what is the accumulative effect of everybody getting angry at this stuff on social media and getting angry at GB News?
Is that it's put us on a war footing.
You know, we are psychologically at war with the Arab civilization that's here so that we can be physically at war with the Arab civilization over there.
Right.
Yes, I agree with that.
Although, shouldn't they be nightmare rectangles, strictly speaking?
Oh, no, Nightmare Square sounds funny, though.
It comes off the tongue a bit more.
It does Nightmare Square.
Nightmare Rectangles.
The rectangle's got way too many syllables in it.
It's so nightmare quadrangle, if you really want to be autistic.
Nightmare Quadrilateral.
Yeah, yeah.
No, we know.
Okay, Nightmare Squares.
No, I couldn't agree with you more.
And I have to say, for me, it's always a tell.
Whenever somebody starts getting angry about Muslims, Islam, the threat from the jihadis, rape gangs and stuff, I mark them down a few IQ points, or rather, a few awakeness points, because I recognise that they are operating within the paradigm, within the Overton window.
taking orders.
Well, it's not just, The Overton window is what we're calling the framing, but the framing is the result of a network.
And this is a network that we have studied for years.
We know who's involved.
We know where the money's coming from.
It's coming from America and it's coming from Israel.
It's coming from the British military and intelligence sort of complex.
All of these different aspects are all working together so that you've got hundreds of people in Britain as leaders of the conversation keeping you within this frame.
And there's really, I'd be honest, I don't think there's much we can do about it.
I mean, I'll have a laugh on Twitter quote tweeting David Atherton going, well, you don't like Muslims in this country, but you never talk about Sean Rim patrols, do you?
Because that's not the issue that he's being paid to talk about.
Sean Rim, which is like the Jewish equivalent of the Sharia Patrol.
Yeah, synagogues have their own police cars that are done up like police cars that say Sean Rim on them.
In rainbow colours.
No, no, an official police colour.
Yeah, they almost look like police.
And they wear the high-vis vests and a uniform.
Now, if we were to create a patrol around Rotherham to stop Muslims...
Yeah, and it had the blue and yellow and they were in uniform.
You'd all be arrested as some sort of fascist militia at that.
Yeah, yeah, you would.
If you're defending synagogues in Tottenham, it's all cool.
But it's the point of, well, is one religious police better than the other?
People are playing client group games.
What we see democracy as is a series of client groups.
The circle is squared between the feminists and the Islamists because both the feminists and the Islamists receive more from the government than they put in.
And they're clients a bit.
So they always vote for more state.
Oh, why are the feminists on the side of the Islamists?
Well, it's because ideology matters a lot less than being paid.
And if the government pays you, it doesn't matter what your ideology is.
You go, yes, I'll keep my ideology to myself and I'll take this lovely payment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And thank you to my Islamist brothers who are helping me take this payment.
And that's how ideology is completely overcome by material means.
But, well, to give you an example, we featured in Hope Not Hate recently.
They had a report that was quite frankly baffling and shows their strings may have been cut because it made no impact.
We were in Hope Not Hate, a Hope Not Hate report recently.
Partly because somebody called Harry Schuckman, what was his name again, Martin?
Tress something.
Yes, he assumed a fake identity with a fake passport that has been analysed a real passport.
It's a fake name.
Yeah, it wasn't a fake passport because everyone who's looked at it said this is overwhelmingly likely to be issued by the Home Office.
He wrote a book called Year of the Rat in which he went after people like Edward Dutton, the human intelligence people, and our friends at the basket weavers, who are literally just people who meet up at the pub.
And he used a very likely Home Office issued passport to spy on our friends.
And then Hope Not Hate put us in one of their reports.
And that is the long arm the security state.
That is the security state reaching down and trying to basically tap on us.
We know that they're actually quite inept at that.
And we know that really it's a bit of a fart in the breeze because nothing bad has happened to us because of that.
The security state took a bit of a swig at us and to be frank, missed.
But they still took a swing at us via Hope Not Hate and via somebody who had a home office issued passport.
Where did your passport come from, Harry Shuckman?
And I'd like to ask Penguin Bucks as well, who published a book, You of the Rat.
Why are they letting people infiltrate private groups with Home Office issued passports and then slander them in books?
Covert human intelligence sources, Milt.
This is very clear.
How did the passport become relevant to this particular thing?
Because he used it to prove who his identity was when he was vetted.
When he was vetted, he gave them a home office-issued passport to lie to them and more effectively spy on them.
To be fair, that wasn't for the basket weavers, but that was more for a couple of conferences, both, I believe, in England and one over in Estonia, I think he went to as well.
But when security checked by people to make sure he wasn't informing on them, he issued them security-state-issued fake documents.
How is that happening again to people like us?
Like, we are becoming the targets of people with government-issued fake papers.
Yeah, it's the James Bond turning up at your every third Wednesday lunches or whatever he used to do with the old libertarian groups, wasn't it many, many moons ago?
Yes, I had a similar experience of this.
Somebody who works at Essex Council, he's a counsellor, emailed me to say that he'd just been to this briefing by Prevent, by people represent, I think by people representing Prevent.
And included in the briefing was James Dellingpole, far-right influencer.
I was a potential source of terrorism.
I'm thinking...
Yeah, so I'm not disputing that the security services are...
Well, I mean, out to get people like us, and not at all representative of the interests of the country they supposedly represent.
What I find hilarious, though, is I...
It cannot get itself to scratch its own arse.
And yet, spies are turning up to burst up whatever we're up to.
And that really only tells us two things.
One, these people are so obscenely paranoid about us doing anything, or they don't have a clue.
Now, I suppose that could also possibly both.
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
And actually, that's probably the most likely thing.
It's a bit of both.
They're clueless and paranoid.
And I think that just goes to be indicative of the whole problem with the state as it is today and the British government.
It is this massive paranoid entity that is full of so much information, but it knows nothing with what to do with itself.
It is in the same state.
It can only maybe just about scratch its arse, and that's what makes the difference.
To square the circle with Hope Not Hate, the other figure in that is someone like Matt Goodwin, who used to work for Hope Not Hate.
And it's just really weird that you have Matt Goodwin, who used to work for Hope Not Hate, approaching people like us and trying to collaborate with people like us and trying to bring them more into the Zionist frame.
And on the other end of it, you've got Harry Shuckman with an MI5-issued passport infiltrating human intelligence conferences and infiltrating small ad hoc right wing groups on behalf of the security state and on behalf of Hope Not Hate.
So you have two arms.
You have one arm trying to drag them into the neocon frame, and you know that you've got the carrot there and trying to make sure people get paid to be neocons and paid to be Zionists.
Right.
And you've got the other hand, you've got the fist there.
Yeah.
You've got the Harry Shuckman, which is punching people to go, you will not be this right wing.
Go and join the safely contained people over there in the Zionist corner who have a massive shield of protection from the security state.
It's so two-faced as well.
We've stopped really reviewing some of the Hope Not Hate stuff on our own channel as a podcast, and we used to do it yearly when the report used to come out, because we'd chuck in more information about some of the people involved and some of the charity stuff.
But we've kind of done that to death now, and a lot of other people have taken up that reign, so we don't really go near it.
But one point we tried to emphasise the last time we talked about it is don't think about Hope Not Hate as this group of smelly lefties that all love Palestine, because that's just not quite right.
That's too simple.
You really have to think about this two-faced sort of intelligence attaché that works for the Home Office, that spends his morning writing a paper about the issues of radical Islam and the terrorist threat that it opposes to us, but then after his lunch break goes and writes another pamphlet about Islamophobia.
And that's, it's when you can understand that that's what they're doing, they're doing both of these contradictory things at the exact same time.
You can only start to make sense of it then, I think.
So tell me, because I think that this is of great interest to a lot of people who watch my stuff.
Tell me about these containment groups, how they contain the supposed voices of the right.
So you've got, so you've got American and Israeli think tanks, I suppose, and intelligence, pouring money.
There's so many different shell organisations.
You can look at things like Quillium and all these different de-radicalisation things.
Obviously, we know Prevent is one of the more obvious ones.
But there's all these, you know, Henry Jackson Society, I think we mentioned before when we were on.
They've become diminished because they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar because they got paid directly by the Home Office.
Talked about them last time.
But you end up with both the Henry Jackson Society and Hope Not Hate cited by Prevent.
And the right, in quotes, is used to create the counter-jihad narrative.
And the left is used to create the counter-right-wing narrative.
But both of them say the security state needs to be bigger.
That's what really needs to be said.
But yeah, then you get this complex.
So you will have like, oh, who's the lawyer-y guy that gives money to Lawrence Fox and Andrew Brigden and all that?
How much?
His name escapes me at the moment.
Yeah, yeah.
That sort of character puts money towards Lawrence Fox and his adventures with the Reclaim Party and whatever embezzlement may or may not be going on there.
At the same time, Turning Point UK, a front of Turning Point USA, the big sort of think tank and influencing sort of body over there, will work hand-in-hand with the people that associate and work Tommy Robinson's events.
So that a big pool of money is thrown into getting a stage in the middle of London.
And you have all these different speakers who maybe aren't part of those networks, but are desperate to get their influence.
So they'll tag themselves along to this.
And then they'll all appear there and they'll do their own little bit of it.
Maybe they talk about remigration.
Maybe they talk about some of the more serious stuff.
But it's in a wash of a crowd that's full of stars of David.
And then you have a black choir group gets up and sing.
And we all talk about how beautiful it is that, you know, these people help build Britain with us.
How amazing it is that these people have integrated.
And you could have people go up to these events and they could give some of the most hardcore rhetoric.
They could give you fantastic ideas about what to do in your local community.
But it's all a wash in the noise of, isn't liberal democracy still great?
We just need to get rid of the Muslims.
And venerate the nation of Israel.
And that is, yeah.
You keep, you are contained.
Jeremy Hoskin, by the way.
Yeah, Jeremy Hoskin.
That's the one.
You are literally contained.
You know, it's like they've created a little mould.
And they've set it all out.
And they've gone, right, you run in there.
Let's pour you in.
And you do as you please.
And you're going to take the shape of the mould.
If you look at where the money comes from.
It is.
Yeah, politics is a container.
And everyone in the policy world is trying to create what the regime wants to buy.
If you look at think tanks, think tanks come up with what they think the government wants to hear.
So knowledge creation and policy creation is much more profitable when you're selling what people are buying.
And so that is the main vector of containment, really, is that if you are a think tank, an NGO of any kind, who is trying to sell knowledge or policy to a government, you're going to align yourself with the inbuilt interests of that government.
Okay.
And in the current world, our government is beating the war drums.
And so we have all of these supposedly right-wing NGOs, right-wing think tanks that may be full of well-meaning people at the bottom level.
But where their money comes from is a structure that's going, we need war with Russia.
We need war with Russia.
We need war with Russia.
And that's what they're buying.
They're buying war with Russia.
So that's what people are selling.
I mean, one of the most egregious, I think, recent examples we've come across as well is the Adam Smith Institute.
Yes.
Now, the Adam Smith Institute is also, to those that take a proper look at, Adam Smith International.
So whilst one end of it is a free market think tank that's now stepping into counter-jihad, it's stepping into talking about how, ooh, some of these immigrants, they don't meld well with capitalism and free speech.
Ooh, that's not very good.
But at the other end, the not public-facing end, where they've not got these little uni students with their charisma writing these edgy essays, is a massive body that has been used by the British government for over 20, 30 years to engage in nation-building and help basically disrupt the creation of political forces in Palestine at the behest of Jewish interests and whatever else.
Yeah.
So why is it that these folk are running around doing their little essays, getting you all agitated against Muslims, pretending that this is all this organic process, while at the same time there's this giant body behind them that's been given millions by the British government to go and mess with foreign states?
Well, the specific example is that the Adam Smith International, which is the private company arm of the Adam Smith Institute, was involved with Palestinian negotiations with Israel.
And it is widely recognized that the Palestinian negotiation team that is officially international is funded by international organizations that are funded by the state of Israel.
And so you end up with Adam Smith International putting out material to, to foment the counter jihad whilst also saying that mass deportations would be illiberal immoral and extreme but also uh deliberately torpedoing parts of the israeli palestine peace process on behalf of international finance and power.
And it's just, you see this all the time.
All the money in people like New Culture Forum, the Reform Party, all of these different structures, all of these think tanks, the Centre for Social Justice, all of the structures around the Tory Party, all of their money either comes from central government through several proxies, from other NGOs who get money from central government via proxies, or from foreign lobby groups, ultimately.
Or it comes from wealthy individuals who are members of their elite who want to show that they are buying influence that the regime wants to buy.
But there are very few people involved in funding these endeavours.
And you'll find that many people are ghostwriting.
Like you said, there are literally people who will write a counter-jihad article one minute, a civic nationalist argument one minute, and maybe even an anti-kind of deportation argument the next minute.
They're guns for hire.
And a lot of these people believe in nothing.
And when you realize they believe in nothing and they're all paid by the same guy.
And they'll say anything.
And will say anything for money, then it just makes sense.
They are a mirror.
They are what we call, they are consent manufacturer.
The left talks about consent manufacture and manufacturing consensus, but they never talk about the mechanism.
This is how there is a huge class of people, the think tanks, the NGOs, that the government pays to parrot their own rhetoric back at them.
And that's the process we point out.
We point out, you're funded by the Home Office, you're funded by billionaires, you're funded by the Jewish lobby, you're funded by an arms company, you're funded by the UN.
And every, every single time you will find that people are strictly following their financial incentives.
And those financial incentives come from the same central authority that they're parroting the rhetoric back of.
And it's the power of those contradictions as well.
You know, we all know how many times we've sat there and gone, they're stupid liberals.
You can't have feminists and Muslims work together.
That'll never work.
Well, duh.
But in the same reason, you can't have people who are interested in the security of Israel work hand in glove with people who are interested in the demographic interests of the British people.
That those things are, for a whole host of reasons, that we don't maybe have all the time to go into today, incompatible.
And the same way that feminism and Islam is incompatible.
Yes.
You know, it's the same thing just happening on our side of it.
Don't tell me about the New Culture Forum.
I don't think you mentioned them before.
That's one we're still working on.
We do know some of what's going on there, Mr. Whittle and his friends.
What they are is that they are a group of people who become quite influential as reform has risen in that they are trying to create basically new Toryism.
You have a group of people mostly funded by Peter Whittle.
It's partially his own little vanity project.
But what they're doing is through people like Charlotte Gill who writes a lot of their copy is that they're getting stuff in the Telegraph, getting stuff in the Spectator.
And what they're doing is they're trying to soak into the right-wing writing of Britain.
But some people say this is quite a noble endeavor, but what they're selling is the same old neoconservatism.
And they are just another face of the same group of people.
A lot of these people are in think tanks.
Some of these people have been in policy exchange, Henry Jackson Society, Centre for Social Justice.
They've been parts of the Tory Party.
They've served on Tory commissions.
So it's just the same backwash of the exact same white hall insiders and badly paid interns.
It's just they put a new sheen on it and try and sell you the same stuff with adopted language from internet right people, really.
I do think, and we, to be fair, we used to have someone that used to go to some of these events, but I think he's recently left Twitterism not too long ago.
And he used to go to some of the new culture forums, sort of like workshop events they do, like Turning Point UK used to do in universities years ago.
And they're, you know, meant to be like, oh, we'll come to the town hall and all the locals can come and they can voice their ill will about immigrants and their worries about this and their worries about that.
And they get to do it.
But then they get struggle sessioned by these, quite frankly, quite clever operators who take all their complaints and go, well, that's very fair.
But you can't be hateful of these people because that would be wrong.
And that wouldn't be British now, would it?
That's what happens.
And that's possibly more the insidious side of what something like the New Culture Forum is doing.
It's not just necessarily the media stuff that people engage with on Twitter, but really more the in-person stuff.
People who wouldn't know who Peter Whittle is or have no interest in listening to Matthew Goodwin's substack, but a conference is in their little town centre about, oh, we're going to have a conversation about the national problems that we're all facing, and they're given their chance to voice their opinion.
They feel that they're really doing something.
And all they do is get topped down by some posh Tory mob.
Like I said, our stance is obviously very hard on immigration and things like that, but it's mostly just because we recognise that, you know, we are not them and they are not us.
And no matter how they behave, they never will be.
It's not a matter of their behavior.
It's a matter of who and what they are.
We are not them, they are not us.
And that's objective, observable reality.
It's inherent to people.
It's inherent to the visible differences between people.
And structures like the New Culture Forum are really just there as a backstop.
They're there to plead with you not to give up on liberalism, not to give up on the last holding line of liberalism.
That we can make liberalism work if we just believe hard enough in these centre-right talking points.
And that's all it becomes.
It becomes about filling that space.
When you get these people talk about immigration, they talk about Islam.
They talk about things that people are concerned about, but they talk about them to be the visible ones talking about them.
If they're the ones talking about them, they can offer solutions.
And their solutions are always just further liberalism.
It's always, well, you need to vote for Nigel Farage.
Well, if only we could make Robert Jenrick, the head of the Conservative Party, into the peak.
That's people's big fight.
It's like, yes, I'm in the revolution.
I'm going to make sure Robert Jenrick is the head of the Conservative Party to Kebby Bandenoff.
I'm making a difference.
I've moved the Overton window.
And that's what they sell people.
They sell people these hollow, small victories inside the political process as the answer to mass immigration and things like that.
I mean, one I think is particularly hilarious.
I am obviously Scottish.
I am as about genetically close to Northern English people as you could probably get, really.
Yeah, if I went into the pub and said, I'm English, by the way, no.
Come on.
No, that's you're joking.
Very funny.
But if you're half Caribbean, you know, you're Calvin Robinson or you're Lenny Henry and you walk into the pub and go, I'm English.
Everyone goes, yeah, no problem.
Now, how do we square that circle there?
We don't, because that's never the conversation that's had.
What happens is Calvin Robinson himself becomes someone who then regurgitates and speaks for Enoch Powell and writes a sentence along the lines of, the English aren't necessarily white.
I see.
So that's the money shot.
That's what these people are getting paid for ultimately.
I think that is a large part of it.
Backstop.
One word, backstop.
Just out of interest, Jeremy Hoskin, I haven't looked into his back.
mean he's a Christian of some kind isn't he and he's made Tim Montgomery Tim Montgomery I even when I was I want you to put the boot in.
The Institute of Economic Affairs, which I thought of as a libertarian free market think tank promoting the kind of ideas that I wanted instituted and would make the country a better place and Hayek and etc.
All the things that weren't in China.
Just read Bob Friedman.
That'll fix it all.
Yeah, it will.
This is what we believe in.
There was a great one we picked out.
I think we were on one of Academic Agents stream ages ago.
And it was an article from 2003 from the IEA.
We will not support Tony Blair's tyrannical digital ID and national ID cards.
We won't support it.
It goes against all our ethos.
20 years later, IEA is then having conferences about the benefits that can be brought to the free market by having digital ID.
Yeah, free market solutions for digital ID.
It's really over time, everybody just sounds like Tony Blair eventually because he's already identified the quote-unquote solutions.
And this is again the problem with all the stuff that talks about immigration.
The solution is there.
It's been there for 20 years.
It's digital ID.
We know we're all going to get it.
Right.
Is that one of the main drivers of the immigration?
but something that identifies what they are that isn't just a living, breathing person they are.
You know, they need their nightmare square, the little card or whatever.
We're already so normalized to this, and we have so much fatigue and agitation about grooming gangs and crime and phone theft and e-bikes and fucking whatever else that people will just accept it.
When Starmer or whoever's going to be the final salesman for this stands up and says digital IDs or Farage, whoever it is, it might be multiple people from multiple camps selling it to all the different client groups.
You had recently Harriet Harmon selling it on Sky News on the same day that the former head of MI6 was selling it on Newsnight.
They said simultaneously digital ID is the answer to immigration.
But Labour has been making this noise before the election.
We pointed out, and to be fair, we don't gloat about this, but one of our best pieces of political kind of future predicting, and when we try and engage in that a little bit, was the fact that the Tory Party and Labour basically changed places in immigration in that Labour took a much harder tactical immigration, and it has done now.
That's kind of manifested itself.
But its solution has always been digital ID.
It was, wasn't it Tony Ben's son or something?
It was one of the former Labour leaders' sons who was an MP.
Kinnock, that's sorry, it was Kinnock's son who was originally.
Yeah, Stephen Kinnock put this forward.
Back in 2022, he revived digital ID and ID cards for the Labour Party.
And to be fair, they've been very solid on keeping that in the background, but it's come to the foreground now.
And that really, that's the time horizon, though.
They've been banging the digital ID for immigration drum for three years already.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, digital IDs go, as you said, goes back way further than that, and people have been seeding it.
Oh, yeah.
And this is, again, that fundamental problem with red pilling the masses.
When you've spent all your time and all your money and all your energy warning people about the dangers of immigration, but you yourself, as the faction that are telling people about this, can't then act upon that information.
You can't offer people solutions because you are not in power.
If you create political energy against immigration, but you can't offer people solutions that you can implement, those in power will.
And so Tommy Robinson goes, oh, Muslims, and Kia Starma goes, oh, by the way, we have digital ID to solve that Muslim problem.
And no one else needs solutions because we're in power.
We're the government.
Who else is going to implement a solution that sorts it out?
Nobody.
Because we're the government.
And you might as well take an imperfect solution rather than no solution at all.
So all the political energy that Tommy Robinson creates feeds into digital ID.
Because what can Tommy Robinson do to stop Muslims blowing themselves up?
Nothing.
But Kia Starma can offer solutions because he is visibly in power.
And so you end up with the counterjee he had being was what we refer to as the thin end of someone else's wedge.
Yes.
In that you can only get so far as a political outsider and then you have to reconcile with political reality.
And political reality is digital ID is the only solution offered to you for immigration currently.
I think the other way I've always phrased it is why would you chum the waters without a net?
What are you going to catch?
Someone else is going to come in with a rod and their net and they're going to catch all your fish and you've wasted your chum and your time.
So why?
And the question I want to ask people, and I think this still needs to be ruminated on, why chum the bloody waters in the first place?
Have the net, then you can get to doing that.
Yeah, because it just attracts the sharks and humans get eaten.
it's happened by the way I you just prompted thoughts of um do you He's very good.
He's a brilliant pianist who does.
I only know the people I follow by Avatar.
I don't need their names.
Okay.
You should follow Foundring.
He's been onto this a while.
And I hadn't appreciated this.
The degree to which Reddit was used to seed the idea of a pandemic among the red-pilled people.
So long before the Daily Mail was talking about it and saying we must have vaccines and stuff, people who followed Reddit were alive to these stories about the satellite signals detecting the heat from bodies being used to make the phones going off and sulfides.
I gobbled this stuff up.
This is when I was just becoming a kind of nascent conspiracy theorist, I guess.
And I was thinking, fuck, this is...
It's real, man, because all this information is being sneaked out of China.
And you know about China digital controls.
This stuff.
And then that's the thing.
We have to laugh, don't we?
Because it's at the time, you feel like such an idiot because you realize, oh my God, it was way too good To be true, and I think that if people exercise that bloody humility instead of being so ego-minded, I think we'd actually get ourselves through some of these cycles a lot quicker.
We often talk about hyper-reality, and the question I thought in my own mind is: am I seeing people dying of this disease?
Yeah, am I witnessing people struggling to breathe, lying in the street?
Well, no, I am not.
In the same way that, you know, I'm not experiencing missiles landing on Tel Aviv.
I'm not experiencing rifle fire in Gaza.
I'm not experiencing Tehran.
We see all these things from a distance.
They are made real to us by the media, but they aren't real.
Again, what is real is our lives.
Yeah.
I mean, I think I'm not in with the truth.
I've actually eaten a chicken Kiev in Kiev, and I recall it both times.
And I have to say, it wasn't as good as Martin Spencer's Chicken Kiev in the days when I used to eat them, which I don't anymore because they're called Chicken Kiev now.
Thinking of COVID, actually, it's something I don't really.
I actually don't like talking to normal people about it because I feel like I'm subjecting them to some sort of like historical trauma that they still don't understand yet.
So until people come to me and talk about it, I actually don't want to speak to people about it because I don't want to put you back in that mental frame of being so.
I imagine that's how the war felt to people who went through the war.
It's like, why did we never reconcile ourselves what happened during the war?
It's like, well, because people just didn't want to talk about it afterwards.
That's what lockdown feels like to people.
Imagine if you'd gone through the Second World War knowing what we know, or the First World War.
If you had the trench experience and you'd lost all your friends, maybe you'd been crippled yourself and stuff.
And you knew all along, like, for example, Henry Williamson did, the guy who wrote Tarka the Otter, that it was all a complete sham.
Well, I mean, you think about Smedley Butler in 1935 wrote his book about war being a title of his book, but that he foresaw the Second World War.
He's saying, look at this bull up of troops.
There must have been people out there who knew that it was all fake.
Yes.
Who served.
And they either had just conscientious objectors and having women give them white feathers or to go out there and die in the meat grinder for a war that you knew was completely pointless.
And in the gearing up for the Second World War, we definitely had that.
I mean, the most famous example of that is obviously Sir Oswald Mosley.
He was a war hero in Parliament.
Before he was besmurged, before he was the leader of the blackshirts, he was a First World War hero.
And his experiences in the First World War led him on the path he went on.
But that's what happens to figures like that.
They end up, like Enoch Powell, they end up being demonized in later years.
And again, I'm sure the mention of the name of Mosley causes fear in certain people's hearts.
But again, this is what happens.
This is what happens if you don't want an apocalyptic war with Germany.
You are portrayed like Sir Oswald Mosley was and is.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I'm just trying to find the name of the war is a racket.
I should have remembered that.
I'm thinking, actually, you're thinking there about the whole thing with Reddit, though.
Yes.
This flood of information that startles you and makes you really run to the next person you know and go, look, have you seen this?
It must be real.
And that confirms it.
I can remember when I was staying in Stirling at the time, and I'm sitting at the third floor flat or wherever I used to live in.
I had a decent bay window, looked down onto one of the main roads that went through the bit of town.
It was half eight, nine o'clock on a Tuesday, Wednesday evening.
An ambulance comes flying up this main street at a heinous speed.
And the guy driving it's wearing the full beige hazmat gear with a mask and everything.
And he flies up the street, up the top, back down, flies, and it comes around about two or three times.
And then a couple of police cars came past as well, only with one person in mind, not the fool.
So you know it's dodgy straight away.
But when I saw that, I thought straight away, it's like, you've screwed the putsch here.
You're doing laps.
Yeah, do you not think that's maybe a bit obvious?
But that's the kind of thing for in that way that you sucked up all the red stuff.
People have never seen a guy in a hazmat suit in an ambulance before.
They have no idea what's going on all of a sudden.
And there you go.
COVID now real, isn't it?
Yeah.
And it's the same with all the rest of it.
That's why we try and get away from the conspiracy stuff, really, because it can be used as judo against you.
But you see, I totally see why.
I'm really glad that you're focused on what you're doing, because the market for conspiracy stuff is quite crowded and you don't want to be drowned by the noise.
I think as well, though, if you listen to what we do and you listen carefully to what we say, a lot of things that people would consider conspiracy theories, we take as fact and then move on from there.
I mean, I think that the reason why we wouldn't bother talking about Epstein or any of the revelations that happen with that now is that for years, our basic premise of understanding people in power is that they are first compromised before they get there.
Yes.
Yes, indeed.
Well, I think I don't want to sort of belittle what you do because I think or limit your achievements, as it were.
Yes.
But if you want to read more, it is available.
It's not available on Amazon.
Wifflings.
Wifflings.com.
I don't know if I think we've sent you a link for it.
But it is an independently published book, but it isn't Xeroxed.
It's Whifflings.com.
It's a real book.
We'll say substantial link to Schill, but it is about 344 pages.
It's nearly half a kilogram, so it's not just a pamphlet.
And, you know, I got to design the cover, thankfully, because I'm a bit pedantic about it.
But it's a crown and a scepter because some people wondered what that was.
But I did design it to like an old 70s textbook.
I wanted to make it look like if you got this as going to university reading, you'd think, oh, buddy elsewhere.
It does look exactly like the kind of thing you'd have been given at kind of hull if you were going to read sociology and you would get that as your one of your year three textbooks.
It's exactly what it's designed to look like.
Good.
Well, you've succeeded.
I was going to say, I didn't want to.
I was trying to find a formula where I didn't want to insult you.
But what I was going to say to you was, what I found, what I find most interesting about what you do, and what I think you do particularly well, is you point out the degree to which the debate is controlled on the left and the right.
And that all these groups that purportedly represent, say, the person I was, the person who believed in liberty and free markets and stuff, they're all controlled.
You sort of tantalize me there by hinting at another question before we go, which is, to what degree do you think these people are, how early on are they selected?
Say Matt Goodwin, for example.
I mean, the fact that he was with Hope Not Hate and then moved on to this position as a cephologist, as a sort of a pundit on why parties do.
It puts him in a very good position, doesn't it?
Say he's a state actor.
It puts him in a very good position.
How early are these people recruited?
Mostly in universities.
Yeah.
We actually know.
University of Kent.
Yeah.
Well, the University of Kent is somewhere that Frank Foretti operates out of, and the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Roger Eatwell is documentary.
One young Connor Tomlinson and a bunch of other people involved in right-wing articles and stuff offline all seem to come from there, or quite a few of them anyway.
It's not just Kent.
The thing is, we know people have been approached by these people.
And it's a really boring and simple process that happens.
What happens is you are a talented but penniless middle-class student and somebody from a political organization approaches you and says, hey, I'd like to pay you to do a bit of writing for us.
And most people who think they're never going to get paid to do political writing jump at the chance.
90% of how they compromise people is people's desperation to work in politics in some capacity.
The desperation for certain other sort of things.
Yes, but also, once this takes place, these people also operate what I would consider a light honey trap in that they don't come from MI5.
These aren't orders from above, but these small organizations mirror what goes on at the top and that they will have what I could refer to as institutional totty.
They will have someone on staff basically whose job it is to sleep with the new people and make sure they stay on board.
So they, if you're, again, if you're a middle-class politics nerd from somewhere, you've got money.
They might even, you know, you've been furnished with a potential girlfriend.
You're gaining political relevance, even if you're just a gopher.
It's this great feeling that you're contributing, that you're part of the political process now, that you're moving the Oberton window.
And really, that's how they get it.
They get people to buy in.
And it's not like they have info.
Most people don't need to be blackmailed.
Most people are just afraid of losing status.
Do you know, I hate it when people ring me without a warning on my mobile phone.
I think it's absolutely the rudest thing.
But that's that generational thing.
How dare they?
Yeah.
The point is that most people don't need compromising in the way that we think of it.
They're that bloody thick and naive.
They've fallen themselves.
Yeah, if your paycheck is being provided by an NGO that has a Zionist line, then that's enough to contain most people.
If that's where your bread is buttered, then that's what you're going to follow.
You don't need to be flown to Epstein Island.
These people wish that they were being introduced to David Cameron's pig.
These people will fight tooth and nail to get to Epstein's Island.
They will fight each other to be compromised because they are the political bottom feeders.
They are the people who, through hook or by crook, want to be part of politics.
They want to be part of power.
They want their own little piece of Whitehall and they will do anything and say anything to defend that.
I think particularly.
I'm just going to add as a note to that.
Particularly as a consequence of Blairism and the fact that lots of people my age in the last five to ten years have all been to university.
They've all got a degree, whether it's good or not, it's probably not worth the paper it's printed on.
So where do you go?
You can't get a part-time job.
It's too late to pack up a trade.
You've not got maybe familial links to go and get yourself some sort of financial elite career.
Oh, I like politics and I think Muslims smell.
Can I work for the new culture forum?
Yeah, on you come.
And that's it.
It's just so simple.
It's just that desperation.
And I think that's why it's become so much more popular and thorough nowadays.
So much that we started calling these people the based Sprogs.
Because, like, whack-a-mole, they just seem to come out of the book.
Now you've got all these 19, 20-year-old activists, and they're also independent journalists, but they're also sponsored by some massive financial body, but they don't really declare that.
The ultimate way to think about this is that these are, you know, what you talk about elite overproduction.
These people are the overproduced elites.
There's so many.
If you've done a politics degree at like York University or a Redbrick University, congratulations, you're an overproduced elite.
Good luck getting a job outside of these bubbles.
And what these political young radicals find is that they turn 21, 22, they've finished their degrees, and then they're going, oh no, I need to make money.
And the only people paying, well, who's got the money?
The money printer people.
And there's quite a lot of, well actually Evelyn, do you want to develop your point about the sexual, Actually, what we have come to find from some of the stuff we've heard is that it's really a lot more.
It's not about exotic.
It's actually just really desperate and shallow.
It's that some of these people are...
ooh, you know, flashes of tits or whatever else.
Here's a glass of wine and wouldn't you like to write an article for me?
You can ghost right my stuff.
And it's just, it's so, as you see, institutional totty.
It's not that it's filth or the more high-level stuff like Epstein.
It's actually really pathetic.
It's the same.
You might not be a Zionist, but the woman you had an affair with a year ago is and is being, you know, everyone's got a leash.
Everyone's got a financial leash.
You may no longer have the financial lease, but, you know, the awful office romance you had a year ago that didn't really go anywhere.
She can be made to tell some tales about you.
You know, if push comes to shove, you know, everyone that you've had sexual history with can be a potential detriment to you.
And if those people are also in the same political sphere as you and have allegiances to people you're trying to pull away from, well, even if it was just an office romance, that's leverage.
I think as well, people make the mistake, maybe at least on looking at this stuff in the smaller scale, are thinking it's systematized.
It's not really.
It's more just a giant gossip circle.
And you end up, when you find out more about certain people and what they've been up to, you realize, well, they're not really in control of this so much as the fact that they are now just subject to it.
And it's all just sort of mutually assured gossip that could end up in the Daily Mail any day and make you look like, you know, you're a bit of a bumboy or a wrong or you're a womaniser or whatever you need to be called so they can justify getting rid of you after the fact.
It's not even that dramatic.
What it is is that you're worried that people in your social circle that you socialize with, who are your friends, who if you're in this weird politics world, those are the only people that you know, that those people will fall out with you, that you will be chucked out of the in-group and you won't be cool anymore and no one will phone you anymore And you won't get any more work.
What do you think the role of Guido Fawkes in all this world was?
Because I was thinking something suspect about that operation.
That's someone I've completely, utterly ignored over years.
Wasn't Tom Harwood involved in that or something at some point?
Yeah.
I don't know.
I look to the...
I have basically no respect for those people anymore because they were either in on selling us down the river off the back of that referendum or they were so gullible at the time that they couldn't see what was going to happen.
You know, if we were being taken out of the hands of the EU, whose hands were we supposed to land in, you know?
You stayed steady.
I was one of those gullible people.
I believed.
So was I, but I was 16 at the time, so I feel like I've got an excuse.
Yeah, I was an old man already.
And I was fooled.
But you've had the humility and you've changed your mind.
So to me, if anything, that's more important than someone that spotted it straight away.
Because if you can actually identify what it was, what really...
And you're more actually adept at pointing it out than someone that just is oblivious to it all.
I could talk to you chaps for hours, but you can see the weather outside.
I don't know what it's like where you are.
It's sticky.
It is actually, it is sticky.
But I need a coffee, a nice coffee and a fag as a reward for a very enjoyable podcast, which went all over the place.
And really tell us where we can...
So you can go back.
You started to study sociology at Hull in the 1970s.
Are there any books you can recommend?
It's funny that I've got this one right here.
That looks interesting.
Volume one, The Elite.
Is it like not pro-politics?
Oh, well.
It's orthogonal to politics.
All of this is it.
He did give us a nice little back quote here.
This collection should challenge just about everything you think you know about modern politics.
Nima Parbini.
Have I opened up myself up to the risk of being accused of having done podcasts with far-right, far-right figures?
No, because I'm a tranny and it gives me weird cover.
We're all allies here.
And there's one thing that you must do with us, James.
Yeah.
That we do on our show all the time because it is something that deeply means so much to us.
We would like to hear some of your affirmations.
You know, how deep is your love for the nation of Israel?
Because I think the Jewish people are the coolest people on the planet.
The only democracy in the Middle East.
Yeah.
I mean, I am not an anti-Semite.
I am a philosophy.
My critiques of the Jewish people are completely.
I know how great they can read.
We only criticise Israel out of love.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The only problem is my love is undying and it goes unanswered.
Well, I would take those shekels, but they never arrive.
I'm so glad that you've established your bona fides.
You're obviously very good people and I can trust everything you say.
Fine upstanding people.
And I expect there'll be some serious finance coming your way, which is good.
So I hope the book, I hope, It does sound quite interesting.
The cover of those is a real grabber.
Thank you.
I was going to say, it's not something that you necessarily have to read from end to end.
It's very much something you could pick and choose.
You could look at a couple of lists of essays and then just go, oh, you know, there is no...
There is a sort of order to it, but really you can just...
B.S. Johnson's The Unfortunates, is what you're saying.
It's like Beautiful Losers by Samuel T. Francis.
Did he do that as well?
yeah he had a selection of essays Global warming is a massive con.
There was no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
But how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
Well, I've just brought out the revised edition to my 2012 classic book, Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in 2011, actually, the first edition came out.
And it's a snapshot of a particular era.
The era when the people behind the climate change scam got caught red-handed, tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen Climate Gate.
So I give you the background to the skullduggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us.
We've got to act now.
I rumbled their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam, who's doing this and why?
It's a good story.
I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it still stands out.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find that won't.
Just go to my website and look for it, jamesdellingpole.co.uk.
And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring around all those people who are still persuaded that, oh, it's a disaster.
