Henry Martin is the pseudonym of an Awake 23-year old law graduate, martial artist and Christian who has written a guide book - Lawfare: A Practical Guide - on how freedom lovers can use the law to hit back at the enemy. It starts a bit awkwardly, but James and Henry soon hit it off and you’ll learn lots of interesting things, not just about lawfare, but also about which martial arts work and which don’t. https://www.imperiumpress.org/shop/practical-guides-lawfare/↓ ↓ ↓If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn't in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours. https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold
↓ ↓ 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, JD 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
There is 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 Climategate.
So I give you the background to the skull juggery 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 it right.
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.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother Gaia.
No, we don't.
It's a scam.
I love Dellingpole.
Go and subscribe to the podcast, baby.
I love Delling Pole.
And listen, mother down, subscribe with me.
I love Delta.
Welcome to the Delling Pod.
With me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this great special guest.
But before we meet him, let's have a word from one of our sponsors.
Have you seen what the price of gold has been doing recently?
It's been going bonkers.
And I hate to say I told you so, but I did kind of tell you so.
But if it's any consolation, even though I do have some gold and bought some a while back, I didn't buy nearly enough.
It's like when you go to the casino and you win on 36 and you only put down a fiver and you think, why didn't I put down 50?
If you've got that feeling that you haven't got enough gold, or if you haven't got any gold and you really feel you ought to get some, the place to go is the Pure Gold Company.
They sell gold bullion and silver bullion in the form of coins or in the form of bars, which you can either store in London or in Switzerland, or you can have it delivered to your own home if you can work out where to store the stuff.
I think that gold, what do I know?
I mean, I'm no expert, but I've been right so far.
I think gold and silver right now are an essential, maybe even more so silver, actually, because silver, I think, has yet to take off.
Just my opinion.
I'm not a financial advisor.
I reckon that it's worth holding both of them at the moment.
And you don't want them, of course, you don't want to buy paper gold.
You don't want to buy paper silver.
You don't want to buy ETFs.
You want to buy the actual physical thing.
Go to the pure gold company and you will be put in touch with one of their advisors and they will talk you through the process, which you want to do, whether you want to have it in bullion or in coins.
I mean, there are advantages to having coins because coins are considered, well, Britannia is anyway, considered legal tender, which means that you don't pay tax.
Weirdly, this, but even my accountant didn't know this.
You don't pay tax at the moment on your profits.
Go to the Pure Gold Company.
They will talk you through all these things and follow the link.
Follow the link below this podcast and it will give you all the details.
Go to the Pure Gold Company and they will give you what you need, be it gold or silver.
Do it before it goes up even more.
I think you'd be mad not to.
Welcome to the Delling Pod, Invisible Henry Martin.
I've decided to make myself invisible too, just because it's weird having people looking at my face and not at yours.
You want to stay fairly anonymous insofar as that's possible for anyone else.
I mean, they know who you are, I'm sure.
But anyway, yeah.
I'm sure at some point I will be doxed but I'd rather have that be later rather than sooner.
That's fine.
That's fine.
I can tell you're a young person.
Do you know how I can tell you're a young person?
Is it because I'm dressed quite badly?
No, it's because you do that thing where you go up at the end of a sentence.
Oh, okay.
That's all right.
tell me about yourself no i'm what you can tell me about yourself Well, I'm 23.
Yep.
And I came down the rabbit hole or towards the more sensible centre, as I would call it, during COVID, because I used to be quite a hardcore libertarian.
Yep.
And because I was finishing off my A-levels during COVID when the first lockdown happened, I got to see it from quite a young person's perspective, which was basically the only reason, as far as I can tell, the young people went along with COVID was basically because they wanted to sit home and watch Netflix and watch porn all day.
And don't forget, and go on holidays.
Yeah, and go on holidays.
Oh, sorry, that's why they took the jab.
I'm conflating separate issues.
Yeah.
You're probably right.
I did get the impression at the time because I had children of that age during COVID.
And it seemed to me that a lot of the government's campaigns were aimed at working, psychologically manipulating the young into accepting this with mini bribes.
Like you, you can have, you have the right to go on holiday or you can stay at home watching, watching Netflix and porn, as you said.
Hmm.
Yes.
And that's what got me into the going from someone who was broadly in favour of democracy into someone who is quite opposed to it because.
Because essentially what I learned from COVID is most people, it's not just that they're stupid, it's that they have such poor impulse control that they will do whatever feels good for them.
That's how I became a bit more of an elitist and a bit of an unorthodox political thinker.
And basically, that's how I ended up getting involved with what my friend would broadly call the freedom movement.
It's interesting that you characterize your former self as libertarian, because I think I went on a similar journey.
I thought of myself as a libertarian.
And I suppose one of the tenets of libertarianism is that left to their own devices, more or less, people will do the right thing and goodness will emerge.
And I think you've noticed, as I've noticed, that people are not necessarily.
Well, I personally don't think it's.
Obviously, we're all made of human clay.
We're all flawed.
We're all possessed of original sin and so on.
But I do get the feeling, I don't know whether you do, that a lot of the malaise you've identified in human behavior is really down to programming.
It's almost not people's.
Young people have found themselves growing up in a culture which is calculated to bring out their worst behavioural traits.
I agree with that to a point.
So I certainly think it is true that in bygone eras, young people, because of how they were educated both in the traditional sense and the untraditional sense, would be considerably more immune to having their vices such as sexual desire, pleasure based off the flavours they can enjoy in food, would be more able to deal with that and make the right decision.
Whereas I think because of the way people are educated and brought up, they have considerably less impulse control.
And along with that, the more you engage in self-destructive behavior, whether that's allowing your vices, your sexual desires to constantly control aspects of your life or your need for disgusting food such as McDonald's, your ability to control those impulses declines the more you engage in them.
Yeah.
So I can see where you're coming from and I would agree with you.
And the good thing is that there are well-established ways of teaching children, young people, and even adults how to make the better decisions and control and at least contain their desires for vice.
How is that?
Well, so what I've noticed is I'm Catholic and a lot of Catholics, especially young Catholics, are very against things like pornography, as they should be, because it's demonic.
It is demonic, isn't it?
I'm glad it's good to hear you say that.
I think it is actually a form of harvesting.
The demons harvest sexual energy, don't they?
I'm not as confident enough about demonic entities to give you an answer on that.
But the demonic aspect of pornography is essentially it takes something good, which is sex, which proper place is within marriage, and it takes it into the form of consumerist entertainment, where you, as the pornography viewer, are just watching it and you're engaging with something as important and sacred as sex from a consumeristic point of view, which is probably what I mean by demonic.
So I mean it in the symbolic sense that it's symbolically demonic.
However, I'm not opposed to the idea that there are literal demons who are being fed by pornography because the church teaches that what sin is, is it's sin is behavior that takes you away from God and empowers the devil.
So even in a literal sense, I think that something like pornography can be described as demonic.
Yeah, I think with respect, if you're going to use a word like demonic, it shouldn't be used as a metaphor.
Take it from me.
Demons are real.
And the process I've described is there.
I just think if you start using a word like demonic and you don't actually mean literal demons, what you're doing is you're in a way neutering the word.
You're depriving it of its power and its true meaning.
Yeah.
But you're convincing me of that.
You're doing a good job of convincing me on that.
And in the academic sense, I do generally get annoyed with people who use language too broadly and use words in such a broad sense that you don't really understand what they're meaning.
But with the way of controlling vices, there have been historical traditions that would teach people how to cope with certain vices.
For example, fasting is a very effective way of teaching yourself how to control your bodily desires and engage in them when it's appropriate to.
And the problem that I think a lot of people are struggling with in the 21st century and learning how to control their vices is for the most part, the traditions that people would have been taught and been part of that would enable you to control your voices, most people have been detached from those for generations.
So it's a very hard thing for most people to learn how to control their vices in a way that is productive and doesn't make it worse.
So the point I was going to make about what I've observed religiously is lots of people who I know anecdotally, and I would also include some priests in this, control certain desires they have by replacing them with other vices.
For example, they'll replace, I don't know, their desire for sex with being an alcoholic.
It's a lot of that, isn't there, traditionally in the Catholic Church?
Yes, there is somewhat.
And it's something that I don't know.
I think I've noticed as I was going through the phase of becoming a Catholic or becoming a Christian, because it's not just Catholics, it's just that I know the Catholics best because that's where my social circle is.
Yeah.
But I've seen it with other Christians who are trying their best to control their vices and their desires, and they end up replacing it with something else which may or may not be worse so that they can be free from particular vices.
Yes.
By the way, for anyone listening to this podcast and thinking, where is this one going?
We're going to talk a bit later on about something that you've become a sort of mini expert on, which is on the use of the law by awake people, how you can make it work for you in a system which has been deliberately stacked against you.
Is that right?
Yes.
At the moment, I'm interested in that.
But I'm also.
One does hear that there has been a kind of Christian revival in the country.
And I know the Catholic Church has been having lots of new recruits.
And I think you are the first young-ish person I've had on the podcast to talk about this.
So I'm quite interested in finding out a bit about that first.
What's been your experience?
Is your church now full of early 20-somethings getting into Catholicism?
Yes and no.
So taking your question at face value, the answer is no.
church is mostly full of boomers.
Okay.
Am I a boomer?
What I mean boomers is in someone who is over 65 or in and about that age.
Oh, okay, right.
So yeah, I think I'm Generation X actually, not a boomer.
But yeah, so is that still the case?
It's very few youngs.
I used to live in London up until two weeks ago, and my church is there that I would go to.
I would go to the Catholic Church in Liverpool Street and because I didn't, I used to live in East London and I didn't end up going to church in East London or Mass because basically everyone was foreign and I just couldn't engage with them.
Right.
So I like going to mass, both the spiritual experience and also the social experience.
I do enjoy talking to people who are other fellow Christians because in doing what I do, I don't meet that many.
But to answer your question, there has been a revival in the number of Christians my age and it has been somewhat significant.
But the reason you don't really see that in the congregations is it's gone up significantly.
I think when I last looked at the statistics, it was something like 100% increase in the number of regular churchgoers who are of a certain age.
But the number of regular churchgoers who were, I don't know, below 35 or whatever was such a small number of people that even if it has a 200% increase in most churches, you would be talking, even big churches, you'd be talking about having two, going from two to six.
Right, okay.
Yeah.
In places like the London Oratory, for example, which I go for mass quite often, there is a significantly larger cohort of young people, but it's not the majority.
Right.
Does that answer your question?
Yes.
Yes, it does.
Yeah, you're right.
If you're going from a low base, even a 200% increase is not very dramatic.
So, Henry, tell me, did you study law at university?
Yes.
And I mean, you're very young to be giving legal advice.
Yeah.
Commentary.
Tips, commentary.
I imagine you're kind of a dedicated researcher.
I imagine you're one of those people who likes getting buried into, I imagine you're a quick study apart from anything else.
Is that right?
Yes, I'm quite a quick study.
And from the age of 16 until I was 21, I basically had no friends because I'd moved schools.
And because of my extracurricular activities, I rock an ice climb all over the world and I do high-level martial arts.
Okay.
I'm too high energy for most people.
Right.
So I'm the type of person who is either on or off.
So I am quite a quick study and I am quite a deep researcher.
I will go into something and explore all aspects of it.
Well, I'm going to, I'm trusting you.
I'm going to go with you.
So let me outline the problem I think a lot of awake people have, especially the newly awake.
To give this country as an example, they've been brought up to believe that the British legal system, or the English legal system, English common law, is the envy of the world and that our judiciary are incorruptible and admirable.
And they hear names bandered about like Lord Denning and they're told that you've won the lottery in life to have been born British because everyone is equal before the law and etc etc.
And then they wake up and they go, hang on a second.
All this stuff we were taught just ain't true and obviously it ain't true.
The law system, the legal system is unequal.
It favors certain privileged people who get away with murder.
Judges are not, especially in certain sense of sections of the law, like family law, judges can be extremely dodgy.
The system is rigged, etc., etc.
Is that a fair analysis of the situation in which we find ourselves?
Yes and no.
So I would put less onus on the judges in the British context for the way that the law is not, it actually is, because one of the things I talk about in my book is it's a US-UK comparison.
So the reason I did that is the British legal, let's give the title of your book.
Is it called Lawfare?
Yeah, it's called Lawfare.
Which, by the way, that's a word that triggers me.
It makes me think instantly of this technique that bad people use, like environmentalists.
I mean, the environments love using lawfare to stop worthwhile things being done and to ensure that worthless things get injected into our system.
and I'm very suspicious of environmentalists and I'm sure that I'm fine good I'm sure there are other activist movements which also use lawfare for nefarious ends.
And yet you're writing about lawfare from a positive perspective.
You're arguing that it can be our friend.
Is that right?
I'm arguing basically yes.
So what I chose to do in the book is the word lawfare gets chucked about a lot, especially in a political context where from my observations of people who use it, they don't really know what they mean by the term lawfare.
So what I've done in the book is I've come up with, I've defined the term lawfare broadly, which is using the law.
The original definition of lawfare came from the military and it's using the law as a weapon of war.
So what they mean by that is doing things like using sanctions and also using domestic laws of countries to get assets of foreign or enemy states impounded in third-party countries.
So that's where the term lawfare came about.
And the term lawfare as a political term doesn't really have a long-standing way of academics using it outside of the climate change nonsense.
What I tried to do in the book was discuss the topic of political lawfare and start by making it quite specific and go through techniques of political lawfare.
So the book's broken up into a few chapters, which are focused on different strategies of lawfare.
So one strategy that I use a lot or I discuss is the control of language.
So that can be using Sorry, can you hear me?
I can, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, so the main one of the strategies that I diagnose is control of language.
So that includes everything from overt censorship to using legislation such as the Climate Change Act or the Equalities Act to require people within organisations and wider society to pretend that something is true as a form of compelled speech.
Right, yes.
So an example of that would be the public sector equality duty as section 149 of the Equalities Act gives organisations a duty to have equality of opportunity and any other type of equality as defined in the Act to be seen as a good thing and as a goal to be worked towards.
So that effectively works as a form of compelled speech.
And then I have the topic of legal misinformation, which is misleading people about how the law works to achieve a particular political goal.
So an example of that would be the Conservatives constantly blaming left-wing judges for the difficulties in creating a sensible immigration policy.
Yes.
The Conservatives pretend that they have pretended for decades that they couldn't do something about it and are putting it all on the judges when the judges, for the most part, are applying the law as written, especially in immigration context.
And I'm sure many people watching or listening will disagree with me there, but I'm happy to have that debate with anyone who wants it.
And then overwhelming and scorched earth.
What I mean by that is I mean literally overwhelming the system.
So the way that works for illegal immigration, for example, is the system is set up so that people have multiple rights of appeal for their asylum decision or other immigration decisions.
But what that means is the scope of the system to deal with large numbers of complaints is quite or large numbers of appeals is quite limited.
So if you're a left-wing NGO and you provide legal advice and support to refugees, essentially what you can do is you can overwhelm that system so that no one actually gets deported.
Yeah.
Then chapter five is on character destruction and that should be quite obvious.
So what I'm on about there is using any kind of use of the law to destroy someone's character.
So that could be going to find people who used to be in someone's life to find false allegations or any of that stuff.
Whether those allegations are true or false is dependent.
And I go through a couple of examples in the book.
Then chapter seven, I talk about legislating from the bench, which I would argue because of the way the British judiciary works is less common in the UK.
But what I mean is laws making judges making law and the mechanisms used that have led to those judges being in that position to make that law.
And then chapter eight is on strategic lawsuits, which is quite a broad term.
So you're outlining the system as it is about how the system is used to do things like deprive us of free speech and to destroy the character of good people.
Yes.
I also in each chapter will go through, okay, how can sensible people use this to our advantage.
So I discuss particular ways on how people can protect their own freedom of speech and be immune from tactics such as compelled speech working.
So in the chapter two, which is control on language, one of the problems that I sort of notice is happening with state-enforced compelled speech, whether that's through climate change legislation or equalities legislation, is the more someone says something, the more they believe it.
Yeah.
So though there's very little you can do outside of repealing things like equalities legislation or climate change legislation to stop people from being forced to discuss this stuff from a positive view at work, you can defeat the effect of them being compelled to say certain things by just having conversations with people in your own sort of private spheres in terms of them believing climate
change nonsense and equalities nonsense.
For example, there's nobody I know, and I credit myself for this, who believes the world's going to end in 10 years because of climate change or who thinks that any other sort of nonsense state narrative.
Because if you have a conversation with someone and you construct that conversation in a productive and healthy way, a lot of these state narratives are very easy to defeat.
Well, I agree with that, but I mean, isn't that pretty much self-evidently true without, I mean, without needing to read that tractor?
I mean, it's what people do.
Yeah.
So the chapter isn't just on that topic of talking to people, but that is something that does come up in it.
Yeah.
I don't spoil it too much by going through what I'm on about in that chapter, but basically the way that I've framed that chapter is considerably more of an explanatory chapter than a sort of productive call to action, because the problem we've got in the UK is in terms of freedom of speech, we have quite limited freedom of speech.
And as has been documented years ago by my friend Swamp and Evelyn and has come about recently, the British state has basically got a monopoly on surveillance and what people say through the internet.
Yes.
But there's other chapters like my misinformation chapter where I have a sort of productive dialogue on things like legal misinformation and the ways around that from a sensible centrist or pro-freedom point of view.
Well, yeah, so expand on that a bit.
What do you mean by legal misinformation?
What I mean is you can have it both accidentally and both deliberate.
What I mean is where someone is putting out either deliberately or accidentally a misleading narrative on the law and how it works.
So the example that's my favourite is the conservatives with immigration, but there are other examples.
For example, feminists, often when they've been pushing for changes to legislation to make it easier to prosecute someone for rape or some other offence, will Put out a narrative that says the law isn't adequate because of this case.
And because law is complicated and difficult for people to understand, the Joe Public will believe often their feminist narrative, but that's just one example, and go along with it and be in favor for legislation being made considerably more broad and wide-reaching because they've been duped into thinking there is a problem.
And the same is also true for anti-terror legislation and the online harms bill, for example.
People have been convinced that there is a problem and there aren't legitimate statutory instruments to deal with that problem.
For example, the main justification to Joe Public of the online harms bill has been, oh, it can stop kids watching pornography when there's already on the books a broad range of licensing laws that could have been used to make it harder for kids to access pornography.
Or what you could do is you could just make smartphones and unsupervised access to the internet an age-restricted activity.
Yeah.
So that's broadly what I mean by the topic of legal misinformation.
I mean it either being used to deflect responsibility, as it's done by the, has been done by the Conservative and the HIV Party and the government, saying we can't do anything about illegal migration or even legal migration because the human rights legislation is preventing us from doing anything.
Yeah, I get all this, but a lot of awake people are going to be listening to this and thinking, well, yeah, I know this, that the system is designed to push forward legislation and expand legislation by presenting people with an imaginary crisis,
which this new legislation is then supposed to solve.
But we know that politicians are lying to us and we know that the legislation is then, I mean, it's part of their game.
But the question is, how much of this stuff are we obliged to take seriously and how much of it can we ignore?
Well, yes, that is something that I do sort of discuss in the chapter because I'm of the more realist view of viewing law, I basically define law and understand law to mean rules set by the government that are backed up by force.
Yeah.
So in terms of what do you have to follow, essentially what you have to follow is whatever the government is compelling you to do.
Yeah.
So does that answer your question?
Well, yeah, but it's a bit of a council of despair.
I mean, if that's the solution, then we're a bit buggered, aren't we?
I was hoping you were going to give me a few sort of fixes for this.
Well, it depends on what the problem is and how to fix it.
So things like engaging in local administrative politics does work.
It's just incredibly boring for most people.
So one of the things I'm a massive champion of is getting involved in your local area, whether that's through just being aware of what's going on, what the local council are doing and moving from there.
So one of the things I do in the books is I explain to people and lay out to people what administrative and minor political structures can be used to achieve political goals.
So one of the things I'm a big advocate for is official complaints and not Twitter complaints.
And there is a limit to what writing official complaints can do, but often, especially at the local level, you can get quite a lot done by writing a politely worded letter to the right person on a particular issue.
It's just most people don't do that because it's boring.
So one of the things I did at university was through sort of religious activities was pushing against allowing particular people or organisations into schools.
And often you can, it won't work all the time, but if you get enough people doing it and you understand the process of escalating it, your complaint or whatever sort of minor local action you're taking, you can normally stop people from subversive forces from doing a particular thing.
There has been some success with mosques.
There's been different people other than myself.
There's also been success with migrant hotels where people have managed to stop a migrant hotel from being put in their area because they've got on it early.
And what they've done is they've made it clear to the home office or their local council that they're better off doing a migrant hotel somewhere else.
Right.
So one of the examples I use in the book is Drag Queen Story Out, for example.
People making official complaints, I would argue, does a lot more than protests because unless your protest is super large and well organized and popular in your local area, most people's response to a protest is, oh, it's annoying.
Yes.
Yes, I see that.
Yes.
Whereas if you get onto an issue early and are exploring any sort of legal options you have, making official complaints and making people talk about the dangers of letting someone into a school who is in drag, which is quite a sexualized form of entertainment, let's say.
Yes.
Normally you can get somewhere because especially at the lower ends of the system, most people that I know, most people that I've had contacts with, whether it's local schools, councils or whatever, aren't evil or don't intend on doing evil.
They just don't understand it because they're a bit thick and lazy.
Yes.
If you can point out to someone in a clear way that makes them feel that you have good intentions, that something isn't a good idea, especially if it's private, then you can normally get somewhere.
Yeah.
And you have things like planning rules, official planning objections that can also work for migrant hotels.
And on my substack, I didn't talk about in the book, but a couple of years ago, I talked about the issue with court injunctions failing to stop migrant hotels from being put in place.
And the reason for those failures, in my opinion, from reading the injunctions and the judgments is most people in that local area weren't comfortable about talking about the risks of housing illegal migrants in your local area, which is increased crime rates, violence, sexual abuse.
Most people aren't comfortable talking about those issues.
They hardly ever get brought up in an official capacity.
What often happens with those type of issues is they're only spoken about on the internet and they're seen as persona non grata.
Whereas if you have the confidence to, even in a private capacity, through official complaints or making a planning application or whatever, or planning rejection or whatever, essentially what you can get is you can actually get somewhere with your pet issue, whatever it is.
Because as soon as you bring up a concern about health and safety or the risk of something happening to someone in authority, they have to listen to you.
And if they don't, they can be person, depending on what authority it is, they can be personally liable.
Have you ever listened to it?
I've more or less stopped listening to him, but I used to listen to Cliff High.
Have you ever come across him?
The name rings a bell, not really.
He's a bit more woo than he's definitely not a Catholic.
He's sort of, I think he quite believes in space aliens and other dimensions.
But he's one of his one of his things that he talks about quite a lot is precisely what you're doing is making it clear to local councillors that if they do not act on what you are writing to complain about,
then they will find themselves in sticky legal positions and they might be liable for any problems arising from this situation.
And instantly, they're on the back foot because they're all squeamish about any form of anything that might put their jobs at risk.
And so what you're saying makes a lot of sense.
Do you explain in the book how to pursue these official complaints in an effective way?
That's really good.
Sorry to be sort of to try and pin you down to stuff, but I think it's very important to get what's most useful out of you and sort of skip past the stuff that one might consider to be pabulum for those of us who are kind of awake.
There's a lot we understand.
But I think we are hungry for ways of defeating this system which is generally stacked against us.
Yes, I certainly do apologize to your audience for being a bit maybe stating the obvious.
And if you want me to talk about strategies that I do have and maybe discuss in the book or elsewhere, I'm happy to do so.
I think we should talk about that.
But can I say, you are absolutely right that it's often apathy or inertia that stops us doing this stuff.
For example, the other day, I had a call from a Tory councillor on Essex Council who said, you're never going to believe this.
I've just been into this Prevent, the government's anti-terrorism quango, sent a representative into my council and gave us a briefing on anti-terrorism and stuff.
And your name came up and I said, what?
And he said, yes, you were branded on their, what are they called?
Where they have PowerPoint and their PowerPoint.
You appeared as a right-wing, sorry, far-right influencer.
And he said, I complained.
I said, you're not, why is this guy being branded a potential terrorist?
And what I should have done, and perhaps will do at some stage when I can be asked, but I haven't done at the moment, which is appalling, is I haven't asked them about this.
I mean, it was outrageous that I should be accused of essentially being a terrorist adjacent.
I'm not even far right whatever that means anyway but but but if I won't go to that trouble when I'm accused of being terrorist adjacent it's no wonder that the people don't they just can't be bothered to go through the paperwork can they No, yeah, they can't be bothered and they don't know where to look because in the UK, civics knowledge is actually quite poor.
And what I mean by that is understanding your system of government.
Most people on the street couldn't tell you how your government works, how parliamentary bills go through parliament, are turned into law, how your local area works and things like that.
So quite a bit of the book is some quite boring civics stuff wrapped up in interesting stories and discussions of the news.
Because unfortunately, most people who I'm involved with politically don't have a deep inbuilt understanding of basic civics.
Yes.
Can you give us the Civics 101?
Right, okay.
Basically, for the book, I sort of lay out, and the reason I chose to do the US and UK comparison is in Britain we have parliamentary sovereignty and then in America you have constitutional sovereignty and most other places you have some mix of the two.
What that means in practice for large-scale constitutional changes, in the US it's essentially done by the Supreme Court.
So gay marriage being a requirement throughout America was because of the O'Burgefeld v.
Hodges decision.
It was a judge-led position.
And in most parts of traditional or even federal American politics, about the time of the O'Bergefelds v.
Hodges decision, it was at best a non-issue, at worst something that most politicians at the time were opposed to.
Whereas in the UK and many other countries, what had to happen for gay marriage to be legalized was it had to get a parliamentary majority.
So in terms of basic civics, understanding British politics is quite easy when you understand that essentially the highest form of power in the UK comes from Parliament, at least on paper.
And then from there, you have different administrative bodies, quangos and so on and so forth that wield different powers.
So most of the quangos that were set up by Blair have their own areas of expertise or interest where they can make regulations on, which is known as secondary legislation.
However, if those quangos were wanted by parliament to be got rid of, that could be done quite easily.
So the Quangos don't really have as much power as we might think.
Although I'm currently terrified by Ofcom.
Yes.
My old school friend, my old home friend, Melanie Dawes.
I went to her either her 18th or 21st birthday party.
It was on the day they had Band Aid or Live Aid, I forget which.
I remember screens in her house having it on.
And I'm thinking, hang on a second, this girl that I used to know is now turning this country into North Korea.
Yeah.
Yeah, the Kwangos don't have very much power when their power isn't compared or contrasted with Parliament.
So getting rid of Ofcom, for example, would simply just be a case of just enacting a piece of legislation to get rid of Ofcom.
The problem is that a lot of these Kwangos, Ofcom in particular, is given by numerous pieces of legislation, it's given a very large political remit as to what it can and cannot do as a regulator.
So on the one hand, Quangos aren't that powerful when compared to Parliament, but in practice they are because Parliament's given them such significant powers that essentially they can do what they want.
Right.
By the way, just raising a point you mentioned earlier, although the American system, constitutional law, and we have where Parliament is sovereign, we've ended up with the same thing.
We've both got gay marriage.
Yes, we have.
And isn't that suggestive that actually, because I know that the US Supreme Court is deeply corrupt.
I used to think it was not.
And then I realised how many of them have been to Epstein Island and stuff.
I know that our Parliament is similarly corrupt.
It seems to me that you've got two parallel corrupt systems which are almost beyond the reach of the citizenry or whatever to do anything about them.
Right.
So I disagree.
It's beyond the reach of the citizenry.
It's just going to be incredibly difficult and take a large amount of time to get anywhere politically.
Okay.
So I think everyone in your audience would agree with me that blackmail rings are essentially something that's somewhat universal throughout human history.
Yeah.
Okay.
So the reason you get those two results are the same, whether it's gay marriage or whether it's anything else you care to name, is because our political elite, to varying degrees, are part of blackmail rings or even at the lower ends, they just do what they want for money.
Or they just do what they're expected to do for money, whether that's direct threats or indirect threats.
But that's what it's based on, the sort of blackmail rings that are inevitable in politics.
But the reason I point out the systematic difference in how law is made is it does affect the possibilities of those rules to be implemented.
So can I talk about climate change as an example?
Please.
Right.
So in the UK, the nuts climate policies that have tried to be implemented by various types of international organizations have been less worse than they have in other jurisdictions.
I'll use the example of the Netherlands, for example.
the Netherlands, as part of their constitution, has direct effect of international law.
What that means is that for international law to be binding in the Netherlands, it just has to be agreed upon by their executive as part of a treaty or whatever.
Whereas in the UK and in America, it has to be ratified by Parliament or, in the American case, Congress.
And what that has meant is the worst successes of NATO's climate change policy has been in places like the Netherlands, where there's very little oversight in the implementation of those rules, because essentially what happens is a politician will agree to it somewhere, and then the judiciary will start implementing it.
And the reason that system difference is important to consider is the way that the policies are implemented is very inconsistent, because the forces of evil are essentially depending on the systems of each national government and country to implement things.
And some systems have more, I hate to use the cringe term, but checks and balances that make it harder to implement certain policies from a top-down perspective.
So the point I'm making is our systems can be used to defend against this stuff to a degree, but it's very boring work, and it takes some form of well-organised central planning, I mean, how to push back against this stuff.
Central planning, what do you mean by that?
What I mean is, in terms of central planning, from our point of view, there needs to be an understanding of what's coming next, so that you can better organise people on the ground, so that they can move early on and stop something from happening before it does.
So, with Epping, for example, that has been a really good local response, but I think what's difficult is, when you get responses like that, it's very disorganised.
It's organised by some local people who perhaps aren't as far down the rabbit hole as us, who don't get that these decisions are made years in advance.
Yes.
So did you say Epping?
Epping, yeah.
So there were some protests about one of those migrant hotels, is that right?
And it got shut down.
Right.
I see.
Okay, yeah.
It got moved.
But that was the result of very loosely organised local protests, which did achieve a lot in that instance.
But the point I'm making is that if you had a couple of, not necessarily well-funded, but organisations that were funded, that had good local links to various different organisations, it would be much easier to get on top of problems such as migrant hotels before the hotel is there.
Yes, you're right.
I get that.
That's what I mean by central planning.
And I've, one of the biggest problems with this is in our circles, there's a lot of, it's quite hard for us to work together.
And I think part of that is that it's to end up in the freedom movement or any other somewhat dissident political scene, you've got to be quite a disagreeable person.
So that makes organising quite difficult.
There is that.
you're right.
There's the herding cats element, but there's also another element, which I don't know whether you're going to mention.
I might do.
Any organization gets infiltrated almost instantly.
It's extraordinary.
Like every stand in the park, which is great, every single stand in the park has at least one infiltrator, well, a traitor there to undermine.
There were groups that were founded during COVID, which were clearly designed to blunt the resistance.
But I hear what you say.
We do need that kind of intelligence, intelligence-driven operations intelligently conducted.
I mean, it'd be fantastic if there were an intelligence network whereby people knew almost the moment it was being decided what the next venue for a migrant hotel was.
And then they could galvanise the resistance in an intelligent way.
But you can see it would be the resources that the UK government has got and the US government, etc., they've got limitless resources to infiltrate the resistance.
Yeah, I hear you with this problem because I don't know whether you saw the piece about the basket weavers and the undercover intelligence operative that infiltrated them.
No, I don't know.
What's that?
I don't know what I don't know.
On the Hope Not Hate report, they sent an undercover operative into a group called the Basket Weavers, which is essentially a group of right-wing people who go to the pub together.
And either Hope Not Hate or MI5 had given this...
Yeah.
Yeah.
In my opinion, they are.
They'd given this guy called Harry Shookman a fake passport.
Oh, yeah.
And depending on who you ask, a fake work history.
Yeah.
And he had gone into this group where people basically just go to the pub with basically the resources of an undercover police officer and traveled on, or apparently traveled on a fake passport.
And I do agree with you that there is going to be a problem in any sort of organization effort because the police and Hope Not Hay, MI5, whether they, or some version of the three, are willing to use basically the same tactics as the government has used for terrorists to deal with people going to the pub, alone having some form of productive political organisation.
I don't really know what the solution to that problem is other than using some of the perfectly legal tactics that other organisations do to make sure or reduce the chance of them being infiltrated by spies basically and that is quite expensive.
For example there are organisations that do thorough vetting of people but they spend thousands of pounds if not hundreds of thousands of pounds doing it because one of the criticisms the basket weavers had was oh your quality control or vetting isn't good enough but you're not going to spend tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pounds doing a full background check on someone who's just going to the pub.
So it's very hard to organise in a way without being infiltrated because you'd be looking into the future to create some sort of centralised organisation that would work collaboratively with local interested parties would either be really expensive because you'd have to vet everyone who got involved to quite a high degree or it would risk being destroyed by infighting or
other intelligence assets.
Yeah exactly so what do we do?
Fry because if you do get infiltrated by intelligence operatives and you're running quite a boring organisation that is using freedom of information requests for example to work out years in advance or months in advance where I don't know migrants are being housed so
local partners can use lawful political activism to prevent that from happening or making it as hard as possible you're not actually doing anything illegal and if someone infiltrates your group the worst thing they can do is they can make it harder for you by being a nuisance?
That's true.
I'll just briefly interrupt you.
It's I always feel like kind of sorry for I'm sure that every event every live event I've done I will have had MI5 77th or similar sending in their representatives to come and sort of spy on the occasion and it's just it's just the nature of the beast.
I think why would you bother with somebody like me because I mean I'm just a kind of an entertainer who just happens to be also Christian and happens to know how the world really works but in terms of it's it's not as though I'm fomenting violent revolution it's not as though I'm doing anything that could that could and well you you couldn't interpret it as illegal I don't think it's the illegality.
I think it's, I think you're right.
It's that it's more the they can put a spanner in the works.
They can sabotage.
They can.
Yeah.
Okay, fair enough.
I agree with you.
Try.
Yeah, because I don't know about you, but because of my extracurricular activities, rock climbing all over the world and martial arts, I'm a pretty good judge of character and I'm pretty good at getting rid of people out of my life who aren't trustworthy.
So this infiltrator to basket weavers, for example, because I'm been involved in basket weavers, what happened with this person is, yes, they had their fake passport and they had infiltrated the group, but they were only in basket weavers about two and a half years ago.
Right.
And they got kicked out after two months because nobody liked them and found them really weird and dodgy.
Do you know?
I found this as well.
There are some really weird and it's they're quite easy to spot, aren't they?
Yes, they are.
So they're weird and dodgy.
Yeah, I've had encounters because I am somewhat involved in organizing parties and stuff and social events for people on our side of things.
Yeah.
I've met quite a few undercover journalists and sussed them immediately.
So the reason I suss them is they start asking open questions about your political views.
And for those audience members who don't know, what I mean by an open question is a question that could elicit any sort of response.
So basically, some of these people will ask lots of open questions about your political views.
And then when you ask them something back, or what do you think of this, they'll just flip it back on you and say, oh, well, what do you think about that?
And after about an hour of someone doing that, you're 90% sure that they don't belong.
Yeah.
So the intelligence operative problem, unless they use really sophisticated and clever spies and intelligence officers, I don't think is a huge problem for doing perfectly legal and boring organizational stuff, like writing official complaints, like teaching people how to stand up for their local area.
I don't think the intelligence operative issue is too much of a problem because you can normally suss these people.
And if what you're doing is boring enough, they will eventually leave.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
There's one other thing I'd like to add to that, what you said about how to spot sort of dodgy, because they are, they're weird, they're unlikable, and they're cagey.
Are you still there?
Yeah, I'm still here.
They're weird, unlikeable, and cagey, but they're also.
I find that awake people are very, very open and capable of answering a question instantly.
They don't have to second guess their response.
They've got a view.
And beware anyone who has to kind of go through mental calculations before he or she tells you what they think.
Yeah, I think that's very good advice, James.
By the way, what is your martial art?
Right, so I've done judo since I was 13.
I do MMA and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu at the moment.
I've done like Combat Sambo, that type of thing.
What's your view on that Israeli one that they sell, Krav Magar?
Krav Magar, I think it's utter rubbish.
Is it right?
The reason it's utter rubbish is because it doesn't, because the techniques are so dangerous, you can't actually practice them in anything like a live situation.
And from my experience doing things like judo for over 10 years now, there's one thing doing a technique in a strictly demonstratory way.
And there's quite another to doing a technique when someone's trying to take your head off.
Could you do you think from your judo training you could transform your demonstration technique into a kind of effective fact because of the amount of sort of high-level competitions I've done that I can throw someone regardless of how much resistance they're putting in who is about 20 kilos heavier than me on the floor on their backside.
Right.
Whereas whenever I've done things like boxing or MMA sparring with people who do Krav Magar, their ability to move and initiate techniques, whether that's throwing a punch or some grappling-based stuff, they're unable to do it in anything like a live scenario.
So it's a lot harder to kick someone if they're moving than it is to kick someone if they're staying still.
And it's like, you can try and eye gouge me, but my head movement is so well developed that if you try and gouge me in the eyes, I'm going to duck and roll you and grab hold of your arm.
And then I'm going to either arm lock it or chuck you on your backside and then start elbowing you.
Gosh.
Do you want to be my bodyguard?
No, I'm a peaceful person.
No, well, but that's so am I. That's exactly why I want you as my bodyguard because we're both peaceful people.
You've got a very particular set of skills.
thank you very much yeah um yeah that's an interesting take on and one more question before we move on to the other other stuff um Kickboxing.
Somebody told me that kickboxing is a very sort of ineffective martial art because by raising your legs so high, you're exposing your ghouls to attack and the actual kick is a wasted, a bit of a wasted maneuver.
I would say with kickboxing, there is a skill curve on that.
So if you've done kickboxing for about a year, then that's probably a reasonable take.
However, once you get past that and you're quite a good kickboxer, that becomes less true.
So one of the things that I do, because I've got a judo mainly grappling background, I like catching kicks.
So when I've done things like Muay Thai and stuff, I'm normally a lot better than people who are just sort of beginners or average.
Because I'll just catch their kicks and sweep them.
However, once you get to people who are quite high-level kickboxers, they normally will be able to tell halfway through launching a kick that you're going to try and catch it.
And then they'll just whip the kick down and throw another kick at you.
Because something like kickboxing is very fast paced and it's very hard if it's done properly.
And it requires you to be quite a flexible person.
Whereas something like boxing, it's a consistent bezel of improvement if you can stick at it.
Because boxing, if you go to a decent boxing club, is very hard because they'll make you do press-ups, they'll make you do box jumps, and then they'll make you hit a bag for two minutes.
It's good, isn't it, boxing?
Oh, yeah, it's really good for you.
As a form of martial art as well, it's good.
Yeah, it's good.
Boxing is physically hard, but technically quite easy, in my opinion.
Yeah.
Whereas something like judo and Brazilian jiu-jitsu is actually, I'll use BJJ as an example because Brazilian jiu-jitsu is technically hard, but often physically easy, which is why it's so popular.
Whereas something like judo or wrestling is technically hard and also physically hard.
Okay.
And what is the top, the tip-top most in your opinion, for as a martial artist?
I would say doing something like actually, I'm not going to say MMA because MMA is only good if you do it to a high degree or train it often.
Whereas if it's for something like self-defense, I would say boxing is going to do you the world of good.
Because if you go to a good boxing club, they'll teach you how to move and avoid things first, which is so especially for unless someone's trying to kill you, most self-defense situations is simply a case of removing yourself from the situation.
So if someone tries to punch you in the face, if you're going to a good boxing gym and you're training quite a lot, you can just dodge someone's punch and walk away.
Right.
Which is what I recommend.
Don't get into street fights, people.
That's good.
I think in my case, they're Henry, they'll be probably wanting to kill me.
Yes.
Well, I would say if someone is genuinely trying to kill you, James, and they're not armed with ranged weapons such as rifles, the best thing you can do is work on your 100-yard dash and run away.
Okay.
Because if you're being attacked by someone with a machete or a knife, no matter how good of a martial artist you are, you're probably fucked.
That's good.
Henry, if you're unarmed.
I appreciate this advice.
Thank you.
Okay.
No problem.
So let us just go back briefly to the law thing.
Actually, this is, do you know what?
There's a lot of similarities here with martial arts.
We're looking for the enemy's weaknesses, aren't we?
Yes.
And so what would you say?
So I'm assuming what you're going to tell me is that the enemy's weakness is he is susceptible to grinding, the grinding tedium of official complaints and process.
Basically, yes.
Right.
That's basically it.
So organizations, especially left-wing NGOs, have been able to get away with things because no one cares and no one knows what to do about it.
So Lauren Southern, about this must have been about 2017, did a documentary where she got proof of someone or someone for a migrant legal advocacy organisation telling migrants in Greece or somewhere like that to lie about their age, lie about where they'd come from, so on and so forth.
That's incredibly illegal.
And when that does happen and people get caught, they get struck off.
For example, there's been cases in the UK where law firms have been fined extraordinary amounts of money and lawyers have been struck off for telling asylum seekers to lie about their age, ability to speak English and things like that.
So it's just a case of taking something out of our spheres, out of the internet and putting it in front of the person who's responsible for dealing with that.
And you might not achieve what you want to achieve first time, but often there are appeal procedures where you can keep pushing your decisions and try and get a decision in your favour.
So in this case, you're trying to get the lawyers struck off.
Basically, yes, because they do it to us.
And this isn't unjust, because if a lawyer is encouraging someone to lie about their age so they can be given asylum, they should be struck off because you really don't need to explain that.
I think people are going, yeah, strike the bastards off.
Strike them off now.
No, I think, do you know what?
I think a lot of people in the awake movement, which is why there's a lot of Christians among us, have a very developed sense of morality.
Oh, yeah.
Very developed.
In fact, of course, it's our antidote to what is an incredibly corrupt world.
It makes us more aware of the importance of morality.
So yeah, that doesn't need explaining.
So we get the corrupt lawyers struck off.
I suppose we try and get, we try and make our politicians accountable.
Yeah.
So one of the things I have had conversations with people who run sort of political organizations before is instead of just being popular, using that popularity to get what you want.
For example, I used to be a very good poker player and what I used to be very good at was putting pressure on people so they would be more reluctant to do things.
So one such example is putting the fear of God into MPs who vote for unpopular things that we really don't like.
And the way you do that in a peaceful and legal way is because we are the majority of people, because we are able to access the majority of people through our internet audiences, you can actually achieve quite a lot by doing things that are quite boring, like organising recall petitions or parliamentary petitions.
So one of the things that I tried to organise and epically failed at organising during the sort of Boris Johnson government and later through Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak was I tried to I looked up at the time who was a Tory MP who had a marginal seat.
And what I was suggesting that people do at the time was organise a mass public recall on that MP because of their position on whatever issue it was.
And what that does is that puts the fear of losing their seat on that MP in particular, but also the party more broadly.
Because if you've got thousands of people or hundreds of thousands of people organizing to try and get rid of this MP because of what the government's doing, that only needs to work one or two times before the government starts to listen.
Right.
So the thing is, that actually hasn't been done before other than in personal scandals of MPs.
So I forget what the Tory MP's name was, but I think it was prior to 2020.
Some MP got recalled because of some sex scandal.
Yeah.
And one of the things I would suggest we do for holding MPs to account is start trying to do that.
But from an organizational point of view, to do that, you basically need better communication between people who try and organize things like that and content creators who are very popular.
Because for that to work, what you would need to happen is you would need to say, right, okay, here's the plan.
Yeah.
And then go to a large number of content creators who has constituents or have viewers in that constituency and go, right, can you push this?
And then hopefully you would get somewhere.
Actually, Henry, here's a thought.
Speaking for myself, I find all this kind of thing, having to go through this stuff, achingly tedious.
And I don't have to think about it.
But I recognize that your cause is just and I recognize that you know what you're talking about.
So, for example, I would very happily be one of if this doesn't require there even to be an organization.
The organization could just be you.
But all you have to do is speak to a group of sympathetic podcasters with reach and say, look, guys, would you mind awfully participating with this?
I'll tell you what to do and what to say.
And then you can help me execute my plan.
And that would require, we wouldn't be infiltratable because it's just you.
Yes.
Yes.
I'd do that.
I'd help get any MP deselected.
They all deserve it.
They're all paedophiles.
Allegedly.
Allegedly.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, well, that's great to hear.
And that's a sort of breath of fresh air because I've been trying to do this for the past couple of years.
I wouldn't, by the way, with that proviso, I would not, I would never deselect any MP who was pro-hunting and demonstrably pro-hunting.
But apart from that.
Yes, hunting is great.
I live in the countryside.
Hunting is really good.
Have you been?
Have I been hunting?
Yeah.
Not fox hunting, no, because horses don't like me, but I've done other types of hunting.
So I was at university in Scotland and I would go deer stalking occasionally and I'm quite good at butchering animals.
Ah, you can grallock a stag.
That's good.
Yeah, butchery skills.
There's another thing we need.
I admire you, you stalkers, because I have to say, the idea of crawling for hours through tick-filled, tick-filled heather while being eaten alive by midges to get off one shot on the monarch of the glen.
Yeah, that, well, okay, so we agree on that.
So, yeah, I would help you.
And I'm sure others, I think some of us, some of us, like me, are of a, I mean, I think the reason people listen to my stuff partly is because they know that I'm slightly, I can be slightly flip.
I mean, I'm utterly sincere underneath, but I recognize that I am an entertainer and I have a very, very, very low, low boredom threshold.
So anything to do with organizations, people know, unfortunately, when they've tried to deal with me, it's hopeless.
I just lose interest.
So, but somebody like you, you're very different from me.
I mean, you've got the martial skills for one.
And an interest in law.
I'd happily work with you, and I'm sure others would too.
Yeah, I can't say I've got anything in the quiet work at the moment.
Anyway, if you had, I wouldn't want you to give it away.
But yeah, bear that in mind.
I will do.
Thank you very much, James.
And also, by the way, there will be people listening to this who will be thinking, well, I wasn't sure about this young chap at first, but actually, having listened to him more, I really rather like what he's doing and I'd like to help him.
So these things work that way.
Yes, hopefully.
Yeah.
Anyway, I'm sorry.
We're talking about.
So any other other before we go, any other tricks that you should we should learn to do?
I'd say most of them are in the book.
So sorry to be a shill, but by the way.
No, that's fine, Henry.
I think that's good because it does sound like the sort of thing that cannot be explained away in a sentence on a podcast.
But I think people should get your book.
Look, I'm happy to sort of draw things to a close here unless you've got anything else to say, just because I think you've said some interesting stuff.
And it's not that I'm bored.
It's just that, actually, to be honest, it's my birthday tomorrow at the time of recording this.
And I've got a piece to write before tomorrow, because I don't want to be writing anything tomorrow.
And I need to get it out.
So unless you've got other useful things that I ought to know.
Not really, no?
Well, I've really enjoyed it.
I have honestly enjoyed talking to you very much.
And I would love people to buy your book because it sounds like it's got some good ideas in it.
Tell us where we can find it and where we can find.
Well, obviously we can't find you because you're anonymous.
Right.
So my book is available on Amazon and Imperium Press.
I'd recommend you buy it from Imperium Press, which if you just type in Imperium Press, you'll see my book on the website.
And I have a Twitter which is at lawreading and I have a sub stack called Reactionary Reading Law, which I try and update as often as possible.
But at the moment, I'm quite hectically busy with extracurricular activities.
So there's not a lot of content on there every week.
However, there's quite a long back catalogue if anyone wants to go and read my articles.
Thank you.
Have you got a day job?
Have I got a day job?
Yes, I do.
Gosh.
I don't know how you find time for it.
That's very, very impressive.
Thank you.
Well, thank you for all you do.
And yeah, it's been really great.
Everyone else, I hope you've enjoyed Henry as much as I have.
I think he's a good chat and I deserves our support.
I obviously support me as well.
Yeah, me.
Hello, James.
I've noticed, by the way, that I lost like eight substack subscribers, paying subscribers this month, and I'm thinking.
It's probably because their system is just conducive to, makes it really hard rather to stay a subscriber, a paid subscriber.
They seem to be all these glitches in the system.
All I would say is please make the effort.
Don't let them make it hard for you, impossible for you to support me.
I depend on you and I appreciate it.
I really do.
Everyone who is a paid subscriber.
Obviously, I like the kind of fair weather sponging freeloaders.
Bless you all too.
But those of you who pay, support me, make the difference.
If you can't do that, thank you for those of you who buy me a coffee.
I appreciate that.
Somebody bought me 60 quids worth of coffees the other day.
Thank you, sir.
And support my sponsors.
And yeah, support Henry.
Thank you again.
Henry's not, it's not your real name, is it?
Henry Martin.
No, certainly not.
No.
Why did you choose Henry Martin?
A friend of mine chose it because he's a scholar on the Civil War period in Cromwell.
And he came up to me when I said, I want to pen name.
And he said, choose Henry Martin, because Henry Martin was a very interesting jurist in the court of Charles I. So that's why I chose Henry Martin.
When I heard this name, I thought that is not a name one would it feel very old-fashioned.
Yes.
Yeah.
Well, thank you, Henry Octavius, Sebastiano, whatever your real name is.
