All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 12, 2020 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
58:08
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Seaters for the 11th of November 2020.
I'm joined by Calendara and we're going to be talking about the continuing collapse of Western civilization.
I mean, I didn't want to overstate the case, but I... It's a polite way of putting it.
Yeah, and I don't think I did overstate the case.
I think that's a fair discussion.
Part of the major problem that we're having at the moment is an ongoing information war with the forces of political correctness against the forces of, I think we can describe it as just broadly, populism.
And this is manifesting itself in one titanic battle between Project Veritas, James O'Keefe's activist organization to try and hold the media accountable, and The New York Times, which I believe just passed 7 million paid subscribers, making them, I think, the largest membership-funded news organization in the world.
So this is a real sort of David and Goliath battle that's going on, and the New York Times has been swinging hard against Project Veritas.
Now, they've been condemning Project Veritas for many, many years now, but the most recent one that was significant was when Project Veritas had video of what they alleged was ballot harvesting in Ilhan Omar's district.
This was claimed to be fake or misleading, but there was no evidence or real rationale given for why it was fake or misleading.
The accusation seems to be, well, this has come from James O'Keefe and he is a bad man.
Therefore, this is fake.
And Project Veritas replied to this by simply saying, no, it's real, you can see the video.
James O'Keefe, in quite an impassioned video, threw down the gauntlet and then declared that he was launching a lawsuit against the New York Times, which is of course currently in progress.
And so we come to the 2020 elections that happened on the 3rd of November.
On the 4th of November, Project Veritas released a video from a one Richard Hopkins, a local postal worker in Barlow, Michigan, who alleges he was issued a directive to post-date ballots that were dated for the 4th or afterwards, the day after the election, to be instead having been received on the 3rd so they could be counted.
This got a million views on YouTube alone and caused something of a response.
And so two days later, Project Veritas released another video of Richard Hopkins in which he stands by his allegations and makes further allegations that he heard the postmaster actually say that the ballots need to be backdated.
So it wasn't just a directive, he also heard them saying the same thing.
And on November the 10th, Project Veritas released a...
Sorry, the New York Times published an article about this.
If you can bring up image one, please, John.
The article claims that the postal worker, Richard...
Yeah, Richard Hopkins has withdrawn his claim that the ballots were backdated in Pennsylvania.
They say this, quote, Richard Hopkins, a post office employee in Erie, completely, in quotes, recanted his allegations that a supervisor was tampering with mail-in ballots after investigators questioned him, the Inspector General's office said, according to the Democratic leadership of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
It's interesting, isn't it?
The fact that it's Democratic operatives and agents who are making the claim that he has retracted.
But they also, slightly further down in the article, say, not long after the Democrats' announcement, Project Veritas, a conservative group that researchers say is engaged in a coordinated disinformation campaign to deletitimize the voting process, released a video in which Mr.
Hopkins said that he had not actually recounted the statements.
This is a 46-second video, and it's pretty damn categoric.
Can we play video one, please?
Yeah, two seconds.
In a second, sorry. sorry.
Hang on, do you hear it?
No.
So hang on, the New York Times just...
The Democratic group just said, he's recounted it, and the New York Times were like, he's recounted it, he's recounted it, but he's not said anything?
So why did the Democratic group read the phone?
They're just making shit up.
The Democratic leadership of the House of Oversight and Reform Committee have claimed that he has recounted.
The New York Times have run with this as their headline, because everyone knows that people just really read the headline, maybe the first couple of paragraphs, and that's it.
And then so as you further get into it, you get to their announcement in the article itself, Where they say, well, actually, I mean, he does say he hasn't recounted it, but I mean...
Well, they even say in the article that he didn't do it.
Yeah, literally, this is the exact quote.
Not long after the announcement, this video was published.
We still can't hear it, actually, John.
Yeah, I'm not sure why the audio is on.
It's fine.
Basically, it's a 46-second video in which he just says, I do not recant.
I stand by what I said.
This is not true.
This is fake news.
And the New York Times have actually included that in their article, so they know that it's fake news, and yet they're still titling it that he has recanted it.
They still put that the Democratic leadership have said he's recanted it, and it's just...
They don't care.
Just fake news.
It's just open fake news.
And they admit that it's fake news in the article itself, which is staggering.
But can we go on to image two, please?
Because this is not where the end of the leaks come.
Because then, Richard Hopkins was interrogated by federal agents, and it appears in this secretly recorded audio that they're trying to gaslight him, as you can see here.
What he's saying is that we like to control our mind, and when we do that we convince ourselves of a memory.
And he goes on to then say things like, as you can say there, I'm trying to twist you a little bit.
I'm scaring you here.
And then he says, but I'm not trying to scare you.
I'm scaring you, but I'm not scaring you, and stuff like this.
Yeah, I'm not trying to twist you.
Well, I'm trying to twist you a little bit.
Yeah, but maybe you just made up this memory.
And it's very much, well, very strange, isn't it?
I mean, it feels very much like they're trying to gaslight this guy.
And so I'm very glad that he came out and said, no, this is what I stand by what I've done.
And so we can go to today's headline of the New York Times, which is Image 3.
Election officials nationwide find no fraud.
Well, there we go then.
It's just...
That's it.
That's all you need to hear, isn't it?
That's what millions of people will see on the newsstands and on the internet.
They'll see the headline, and that's it.
The narrative has been set.
There is no fraud.
How dare you?
In fact, those three of...
Sorry, six...
The statements that they've got in the center there are actually fantastic.
Because what they've done is asked two Republicans and four Democrats.
The two Republicans are in Republican safe states, which are Ohio and Kansas.
Trump plus 15, Ohio, Trump plus 8.
These are not contested at all.
But the Washington, Biden plus 20, fine.
We can take that one out, obviously.
But it's interesting.
Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania are the three of the states that are most in question as to whether there are concerns of voter fraud there.
And they asked, as you can see, the Democratic, the officer, the Attorney General for the state in Pennsylvania, a Democrat, Minnesota, a Democrat, Michigan, a Democrat.
And they're asking them effectively, have the Democrats been cheating in the election, Mr.
Democrat?
And all of them have come back and said, no, actually, we're not.
Well, that's reassuring.
Exactly.
I love the one from Kansas as well, where the quote is actually just, Kansas did not experience any widespread system out of voter fraud.
Well, that's not the question, is it?
That's not what we're interested in.
Well, that's the point.
But that's the thing.
I mean, I'm sure that in Kansas, that's not the case.
But as the BBC recently detailed in 2016 an article on how to support vote fraud, you look for a small selection of heavily contested states that have long voting delays, strange number of ballots, Bizarre occurrences, poll watchers not being able to see the polls, etc., etc., which all occurred in these states.
But the New York Times article headline, no, no nationwide fraud.
The people that are being accused of fraud have told us so.
And that's it.
They say...
This murderer says he did not commit the murder.
Well, never mind.
Yep, that's it.
Job done, guys.
We've done our investigation.
The New York Times contacted the offices of the top election officials in every state on Monday and Tuesday to ask whether they suspected or have evidence of illegal voting.
Officials in 45 states responded directly to the Times.
Four of the remaining states.
Times spoke to other statewide officials or found public comments from secretaries of the state.
None reported any major voting issues.
Well, then I just guess that's it.
That question's over.
Um...
And so all that remains really is for the New York Times, again, to dig the knife in.
This is from the article that's listed just below, Trump Marshall's Federal Power.
This is just a quick quote from it, to overturn his election fee.
President Trump, facing the prospect of leaving the White House in defeat in just 70 days, is harnessing the power of the federal government to resist the results of an election that he has lost, something that no sitting president has ever done in American history.
That's Pretty assumptive, isn't it?
Like, he hasn't lost it yet.
There's still a bunch of states that are up for contestation.
There are a bunch of states that are doing recounts.
Attorney General Barr came out and said, no, we're free to continue investigating any of these suspicious activities.
And this has not been called.
And for some reason, they're just stating it categorically as if Biden has won.
This is it.
This is the impression that people are supposed to get.
So the idea that a sitting president has not tried to use the federal government to defend whether or not he's won.
In living memory we have this with George Bush, surely.
Yes.
George Bush against Al Gore in 2004, I think.
I mean, isn't the New York Times, like, most of their audience is of the elder description anyway, so they'll know.
They'll know this is just nonsense.
I guess it doesn't matter.
Again, just, like...
Like the, you know, he recounts it, but he doesn't.
I mean, yeah, exactly.
It just doesn't matter.
It just...
There's no consistency.
GoFundMe, I think it was today or yesterday, for Image 4, removed Hopkins' fundraiser as he was placed on off-duty status without pay at his postal job, which apparently they can do.
This is, as you can see with the legal SFS. Surely you have to do something wrong in the job to get off-duty without pay?
Yeah, the thing they charged him under was Like, the examples that were used in the legalese were people who had committed some sort of crime, you know, postal fraud, or had been turning up to work drunk or something like this.
So, I mean, I don't even know what this guy's been accused of doing wrong.
He's a whistleblower, and he made a sworn affidavit about having seen or heard these things, so this is something that should be investigated further.
I saw James O'Keefe's video, and they were bringing up stuff that he had already adjudicated.
Do you reckon it's one of them where they're like, oh, five months ago you had a complaint against you, therefore...
It could be.
Who knows?
Who knows what it is?
But he's been placed on off-duty status, so it seems that not only has he been smeared by the press, he has been intimidated and gaslit by the federal investigators, and he's having his ability to make money withdrawn from him.
All over making claims that he has seen corruption going on.
Not good.
I think there probably should be some kind of protection for people like this.
He does have another crowd funder up, so if people are interested in helping him out, they can go and donate to that.
Can we then pull up video two, John?
Because this is, I think, emblematic of the wider media narrative that the New York Times is definitely trying to establish here.
Is the audio still not working?
Okay, we'll just pull it up so people can see if possible.
Oh, no, that's working.
Oh, the other one's got an audio.
Maybe it's...
Maybe it was me, yeah.
Hang on, let me...
Give me a second.
Right, so Can you pause it?
Yeah, pause it a sec, Jon.
I mean, her smile in response to that is exactly how I feel about this, and he seems to be losing it.
Hang on, there are not massive allegations, there are claims.
There are claims of massive allegations.
Okay.
I mean, that's the level we're at now.
There are allegations of allegations about this thing.
Well, no, there are not...
But you can see how upset he's getting.
He's visibly perturbed by what's happening here.
Because she is right.
There are lots of serious questions that have been raised here.
She's not rattled at all.
No, she's not rattled at all.
I know there are claims.
I'm going to say there are claims.
And, in fact, he seems to be trying to maintain the New York Times narrative, which I think is going to be the sort of left-wing, globalist, pro-Biden narrative, which is, of course, there were no claims and allegations of urge fraud.
Even this guy that Project Veritas found, who claims to have first-hand seen the thing, has recounted his story on it, even though he didn't.
And we admit that he didn't.
And everyone can see the video that he didn't.
But if we can go to Image 5 quickly, please, John.
Do we want to play the rest of this actually?
Oh, yeah, okay, let's finish this one.
Thank you.
Okay, you can pause this, okay, John. okay, John.
She's just playing with him now.
Yeah, I mean, she's absolutely right.
Joe Biden, it can be called by the media all day, every day.
And it was the New York Times who said, it's the media that gets the call.
No, it's not the media that gets the call.
And they've called it wrong many times in the past.
This reminds me a lot of the BBC. Every video they put out, they've always put a disclaimer.
Donald Trump has presented no evidence of voter fraud at the end of every video.
And it reminds me of that.
It's like...
When you're debating someone and they know they've done goofed.
Yeah.
But they can't admit it, so they just instantly get rattled every time you call them out.
Now they're angry.
Now they're unsure.
Because every time you call it out, they know they're losing more ground.
Yeah, that's exactly it.
And yeah, so when Adam Bolton claims there are no claims...
There are claims of allegations.
There are no allegations themselves.
Well, Kayleigh McEnany, the press secretary, has apparently demolished this claim of Adam Bolton's.
She says she has 234 pages of sworn affidavits.
So, I mean, Adam Bolton must be putting a shotgun in his mouth about now, or something like that.
He must be having quite a bad day in the newsroom.
It's their fault.
It's the whole, well, if I don't see any claims, there are no claims.
Because...
I wish she had actually just pointed out there, but what about the Project Veritas video footage?
That's a singular claim, so now will you retract your statement and say there is evidence, it's under investigation, instead of there is no evidence, and see what his response would be.
Because his response would be, well, no, no, no, there is no evidence, and he'd just carry on the lie, and it would even more expose that he's just jumping to a narrative rather than interested in figuring it out.
But it's genuinely shocking just how open the lies are, and how open they are just with...
How they understand, you know, they're showing us that, look, we can just, we can print whatever headline we want and set a public narrative like this.
Because I saw a poll earlier that suggests that 80% of people in America think Joe Biden won.
And it's because the news headlines are all saying Joe Biden is the president-elect, Joe Biden's the president-elect.
We've covered it multiple times already.
But he's not.
This is just not true.
And it's not finished.
You know, there are going to be a load of investigations, a bunch of recounts, and there are apparently 234 pages of allegations of corruption.
So, like, it'll be different things.
So, like, I wasn't allowed to see these ballots that came in.
Someone else could be a postal thing.
Yeah, and there's all sorts of videos from people who are poll watchers who say, I'm not allowed to go and do this.
All these things are illegal.
The poll watchers have to be able to see these things.
And there's just general miasma of corruption around these sort of four Democrat-run sort of cities, the major cities in these four contested states.
They had a huge amount of postal votes.
Yeah, and then you get to, we're still counting votes apparently, but Trump is now beyond 71 million, so he's nearly at 72 million, so he's nearly 3 million above Barack Obama at this point, but Joe Biden's at 75 million.
He's got up by another million himself, and this is wild.
I don't know, I mean with the population growth, does that not count for it?
I don't know, just if you're looking at raw numbers.
It's only been four years and, you know, the population probably hasn't changed that much in four years and it's really significantly higher.
So there are definitely, definitely reasons to suspect.
Yeah, this media lie that there is no evidence.
I've heard it on the LBC, I've heard it on the BBC, I've heard it on Sky News now.
All of them.
Not true.
Just not true.
I'm sorry.
There are allegations.
Yes, they need to be investigated before they're proven and it's a conclusion.
But that's what they're saying when they say there's no evidence.
There's no reason to look, is what they're saying.
That's what they're trying to get at.
Exactly.
Don't even look over here.
And that's nonsense.
But I guess since this fits in, can we go to Kendi Image 1, please, John?
on Kendi just the image with the Kent Kendi Ibram even even expand the oh yeah that's on the Kenya yeah that's the one it turns out that allegations of vote fraud are racist
The term illegal vote is as fictionally fraught and functionally racist as the terms illegal alien and race neutral and welfare queen and handouts and super predator and crack baby and personal responsibility and post-racial!
Should we talk about the personal responsibility?
No, don't go on yet, John, because we're still trying to pass what the hell this race grifter is talking about.
Now, Ibrahim X. Kendi is...
Equal votes is a fictional fraud.
So he doesn't believe there are legal and illegal votes.
I assume he believes if you live in X country, you should be able to vote.
Well, I mean...
I assume that's what he's getting at?
Fictionally fraught.
I mean, I wonder what he's getting at.
So, for anyone who doesn't know, Ibram Kendi is the author of How to Be an Anti-Racist.
He is a leading advocate of critical race theory, and he filters everything through a racial lens.
It's his entire worldview.
And so, I find...
I mean, just the things that he's listed as being functionally racist, I find hilarious.
Personal responsibility is functionally racist.
I mean, it seems functionally racist.
It's a very racist thing to say in my mind.
Right?
It seems very racist to me to say that this is something that has a racial connotation to it.
So I don't think it does.
I mean, Super Predator, Hillary and Joe Biden are feeling a bit the heat there.
But Handouts, Welfare Queen and Crack Baby.
I mean, again, Like, I would consider them, I guess, to be classist first, because it's not like there aren't white crack addicts who have welfare queens who live on handouts.
Like, if you said this in Britain, people would just think you're thinking of white people.
Oh, even though they would think you were thinking of poor people and chavs, specifically.
So, I mean, maybe in America, but I think it's more that it's in the mind of the critical race theorists that these things become racialized.
And, I mean, I think that's pretty weird.
And things like, you know, illegal alien race neutral.
It's hilarious.
Can we read the next one?
Yeah, the next one is...
Well, Candy, if they come in the day after, they're not a legal vote.
You've got to have the vote in by the date.
By the 3rd of November in this case.
Which is why the allegations of them backdating them from the 4th to the 3rd is an allegation of corruption.
You fool.
The system is, we don't care about what you're racist, it has to come in on this date.
But he's got a problem with that.
Functional racism.
I assume his argument is, well, that disproportionately affects his words, black and brown voters, therefore it's a racist requirement?
Does it disproportionately affect them?
I don't know how.
I mean, it just seems that these cities seem to take God knows how long to vote a few thousand votes.
Yeah.
But there are definitely votes that are not legal.
Votes that can be cast by non-citizens, for example, are not legal.
Votes that are cast by the dead are not legal.
Apparently, there's an allegation that someone's dog cast a vote.
Probably not a legal vote.
A smart dog.
Very smart dog, but definitely a legal vote.
Ballots can be filled out incorrectly, so there are lots of ways that votes can be illegal and illegitimate.
But he finishes with, what makes the term racist is rarely the term's literal meaning and almost always the historical and political context in which the term is being used.
Okay, but the historical and political context is actually not that of a race war.
At least not on the part of the GOP, the Republicans.
Perhaps in Ibram Kendi's mind, there is a race war going on, I've got no doubt.
All of critical race theory is in fact predicated on the idea that there is a race war going on.
The whole point is to raise racial consciousness in order to push back on white racial power.
But to normal people, there isn't a race war going on, and these terms are literal.
And the literal meanings of these terms are not racial.
Apparently the audio is a little bit messed.
Is it?
Yeah, we got wireless mics, so that's my book.
Who's it messed up on?
We don't know.
I guess the chair can help us.
Essentially these things wire to a thing over there, so if you break line of sight they're sometimes a bit messy.
But yeah, what do you think?
Voter fraud is racist?
Sure, why not?
Give up with these people at some point, because literally anything is racist, as long as it hurts their power, that's all it is.
If there was widespread voter fraud within hyper-partisan Trump land, these counties where everyone's rural, everyone thinks Trump's the best, there would be no discussion of race, no interest in it.
It would just be these guys that cheats.
But if it happens in a minority community, then okay, no, you're oppressing us.
The group that's there is being oppressed.
This is unjust bigotry to suggest that all of these hundreds of thousands of votes that came in that were 100% Biden at 5am is suspect.
Apparently the audio is fixed.
Excellent.
Glad to hear it.
And speaking of things that are racist, or are going to be accused of being racist, again, the natural order of the liberal state maintaining its own systems.
Not quite that one yet, actually, John.
Maintaining its own systems.
The channel crossings.
Would you like to tell us about that?
Yeah, so I mean, this goes to the immigration situation first.
So if you want to get the doc for that one just so he's ready, you don't have to put it up yet.
So Priti Patel came out, I think it's yesterday, and she's very proud that the immigration bill is finally passed.
So that's the change from the system we had before to the points-based one, where you have to get us a number of points to qualify for a work visa.
And this is something the Breaks of Tears wanted.
It's something a lot of conservative voters wanted, or at least people who voted conservative.
And a lot of people have been upset because of these illegal channel crossings that they think that the conservatives are failing on immigration.
And we'll get into the channel crossings, but I wanted to talk about this because, you know, it's happened finally, and I want people to understand what's actually happening.
So, if you can put up the first image, this is just the state of immigration, why it's important and why we needed to change it.
Sorry, if that's on screen, you can see that from 1965 to about, what was that, 1990, 2000 maybe at the stretch, immigration's fairly consistent.
In fact, there's net emigration.
Yeah, you have that in the early ages.
But then it's, you know, even the growth sort of goes along with it.
But then after about 1995, you see the rate of growth just explodes.
Yeah, it's 97.
This was down to changes.
You can see the immigration there goes from 400,000 to God knows how much.
Yeah, so this was changes in the Home Office on immigration rules from Tony Blair, and also the expansion of the EU, because we had free movement.
So it was no longer rich Western nations exclusively, it was also some Eastern European nations, which at the time were a lot poorer than they are now.
So immigration absolutely explodes, and it just keeps going up and keeps going up.
And you've got to think, what is it, from 2010 to 2012, Well, that's good.
I don't understand why there is even a difficulty in achieving this goal, though.
Well, it's not.
As proven, it's now passed.
So if we go to slide two...
But what I mean is, like, they're like, oh, we're going to get it down to tens of thousands, and they got it down to half a million.
Why can't they not just refuse to issue visas?
They can.
The Parliament is sovereign.
They just don't want to, is all I can think.
I don't know the specifics of why, but if you can zoom out a bit more, yeah, that's perfect.
So this is the system.
You have to get 70 points.
If there's any Americans watching who want a better immigration system, this might be up your alley, because your system, I know, is a mess as well.
If this works.
Let's see if it works.
So there are three points that are mandatory.
If you want to get a work visa, you've got to have a job offer and a sponsor, which is harder than you'd think.
Job at the appropriate skill level, so you can't be applying for a PhD position when you don't have one.
And speaks English at the required level, so no more people who literally can't speak English.
I was quite surprised that they included that.
I don't know why, but no one had ever spoke about the idea that we ought to actually speak English.
We need to make this...
Really?
In England?
We should have people who speak English?
That's weird.
I remember Nigel Farage talking about this, and him getting a lot of kickback on it.
Because he was like, how dare you say this?
How dare you suggest Swahili isn't as valid in England as English is?
Yeah, well, the argument was more about, isn't it wonderful that in London you can hear every language of the world?
And that shows how cosmopolitan it is.
And he just turned around and went, what am I on a bus trying to make friends?
What are you talking about?
If I'm trying to talk to people and they don't speak the language, well then...
Why is that good?
No, it's not good.
So I'm quite glad they included that.
I wasn't expecting them to.
But that gives you 50 points.
More based UKIP policy making it into the Conservative manifesto.
So yeah, something to be happy about if you were concerned about immigration and you voted for the Conservatives or supported them on this basis.
They did something.
Good work, Priti Patel.
You got this done.
So those are the mandatory parts.
So that gives you 50 points and you need 70, so you have to get 20 more.
And so there's a bunch down there that can get you more points if you can scroll down a little bit.
So the first point there is you have to have a minimum salary.
So I think they have it listed on there as $23,000.
That's now up to, I think, $25,000 because of this year's salary.
It's taken that long to get through.
So you have to have £25,000 of a salary.
So the average wage in the UK median is £30,000.
So that's $585 a week, maybe $700 a week for Americans watching.
Something about it.
Yeah, so it's basically we're getting rid of the ability of people to get low-skilled work.
We are not interested in more low-skilled work in the UK, not because we don't like them or anything like that, it's just we have too much.
Yeah, we've got more than enough people in our own country.
Yeah, I mean there are very few countries and populations that enjoy large amounts of low-skilled immigration.
Well, who needs it?
I mean, maybe if you have a demographics pyramid that's a bit messed up.
I mean, maybe Switzerland might need low-skill immigration.
Yeah.
Well, you hear this argument about Japan and maybe Germany with the demographics.
I mean, I'm not even sure if I'm convinced about that, because they seem to be doing fine.
Yeah.
Well, Germany tried it, and it doesn't seem to be going well.
Yeah.
So that's the first thing.
It's about getting rid of low-skill immigration, at least.
So that's nice.
It also ends free movement, so no more mass immigration from any new countries joining the EU because we are out.
So none of that.
If they want to add Ukraine or a bunch of Yugoslav nations that haven't joined yet, we don't care.
Probably Turkey.
Probably Turkey.
Syria maybe eventually.
Not with the way Erdogan's going.
Well, I mean, you know...
Oh, but Europe could change its standards, sure.
Well, yeah, maybe Germany will change its opinion on that.
Yeah, maybe Islam will.
Yeah, so the demographics change.
And more Turkish flags are flown.
No more comments, no more comments.
So that's that.
Don't be racist, Callum.
If you can give me the next graph.
I think it's number three.
Next image.
Yeah, so this is just migrants as a share of the UK population nationally.
So you can see it slowly increasing throughout the years.
So this is also a concern, the idea that the foreign-born population is at like 12%.
Well...
Come on, at a certain level it gets a bit strange and a bit irritable that so many people are not integrated into the society.
It makes the idea of integration more and more remote.
Yeah, that as well.
And the thing is, if it was evenly spread around the country, it'd be a lot easier to be confident in integration happening because you have to become like your neighbours to get along with your neighbours in some capacity.
I have a slide for that in a minute.
Oh, okay.
Slide four, not yet, but we're getting there.
Okay, we'll carry on then.
You can do the next one, John.
So this is where it is, regionally.
So the one on the right, I don't know how it is on the screen, but what share of the people in this region are migrants?
You look at London, 37%.
So my understanding of that is it's foreign-born.
So it's 37% of the people in London were born elsewhere.
This doesn't come into account for if they believe they are English in London or British, because I think it was 2010, the majority of people didn't believe they were British or English.
And this is 2019 data, so we're waiting for next year to get 2020, which is probably even more shocking.
I'm just looking forward to the census in 2021.
Oh, yeah.
But you can see, you know, in rural areas, it's not a massive change compared to London.
No, it's small.
I don't know what's ideal.
I'm sure there's an ideal percentage, but London's...
Well, I don't know, but I think that the concern is the localisation of the immigration.
I mean, Birmingham now is a majority non-British city, isn't it?
Like, non-native city.
I believe so.
Or at least people don't identify with the area.
Yeah, but how best to politically correctly describe it.
But, like, only a third of the children in the classrooms describe themselves as English, for example.
And so when John Cleese is like, well, London isn't an English city, technically that's true.
Take Birmingham off the list.
Literally by the way that the inhabitants identify themselves, they don't claim to be English.
Like only something like 44% claim that they were English in London.
And so it's like, right.
I mean, that is a true statement and there probably are concerns there.
Yeah, so for an American audience, I mean, imagine if, I don't know, 37% of Washington or whatever state capital you happen to be in were foreign-born, and then more than 50% didn't identify as Americans.
I mean, it would be strange, to say the least.
And this data comes from the Migration Observatory at Oxford, Oxford University.
So it's not like this is some crazy, wacky data.
Yeah, I mean, they're pulling it from the ONS, the Office for National Statistics.
So there's government data, there's no, well, should be no biosite.
Can you give us the next slide?
So this is the make-up, because this is one of the criticisms of that point system.
So she's trying to sell it on the basis that we're no longer biased about where you come from.
We are biased about what you can do for us.
So are you skills-based?
Do you have salary of this much?
We're no longer caring about whether or not you come from Europe or you come from Senegal.
And the obvious criticism is, well, not every place is equal, is it?
There are definitely deep cultural differences between countries, yes.
Yeah, so this is just a make-up, I think, is that just 2019?
Yeah, I think it is just 2019's immigration.
India, number one, then Poland, then Pakistan, Romania, Ireland, and so on and so forth, you can read it in your own time.
But the three biggest there being India, Poland, and Pakistan for the UK. So give us the next one.
Yeah, and this is why she's targeting work.
So...
Easiest reason, biggest amount of immigration comes from the EU, makes sense, we're ready to be close, all the rest of it.
We're leaving now, so all those who want to come after January the 1st who want to do work, overwhelmingly they want to do work, that's what they're applying for, so we want to bring that massively down.
So essentially what she's doing is reducing Polish tradesmen.
Yeah, Polish tradesmen, Romanians, Bulgarians.
Eastern European tradesmen.
Yeah, people who will work for less because they can send the money home and it makes a lot more back home.
And then non-EU, fifth of them coming for work, so that's also going to be reduced, at least the low-skilled.
So that's why she's doing it.
That's the state.
Right, okay.
And how does this tie in to the illegal immigration?
Yeah, so you looked at the numbers earlier where it was about 600,000 legal migrants every year.
So for the Americans, you'd have to double your immigration to 2 million a year to be comparable.
So it's quite a lot.
Their country is something like five times bigger than ours.
Yeah, but that's what I'm saying.
So that's why it's the main issue.
It's the main issue of the government.
But, of course, there's this side issue going on with channel migrants.
So people are legally crossing from the French side to the English side of the channel.
So if you can give us the next slide.
So this is just the data for how many have been crossing, and it's exploded.
So 2018, 200 odd people.
2019, a couple of blanks there, but about 2,000.
And then 2020, 2,400 by June.
That's now gone up to an estimate of 10,000 this year.
10,000?
Yeah, in a single year of illegal crossings, where we used to have a couple of hundred.
Sounds like we need to build a wall.
In the sea?
Do you think it can't happen?
Wall of war ships.
A wall of wood, Callum.
This is precisely what the Oracle at Delphi would say.
I don't get that reference.
Oh my god.
When the Persians were invading Greece, the Athenians went to the Oracle at Delphi and said, look, we need some advice.
What can we do?
And then the Oracle said, well, you can save your city behind a wall of wood or something like this.
And there were two interpretations of this.
One was that they should build the giant navy that Themistocles wanted.
Or the second one was that they can build a wooden barricade on top of the Parthenon and barricade themselves in.
Most of the Athenians...
Yeah, most of the Athenians went with the fleet and won, but there was a small percentage that stayed on the top of the Acropolis, barricaded in, and they just got killed by the Persians.
But the Persians did get defeated by the Wall of Wood, which was the navy.
This might sound a little bit wrong, but it ties in with Douglas Murray's book, The Strange Death of Europe.
Why?
His conclusions were endlessly, you can't just barricade yourselves in your countries and not control immigration.
You have to stop them at the border and make sure they don't get in.
You have to go out and fight.
You can't just barricade them in the keep.
You need a Leonidas-style border policy.
Ironically.
Anyway, let's get the next graph up.
So this just shows that data in a graph form, so you can see the explosion.
Tiny, 2018, a little bit bigger in 2019, big in 2020.
And we haven't had an update from, I believe this is Migration Watch, and they're using Onestair, but it hasn't come out yet.
But the estimates are 10,000, so if you give me the next one, I've just coloured in an average.
So an average of 900 people a month to make up to 10,000 for that entire period of 2018 to 2020.
So you can see just growth.
Pure growth.
Even in the years when the seas are over.
And I think it's important to stress that these people don't have any legitimate reason for going, do they?
They're safe in France.
They have to go to quite extreme lengths to try and actually make the crossing, don't they?
Yeah.
We'll get to a clip later on of a debate in Parliament about this, but Nigel Farage has been massively on this, and now the Conservatives are saying it too, which is, look, these people either came through a safe country like Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain, or something like that, and then they've made their way to France, another safe country.
I mean, if you've come from Greece, you've come through, like, 20 or something.
They've got no right.
I mean, I'm sorry.
You are in the first safe country.
Transporting you to the UK will not make you any safer.
It won't make your application even valid.
The means that they're doing it is stealing boats and stealing equipment and then making the crossing and things like this or getting it paid for them by some NGO or something like this.
And didn't the French government actively try and prevent them from getting access to boats?
Yeah, so I believe in northern France the French police have made it so you have to, you know, there's some more steps to getting a boat because people kept turning up and just, I'll have ten please.
Where are they getting their money from?
It's not really that effective though because these organised gangs are master criminals, they know what to do.
So they just get them from Germany or another southern part of France, truck them up, it only takes a day, and then sell them on for twice the price so someone can go over.
So there's not that much they can do on that side, but they can stop people going over and bring them back.
So the recommendations the migration watch chairman gives is come to an agreement with the French to ensure that anyone setting off is immediately returned.
So anyone comes off the shore, the British find them, the French find them.
We have an agreement that, nope, they go back because they're obviously illegal.
We're not taking them in.
They came from your shore.
Perfectly reasonable thing to do.
My understanding with Priti Patel is that she's not able to do this yet because we haven't left the EU. We'll see whether or not she's lying afterwards.
I thought we did leave the EU though.
Not in officialdom though.
Haven't there been videos of people going down and filming the migrants turning up and the police will arrest the person filming the migrants?
Yeah, so they're using coronavirus restrictions to stop people reporting on the story.
Wow.
That's essentially what's happening, is my understanding.
I can't believe that these coronavirus restrictions are already being put to illegitimate use.
Oh god, who could have guessed?
Yeah, what a shock.
But they're just, you know, they're just random people.
You know, people concerned with it who live either locally or just have a big problem with it going down and filming.
A person like Nigel Farage isn't going to get stopped by the police, so he went down and filmed them.
He filmed the crossovers where the French were just handing off migrants to the English to take.
And this has probably been going on for years.
Yeah, I saw his allegation that French boats were guiding them over to Dover.
He filmed them.
Yeah, he filmed them.
Allegations doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
The video of them doing it.
There are no claims of allegations.
There is video evidence of the allegations.
There's only claims of allegations.
Yeah, so that's the first one.
Make an agreement that, no, no, come on, they're illegal, they come from your shore, they're going back to your shore.
Perfectly sensible.
Second one, substantially increase the number of removals of people with no right to be here, including failed asylum seekers.
To the Conservatives' credit, my understanding is this is already happening.
The Minister of Immigration Enforcement gave a speech in Parliament saying, nope, we've already sent a thousand back.
If anyone comes here and they are a failed asylum seeker elsewhere...
Immediately going back.
We're not even going to waste our time with you.
Because you already failed there, you're going to fail here.
So, fair enough.
They're already doing that.
Change the law to remove pull factors including payments, free housing for asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers.
There was a screenshot sent to me of what happens if your asylum application fails.
And you get free healthcare and free dental as well.
What?
Why?
The British don't even...
Well, the English don't even get that.
No, yeah, yeah.
The Scottish don't.
So, yeah, that's crazy.
Yeah, so that seems perfectly reasonable.
The ideal situation is you just take the failed ones and you put them on a plane and send them...
Yeah.
Why wouldn't you?
You're a chancer, I'm sorry.
You're not a legitimate person.
And...
If you get that first agreement that you can just send them back, this issue will likely dry up and the money problem won't be a problem anyway.
Because I'm not against, and I don't think anyone is, trying to help out refugees, genuine refugees.
I mean, if you read a lot about people who escape terrible regimes in East Asia, you can hear about them being sent to the UK and they absolutely deserve it.
If they go home, they will be murdered by the regime for being a dissident or an effector or anything else, right?
People in France, who are asylum seekers, who come to England, when returned, do not get murdered by the French government.
They are not hung in the streets.
They get the application process again and so I'll fill it out.
Not in this century anyway.
Go back to the revolution.
Yeah, there have been previous centuries where literally refugees from France would have been killed.
Yeah, but they would have been the aristocrats anyway, wouldn't they?
Not the new French.
Anyway, let's go to the next slide.
That's the status of what's going on there.
This I just felt funny.
I wanted to include.
We always get told, oh, it's women and children.
Come on, have a heart.
Have some compassion.
Don't look at the pictures because it doesn't look like women and children.
Don't look at the video evidence.
Yeah, in which case, why did the BBC have to write a whole article on the fact that we found a child?
Oh yeah, look at the way it says, a small child.
Yeah, that's the wording.
One child.
You can go to the wording underneath as well.
A child was found among 100 migrants who crossed into the UK on small boats on Monday.
One in a hundred on a single day.
We had, I think it was 160 yesterday.
Yes.
No child.
Or at least no BBC article on the child.
And I love the way they can accurately identify it as being a child because it's small and doesn't have a beard.
Yeah.
That speak nothing of the children we took.
All the gold of the me.
Tooth x-rays.
Yeah.
And a shave.
Yeah.
Can you get the video up?
I don't know if it's going to take you a minute, so I'll just give you a warning.
The YouTube video link I sent you.
I'll send you again if you need it.
I mentioned the Parliament had a debate on this.
I've got it.
You got it?
Okay, so this is a little bit old, but it's still relevant, obviously, because this hasn't gone anywhere.
And I know a lot of people...
pause it.
Yeah, a lot of people are upset with the Conservatives because of the channel crossings.
I voted for stricter immigration, I voted for the end of free movement, and yet these channel crossings are going on, immigration hasn't changed.
This is why.
It takes time.
The immigration bill's been done.
I'll tell you when, don't worry.
The immigration bill's done.
That's coming in on the 1st of January.
So that's what's happening with that.
Have some patience.
If they don't fix the problem, then we can say, you know, you failed.
With the channel crossings, what would you expect from a wet conservative minister to say about this sort of thing?
Oh, we've got a duty to help these people.
They're global citizens, maybe.
Full-on Agenda 21 rhetoric, maybe.
It's a lot of children.
Yeah, you know, they'll all be tugging your heartstrings and appealing to very abstract ideals, and none of it will be dealing with the day-to-day concerns of what the problems are.
Yeah, I mean, I would have expected this too.
And I watched the whole debate, and I've clipped out a couple of bits here just of the opposition so you can see how wet they are.
And then the Conservative Minister, who, quite frankly, just sounds like Nigel Farage.
Oh, let's hear it.
Let's play.
So this is Labour, SMP, the whole roster of leftists.
It's Britain's fault.
Right.
Well, bravo.
Bravo Yes Bravo
So that's just a small cut.
I'm going to put the full thing probably on the videos channel because we can have parliamentary footage.
And so you can see the rest of the good bits of the debate.
Because the debate is seven hours long and no one has time for that.
I've cut it all up.
It's like two minutes or three minutes or something like that.
So enjoy that.
I'm glad to see the Conservatives actually standing by something.
It's an irrefutable point.
That's only a small taste of how based he was.
He kept saying that point, which is like, look, they're safe, I don't care, I'm sending them back.
You come here, you have failed asylum, you're going back.
Good, that's how it should work.
That's the process.
But it's another one of these examples, which we talked about last time with the Equalities Minister, where he's the Minister for Immigration Enforcement.
Says absolutely everything right.
Gets it, knows what the truth is, is not going to bend to the knees of any of this leftist nonsense.
Same with the Equality Minister.
And yet the government doesn't promote him, put him on TV, make him go out and shout it from the rooftops.
Well, it's because it'd mean the Conservatives would have to actually be standing for something.
They would have to be positively asserting a moral principle, which will get them in trouble with the media.
The media will instantly object because the media are essentially communists at this point.
And they'll just say, no, this is evil, this is racism, the conservative's bad, conservative's bad, conservative's bad, headline, headline, headline.
Conservatives wish they just hadn't done anything.
That's why they do it.
They're afraid.
But they're afraid of just a bunch of bad media press from a bunch of leftists.
Completely.
Completely.
And the thing is, it's not like it's serving them anyway, because their approval ratings are dropping anyway, so...
Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that.
I don't know if it's because people are upset about this or they're upset about handling coronavirus.
It's probably a bit of both.
Yeah, it's a whole number of things they do.
But yeah, that's what's going on with immigration in the UK. I know a lot of people have been upset about that or were expecting conservatives to do this or that, but that's what they've done and what they haven't done.
So they've done something at the very least.
They passed the bill.
They passed the bill.
Let's see if it works.
If it doesn't work by the next election...
How do we explain the illegal immigrants, the crossings being put in four-star hotels?
So that's confusing.
For all of this powerful rhetoric of, no, they're safe in France, we can send them back.
This was after the hotels all came out, and then my understanding is they've now changed it to army barracks, which, I mean, okay, yeah, you're sending a message.
Conscripts and our new colonial wars, got it.
Yeah, they were also, we spoke about this on another podcast, that the complaint was that children were being sent to the army barracks, and there was images of the children, and it was like, that's not a child.
Don't waste my time.
These bearded children.
Initially, I think there was a massive surge.
Because you saw the huge surge.
They weren't expecting it.
I don't think there was any signal that they should have been expecting it.
Except maybe the Brexit was coming and people were trying to desperately get in before the end.
And so, where do you put them if you don't have a room?
They pay for the hotels, which is kind of shameful.
I mean, everyone admits that seeing thousands and thousands of illegal migrants who have no right to be here in four-star hotels when you've got homeless people all over the place with the coronavirus.
The government said everyone who's homeless should have a home for the COVID crisis.
Go on any street in England, there's still homeless people on the street.
I love the way we need everyone locked up in a house.
Even people who don't have a house need to be locked up in a house.
Yeah.
But yeah, my understanding is that's slowly being remedied by making old army barracks un-mothballed and using them.
So I guess the final story we'll go on to is this really awful one about an Afghanistani woman, an Afghan woman who was brutalized for getting a job as a police officer in Afghanistan.
This is a woman called, image one please, called Katera, which is a lovely name actually, it's a very cool name.
And she doesn't have a surname, so I'm guessing she comes from a more sort of tribal region.
I did have the name of the area, actually, but I don't appear to have made note of it.
It's a part of Afghanistan.
Yeah.
But she'd gotten a job as a police officer and served for three months, and then she was brutally attacked in the streets, and she was shot and had her both eyes gouged out.
Which is horrific.
As she says, I wish I'd served in the police at least a year.
If this had happened to me after that, it would have been less painful.
It happened too soon.
I only got to work and live my dream for three months.
What happened is that her husband had been supportive of this, but her father seems to have been deeply enraged by the idea of her working outside of the home.
She says, many times as I went to duty, I saw my father following me.
He started contacting the Taliban in the nearby area and asked them to prevent me from doing my job.
She said that her father provided the Taliban with a copy of her ID card and that he had called her the day that she was attacked to ask her location.
By her father?
By her father.
And so this...
In and of itself is the indication of deep cultural differences between, let's just contrast Britain with Afghanistan, right?
And we can look at it in the kind of the formulation of the way that she just views the world.
Because I think that this, you know, a story of a tragedy like this isn't normally that instructive to these sort of issues.
Normally it's like, oh, that's terrible.
That's something that's happened.
But I think here, what we're seeing is a very good example of why our culture is not like the culture in Afghanistan.
And you can see it in the way that she talks.
Many times, as I went to duty, how many police in the UK would describe going to work as, you know, I went to my duty?
Because there's a lot of assumptions that are packaged into the word duty.
Suddenly it is an honor-based concept.
You are honor-bound to do your duty, under any circumstance where you have a duty.
And so if you're just a police officer in the West, you wouldn't formulate it like this, because we have a much lower sense of duty and obligation in this way.
Have you seen the, I think it's Vice documentary, This Is What Winning Looks Like?
No.
There's a great part in there where he's out with an American in the middle of a rural part trying to impose law and order.
And they get two guys from Kabul, the capital, and he's like, I love working with these guys because they believe in law and order.
Whereas these jokers in the rural areas don't care.
That's good because that means she's one of these people who actually understands Western values of law and order, the rest of it.
Very basic stuff.
But they're being filtered through the cultural lens that is the honour culture of Afghanistan, which is something that we just don't have over here.
We have what's called a dignity culture, so we're concerned about the dignity of the individual, whereas they're concerned about the honour of an institution.
The honour and duty come from institutions.
And these aren't necessarily formalised institutions.
These are...
These are social, informal institutions, as in, you know, I won't disrespect you, you won't disrespect me, and everyone will agree that we're not going to disrespect each other, but if something were to happen that was considered to be disrespectful, not necessarily to you, but also to your family and friends, such as in the case of the father saying you shouldn't be working outside of the home, this is disgraceful, this is, you know, not what women are supposed to do under Islam, whatever his reason was, then it becomes a matter of honour to have retribution enacted against her.
Her dignity is not actually important in the calculation, the moral calculation, of what's happening here.
What matters is maintaining the honor of the family name and of the...
well, it is primarily the family name.
But this is apparently, according to the New York Post, indicative of a growing trend An often violent backlash against women taking jobs, especially in public roles, according to human rights activists in Afghanistan.
The activists believe the country's conservative social norms and an emboldened Taliban gaining influence while the U.S. withdraws its troops are driving the escalation.
Now, what's interesting about this, the Taliban have disavowed this attack.
They've said they don't, they didn't conduct this attack.
And they recently said that they will respect women's rights under Sharia law, although many educated women have expressed their doubts.
The status of women in Afghanistan obviously being very different to the status of women and their rights in the West.
But this, I think, is a really good example of how there are incredibly significant cultural differences that lead to day-to-day events that we would consider horrific, but in the Muslim world are not actually very unusual at all.
Are just a part of life.
If you live in an honor culture, well, family members often kill family members for besmirching the honor of the culture.
Whereas if you live in a dignity culture, this seems abominable.
And we have to at least have an understanding of this.
Yeah.
I mean, this ties in with the immigration stuff where it's like, this is the biggest criticism of Pretty's plan.
Yes.
It no longer cares at all about where you're from.
Well, where you're from matters.
Yeah.
Because you'll bring your own cultural values and your own culture with you, especially if you immigrate in large numbers.
Yeah.
And that's not to say that every single person in these areas has the same beliefs.
Obviously, as we can see from the story, there's two conflicting beliefs.
And she is appealing to dignity culture.
She's saying, no, it's my dream.
My right should be able to get this job.
She's the dissident.
She's the dissident.
That's exactly right.
And there's massive cultural retribution from the honor culture that still exists in Afghanistan.
Regarding this, as I say, this sort of conservative culture, it's like, okay, well...
I don't know how we can screen these things or anything like that, but these are things we have to take into account.
And when you look at some of the attacks that have happened by migrants on Westerners, in fact, many of them, there is a distinct aspect of humiliation to them.
There is a distinct aspect of removing honour from the person and degrading them.
I know John, I know.
We're not hard and fast on the time, don't worry.
The purpose is to reduce their social status.
Oh, right, okay.
Well, I guess we'd better wrap it up.
We're out of time, folks.
Sorry.
Yeah, sorry.
But this is deeply indicative of vast cultural differences that have to be addressed, and we can't just pretend they don't exist because that actually costs lives.
Yeah.
That's suffering for people that you're guaranteeing in the future if we just allow that to carry on.
So I guess we'll wrap it up there.
Thank you very much, everyone, for joining me.
What a jolly note to end on.
I hope you have a great afternoon.
The website is actually still down at the moment, but it will be fixed hopefully by tomorrow when everything will back up and we'll be able to show you some great content that we have.
Otherwise, thank you for sticking around, and we'll see you tomorrow at 1pm British time.
And go check out The Lotus Eilers.
▲
Export Selection