Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 12, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:44

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #673

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 673 for today, Monday the 12th of June.
	I'm your host Connor, rejoined by Harry.
	Hello, it's good to be back again with my old friend Connor in the driver's seat.
	We're back, you know, are you ready?
	Degeneration, we have worked out that he is Triple H and I am sure Michael's.
	Also, apologies, just want to throw it out there, my eye, you might think, oh God, Harry's really suffering from his allergies today, but no.
	F's in the chat boys!
	F's in the chat for Bunga Bunga!
	Yes, Berlusconi has passed away.
	He blazed the trail of bongering so the rest of us could bonger.
	If you listen closely you can hear the weeping of every Italian woman in the distance.
	Yes, yep.
	Anyway, so we're not going to be talking about Berlusconi today.
	Today we're going to be talking about the Armenians and the Christians, Armenian Christians and the Muslim parents that are teaming up to fight pride in the No More Brother Wars.
	Nigel Farage's possible pact with Boris Johnson?
	Don't.
	With the devil, you mean.
	I think that gives Boris a bit too much credit.
	He's more like a sub-thief for gluttony and lust.
	And then Labour's Conservative turn, which is them wearing the skin suit of tradition without doing anything actually in favour of the British people.
	But then again, so do the Conservatives.
	We really do have a dearth of leadership in this country.
	Anyway, let's jump straight into today's stories.
	Yeah, let's get into it.
	So it turns out the one thing that was required to stop centuries, if not over a millennia, of religious conflict was Rainbow Month.
	After all of this time, all we needed to unite Muslims and Christians was Pride Month.
	So the problem with the Crusades was there wasn't enough bombing to bring them together?
	Put succinctly, yes.
	I mean, the rainbow was originally a symbol of God's covenant, so the LGBT lobby have co-opted and corrupted a symbol of Christianity.
	So I think it is not unfair to dichotomize it as a religious war at this point.
	God, for God's sake, I don't know where that came from.
	It's the spirit of James Lindsay making you allergic to Christianity.
	No, no, no, let's not get into that.
	So, before I get into the details of this, because there is more to this than just the unlikely partnership and uneasy alliance that's been going on in Canada over the weekend, I will draw your attention to the website where Stelios and Thomas did a debate on modernity, and I love this.
	That's such a classic Thomas picture.
	It's a Nicolas Cage and John Travolta's face-off poster.
	It really is.
	And yeah, they were talking about modernity.
	It's always a pleasure to have Thomas back in the office.
	He's such a wonderful person with some great perspectives, who will be coming back up as we go along with this particular episode of the podcast.
	But it'll be a very good listen, so if you've not got a subscription to the website yet, Please consider just spending £5 a month.
	You can afford that.
	You can afford £5 a month, can't you?
	Can't you?
	Can you afford £5 a month?
	Or you're going to go spend it on KFC, aren't you?
	You're going to go spend it on KFC.
	That's a projection right there, Harry.
	Don't spend it on KFC.
	Spend it on us instead.
	Because we care about you.
	The Colonel does not care about you.
	And therefore, you can watch this video as a result, as well as everything else that we have in our gigantic library.
	So, let's get on with it, shall we?
	So, it's time to pledge your allegiance, everybody.
	Hands to heart.
	I was about to make a joke about pledge allegiance to the flag, but I realised we're not allowed to say that on YouTube.
	Are we not?
	Not the joke I was going to say.
	Oh, okay.
	Okay, alright.
	So I saw Oron McIntyre, who's a good boy, posting about this.
	This is a real photograph, this is not photoshopped in any way.
	For Pride Month, the White House decided to display the Pride flag centre stage in the middle.
	Oron asking the question, what does it mean when A non-national flag, or not your national flag, is put in the position of prominence in your country.
	What does that generally signify?
	That would be colonialism, wouldn't it?
	It would certainly signify some kind of conquering force coming in.
	But this is one that's been coming from the inside, because the White House decided to do this themselves.
	And the next one, this comes from Pride Month at the White House, where you can see all sorts of images.
	We can see the banners, the flags in the background.
	If we just click on a few of these, John, just scroll through them so we can see.
	Various people, there's Joe and what's-her-face's wife in front of the flags, they're pledging their allegiance.
	In the next one we can see a man holding a very confused and scared-looking baby that's wrapping the merchandise.
	Just typical American things.
	This is what America, or at least your American government, stands for now.
	Well, at least it's an example of present black fatherhood.
	Oh, for God's sakes!
	And in the next one, in the next link as well, Everything, everything has to be consumed by the rainbow.
	In the next link as well, they've put forward this new pledge.
	This is going to be the new Pledge of Allegiance.
	You've got to pledge to the Rainbow Coalition, the Biden-Harris administration.
	It stands with the LGBTQI plus community and has their backs in the face of these attacks.
	Nice rhyme there, Dr. Seuss.
	Attacks?
	I mean, the only attack that I remember is a member of this coalition attacking a Christian school a few months ago.
	And murdering three children.
	And murdering three children.
	Interesting how the news cycle just forgot that one after a day or two.
	Yeah.
	And then, you know, for the immediate aftermath of that, everybody just turned around and went, oh god, I hope the trans people are alright.
	Which was the Norm Macdonald joke, you know, what would happen if a Muslim terrorist murdered 50 million Americans?
	I just would be so terrified about what would happen to the peaceful Muslims.
	The interesting thing here, I'm really glad they put this up though, is because Tenet 2 is addressing civil rights violations, and I'm glad that they have validated our opinion that civil rights laws are a parallel constitution imposed upon America's constitutional tradition, And is the foundation for how the Democrat regime picks and plays favourites with protected groups.
	I agree, we just need to jettison it.
	Well if anybody can allege any form of discrimination, if you belong to a marginalised class, then you're able to get whatever you want just through civil rights law because you can be absolutely assured there will be a line of civil rights lawyers waiting to take your case so they can make their name off the back of you.
	grievance.
	It's just Ben Crump and all clones of Ben Crump.
	It's a 90s Spider-Man story.
	One after the other.
	And speaking of the law being administered here, we have the FBI pledging their allegiance to the new flag as well at the headquarters for the FBI.
	They've got the Pride flag up as well because some people say and I can understand where this idea comes from, that a lot of the Pride stuff, a lot of the rainbow stuff ends up getting signal boosted by the right wing, by the fact that we're always posting about these things.
	But the fact of the matter is, as far as I'm concerned, that We're just reporting on what the American government is doing.
	They're the ones putting it front and centre in everything that they do, placing the entirety of their administration, basing it entirely around these fringe coalition groups that they've built basically so that they'll have a permanent revolutionary activist class and also a permanent voter base that they can rely on to get them into office every single year.
	So, we're just reporting on it.
	I can understand the frustration that some people feel with it constantly being in their feeds, especially if they're on Twitter, but at the end of the day, this is stuff that affects people's lives, as we'll see as we go on.
	So people do need to be made aware of it, if only so that some people can form protest groups around it, or just voice their displeasure.
	It's not just us artificially amplifying it by reporting on it, it's literally a Fed operation.
	Like, the halls of power up and to the point of the White House are now celebrating Pride more than they would Christmas or Easter.
	Well, you mean the holiday season?
	Oh, do one.
	Yeah, exactly!
	And celebrities, as always, feel the need to get in on this.
	I saw this was getting a bit of traction last week as well, these images of Megan Fox with her three sons.
	Those are boys, in case you weren't aware, in case you might have been confused judging by the way that she dressed them.
	This person, Robbie Starbuck, saying, you know, we used to live in the same gated community and our kids played at the park.
	I saw two of them have a full-on breakdown saying they were forced by their mum to wear girls' clothes and their nanny tried to console them.
	Pure child abuse.
	Pray for them.
	The screenshot that this person shared as well, the caption for it, was so brave.
	So brave.
	Not particularly brave.
	So, Robbie was a former celebrity publicist, if I remember correctly.
	Oh, was he?
	And he was also trying to run as a Tennessee Republican candidate, and the Republican Party of Tennessee blocked his candidacy.
	This was part of the Uniparty.
	So, Robbie's done some solid stuff as well.
	He's worked with Tim Paul before, and he's definitely on the side of the American patriots.
	And he was immersed in that California sphere, which is why he has a legitimate claim to say, I knew the nanny of Megan Fox's kids and how she wasn't present.
	And so this is a form of virtue signalling at the expense of the children when she doesn't actually spend time with her children as a good mother.
	And it's the same you get with a lot of celebrities, where I think Angelina Jolie possibly has this with a few of her kids.
	I know for a fact that, um, what was her name from Mad Max Fury Road?
	Charlize Theron.
	Yes.
	I think two of her boys are trans.
	I know that sadly, heartbreakingly, Naomi Watts from one of my favourite films, Mulholland Drive.
	Only two scenes.
	Maybe for you, but I have big brain film knowledge, so I understood it more than you did.
	You can go and watch Premium Video on Mulholland Drive on our website to watch Harry put me through that struggle session.
	But sadly, she also has the same thing where she has, I think, non-binary or trans kids as well.
	So celebrities, as always, being that they don't have a brain of their own, I mean, they are literally hired so that they can read somebody else's words rather than their own, tend to jump on all of these trends at the expense of the well-being of their own children.
	I did see some people as well go, well, actually, it's only the one child.
	It's only the one child, but it's not.
	There's multiple pictures of this.
	It's very disturbing to see.
	The pride has even infiltrated, even got to Greta.
	Can you believe it?
	It even got to Greta, because Greta put forward the heartbreaking announcement that it's finally, it's school strike week 251.
	Today, I graduate from school, which means I'll no longer be able to school strike for the climate, and I'm sure she learned so much in those 251 weeks.
	This is the last school strike for me, so I guess I have something to write.
	And she goes on to give a big thread that I don't care about.
	What I actually cared about, if you... No, John, stay up here.
	If you click on that image on the left, I know they were striking for the climate, There appears to be an alien flag there.
	Well, I don't think it's alien, because if we remember, you're not meant to have kids because they produce too much carbon.
	This is true, this is true.
	So, if you wanted a representation of a doctrine of sterility, the trans flag would be apt.
	Certainly would.
	But this infiltrates every single protest movement, every single social justice movement, they all have to be part of the big same intersectional pot, the slop, that you throw it into.
	So it's no surprise, but good riddance to Greta's strikes, although I'm sure she'll stick around like a bad smell, won't she?
	She won't give up on the strikes, it's just that... She'll get other people's children to strike as well.
	Bear in mind, I thought she was about 20, why is she still in school?
	Making up for all of those day shoots.
	I bet that must have been what it is.
	And speaking of schools, this is what it gets into in the schools in America in particular.
	I saw this clip from Robbie Starbuck again, saying there was parents of kids at Edison's High School in Huntington Beach, California, said that this video was played to their kids in math class.
	And if we just play the clip, we can see that this was a Pride video in the middle of maths.
	Hey, I'll warn you guys now.
	If you're going to be inappropriate, I will have supervision down and give all of you a Saturday school for next year.
	So knock it off.
	So I love this clip and the reason is it's recreating the breakfast club dynamics of the 80s which went a long way with stigmatizing conservatism and being square but in the inverse because now progressivism is repulsive and uncool and performative to a classroom full of students who probably don't watch this podcast, probably aren't as clued in on the origins of queer theory.
	Care.
	Exactly, so they're just checked out because it's the hegemony, it's uncool, and so in order to enforce that, she has to threaten them with Saturday detention, like they're members of the Breakfast Club, to get them to be silent.
	But it doesn't mean they agree with the ideology, they're just bullied into silence.
	And the funny thing as well, this apparently was in every class that this school was putting on as well, so it wasn't just maths class, but somehow Pride has become so ubiquitous And so annoying and, to use an Americanism, so lame to these students that they are presumably more enthusiastic about an actual maths class than watching anything to do with pride.
	That's a great point.
	I remember when I was in school, if it was coming to the end of the year or half term for Christmas, for instance, and it would get to that point where You've done all your learning, you've done all the maths, you've done the curriculum for that half term.
	Out of the way, Philmon.
	Kids used to cheer when they brought the video player out.
	And you'd be like, yes!
	I don't have to learn today, I just get to watch a video.
	But now they're putting videos on where they're like, oh god, get the timetables out, please, please.
	So rather than sticking on the Grinch, they're loading up lesbians.com.
	It's educational, guys, we swear, we're totally not grooming you.
	I didn't realise Dan was administering this class.
	That was a real-time sip as well.
	Yes, but that's where we get to the main part of this story which was that Muslims and Christians united.
	No more Brother Wars!
	Here we go, so that they could trample radical trans flags in Ottawa, which Ottawa is in Canada.
	Canada, the home of the Leaf, which is where a lot of this is also being pushed, like in America, because Justin Trudeau is a sociopathic maniac, I'm sure.
	This is just speculation and satire on my part, but if it did come out that he cut up women on the weekends, Well, I was going to say... I wouldn't be that surprised.
	He takes after his father, Fidel Castro.
	Possibly.
	Possibly.
	I also wouldn't be surprised if he ended up showing up in drag on the weekends and maybe that's why he's pushing... Well, he's already done blackface.
	So it wouldn't be too much of a radical step for him, would it?
	Just DO in a big pink wig.
	Yeah, so this came about as the result of the Ottawa Carleton District School Board's plan to force non-binary pronouns on all students.
	So every school under the administration of this particular school board would have to be they-them.
	They-them pronouns for all of the children.
	The directive, which was issued to all staff, advised the use of they-them pronouns for all students until their prepared pronouns were expressed.
	Right, so not that the students have to respect the they-them pronouns, but the default pronoun for a student is they-them unless they ask otherwise.
	Yes.
	Which is an absurd standard.
	Once again, the very idea of the preferred pronouns having to ask them when you introduce yourself to somebody is absurd on the face of it, because obviously we are biologically programmed to recognize somebody's sex within, I think, five seconds of seeing their face or their body shape.
	That's one of the things.
	Because you know what?
	One of the things that's been important for the continuation of the human race has been mate acquisition.
	Very simple.
	You see somebody and you think, Can I have strong babies with them?
	And if you recognize that they are the same sex as you, that's an immediate no.
	I mean, maybe some people might still go, well, I might as well give it a go.
	Nature finds a way.
	But, it's absurd on the face of it, but then to not only say that, oh, you need to ask for the preferred pronouns, but if you don't get the preferred pronouns, it's they-them, as though you are just some kind of grey amorphous blob, is ridiculous.
	Again, it acquiesces to the idea that you can change your sex by thought.
	I mean, fundamentally, if you bind to the doctrine of preferred pronouns, it's not about politeness, you are ceding ground to trans ideology.
	And so anyone who, in the UK, Self describes themselves as a capital C conservative, while also saying I respect the use of pronouns, as I know some people have written articles on, and I've met people that do.
	No, you are just eroding the most fundamental distinction of human biology, which is the sex binary.
	You are capital C cringe.
	You're capital C cucked.
	Yes, many different things.
	Sit in a hotel chair.
	The email directive was sent out by the school district, aimed at fostering inclusivity and belonging, more like aimed at confusing and frustrating children.
	According to the spokesperson Darcy Knoll, it was met with a considerable backlash.
	Anonymously speaking, one Ottawa mother formerly associated with the school board expressed a shock, remarking that the emails from the board sounded more like LGBTQ propaganda, And once again, these are just normal people, they're probably not watching this podcast on the daily, but they just read this and go, okay, this is getting a bit mental.
	They're probably aware of all the controversy around it, but this is probably the normies.
	These will be your normies who are like, well, you know, I don't want to be mean, I don't want to be exclusive, I want to be friendly to people, because those are the typical moral standards that we expect from people these days.
	But even they're like, this is nuts.
	Well, it's also impossible to avoid even if you don't watch podcasts like ours, because Joe Biden has the flag on the White House.
	Like, you guys put it in front of everyone.
	Center stage.
	So, of course people are going to go, what's this Pride stuff?
	Sorry, what am I reading about men in dog costumes and you want to teach that to my kids?
	No thank you.
	They want to do what in public?
	It was not a stand against inclusivity, she clarified, because you've got to, once again, these are normies.
	So you've still got to say, you know, I don't, I don't not support all of this.
	I just don't want it in my schools, in front of my children.
	So this is like the NIMBY position, but at the same time... Not in my backside.
	But it's better than nothing, I suppose.
	Yeah, the directive, moreover, calls for LGBTQ identities to be incorporated into all classroom resources and curricula across all grade levels.
	So every single class, once again, going to get more things like that maths class in America and California where, you know, sorry, you wanted to learn what pie meant?
	Well, here's what cream pie looks like.
	There you go.
	Harry!
	Sorry!
	I'm so sorry.
	I mean, that's what it is.
	We've seen the interior of a lot of these books that they're putting into the schools that have been banned from Florida and places like that.
	If Johnny has nine dildos and Jimmy has seven dildos... That's the sort of thing that these schools are going on about.
	They will make questions like that.
	That's what they're putting in front of the children.
	Well, the critical race theorists decided to make questions about police profiling, so of course there's going to be sexually explicit maths questions.
	Well of course, I mean, you know, we're critical of James Lindsay and we may be doing something talking about how critical we are about him later on in this week, but when I've been listening to some of his stuff that he's been talking recently about the Paolo Freire method of school teaching...
	That is correct.
	It's the way that they phrase the questions which makes them political in the first place.
	It's not two plus two equals four.
	It's two of politically charged thing plus two of other politically charged thing equals politically charged answer.
	Therefore it gets that conversation going in the classrooms.
	That's how they structure these things.
	It's an attempt at conscientitizing, it's a Portuguese word, the student body reciprocally with the teachers.
	So the teacher is in dialogue with the student, they level all power out, and so the teacher has their social conditioning repealed by the innocence of children, and reciprocally, the teacher teaches the children Marxist propaganda, and so you create a symbiotic revolutionary class in classrooms.
	Honestly, if you want to propagandise and indoctrinate children from a very young age, it's genius.
	Yeah.
	It is absolutely genius, and, um, you know, I'm not saying that if it was going to good ends that I would be entirely against it.
	If it was to promote proper morals and such, then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, even though I would still say that if you're teaching maths, just teach them the basic maths.
	I would say the reciprocal power structure is the reason why we couldn't adopt it, because actually proper hierarchy is the way to morally instruct kids in the right way.
	But also, public schools are terrible, and I prefer homeschooling as well.
	These are all problems with it, but if you're a communist subversive, it's genius.
	Oh yeah, it's a very effective tactic.
	But anyway, so that's going to be part of every single class across all grade levels.
	The Ministry of Education had previously also offered Ontario parents the option to opt out of sex education classes.
	However, which is something that I had as a child as well, I went through it in year six I think it was, but if my parents had wanted then I would have been able to sit out.
	Excuse me.
	But as part of this current directive, then you're not going to be able to escape it and you're not going to be able to opt out because it's going to be part of literally every single class, whether it's related to biology and sex or not.
	The school districts also saw, as a result of this, high rates of absenteeism on the first day of Pride Month, with absences reaching above 60% in two of their schools and over 40% in nine others.
	So that's over and almost half of all of the students gone for most of that.
	And then the protests that were going on on Friday as well, and over the weekend as well, you can see things starting to ramp up here.
	And then in the next one is where it really starts to go down, where you've just got people stamping on the pride flags because you don't want it.
	And these protests, I imagine from what I saw from other people posting, got a bit more violent because you had counter protesters, you had elements of Antifa there as well.
	You had one pro-trans politician who was there, locally, contend that he had been punched in the face, but there are people contesting that and saying that he had knocked a camera against his own face to make it look as though somebody had attacked him.
	So there's a lot of grey area going on in this.
	But, at the very least, it's interesting to see that it's brought people together.
	You know, surprisingly, wanting to protect your own children is something that people from all sorts of vastly different cultures can agree on, so who knows how long this is going to last.
	It's probably a very uneasy alliance.
	Yeah, I would suggest this is something that's going to have divisions once this particular social malaise is cleared out of the way.
	It certainly won't last forever.
	But for the time being, the friend-enemy distinction is in play.
	And also it's very interesting to note as well that the intersectional coalition which has been relied on for so long to create these political coalitions that have helped leftist parties maintain power, we know that it wasn't supposed to make sense from the first part because it's basically groups of outsiders and freaks put together so that they can have benefits given to them by the ruling parties.
	That has now started to, as we always expected it would, collapse in on itself.
	So we'll see how much further that goes as well.
	Fantastic.
	On to some slightly less good news.
	Well, depending on how you look at it.
	Is there a chance that this might collapse the Conservative Party?
	Possibly.
	OK, now you've got my attention.
	So Nigel Farage might be forming an electoral pact with Boris Johnson.
	Again, except a bit more explicit than the 2019 one where he stood the Brexit party MEPs and prospective MPs down in Conservative seats and allowed Boris Johnson to win a landslide Conservative majority and then go and do absolutely nothing with it.
	I would caution Farage on this choice.
	Carl, and I will be presenting Carl's opinion that I spoke about with him Offair is more optimistic about what this could bring.
	I think that this could be disastrous for reform's ability in the future to capitalize off of a conservative defeat, and I think Nigel needs to learn the friend-enemy distinction a little bit better.
	And speaking of, if you'd like to pay us £5 a month and subscribe to our website, you get all of our premium content, and you can learn about the friend-enemy distinction in this symposium, where you, Harry, and Stelios went over Carl Schmitt's liberalism, or anti-liberalism.
	Stelios was rather critical of Schmidt, but Stelios is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
	Bless him.
	Whereas I am not.
	Yes.
	So, I lent you Concepts of the Political.
	Have you had a chance to read any of it yet?
	I've started the first few pages.
	I am familiar with the friend-enemy distinction.
	As a category, but I need to read Schmitt more first.
	There is a lot to Schmitt's critique of liberalism outside of just the friend-enemy distinction.
	For those, just as a quick little primer, as a preview of what you can expect from this.
	So Schmitt's idea was not only that politics is the friend-enemy distinction, that being that you have people on your side and people on the opposite side who both see each other
	as existential threats to their way of life so say for instance a more bourgeois traditionalist perspective versus the revolutionary socialistic perspective these people cannot coexist in any circumstances without some kind of force maintaining a law structure that will force them to get along with one another he also sees liberalism as it existed in the late 19th century and when he was living in the early 20th century
	as a disruptive, acidic force that obfuscated that reality through ideas like the marketplace of ideas, through the idea of open and free debate, he thought obfuscated that fundamental distinction of politics.
	There can be some benefits to those ideas, but he thought that it made people a bit less wary of what would go on in politics.
	So I think we can use this framework As a way of understanding what Farage and some of the Red Wall and Southern Brexiteer voters see Boris Johnson as a force for the friend distinction in an upcoming election.
	Whereas I would posit that at least he has demonstrated himself already and will be long-term an enemy.
	And so I thought we'd go through Boris is just a leftist as far as I'm concerned.
	No two bones about it.
	He's weak, spineless and also obsessed with population control just like his dad.
	He's a progressive, so.
	Yeah.
	And he's also beholden to his wife, however long she'll stick around considering the track record of the last few.
	He's a progressive man who wants to wave the flag of Churchill.
	Yeah, yeah, pretty much.
	Anyway, so on to what's happened this week in Conservative politics for those who are outside of the UK.
	We've had quite a few Conservatives announcing that they'll stand down at the next election.
	This is just a long list from Conservative home of some of the people who will not be going up again.
	The likes of Crispin Blunt, who I'm very glad isn't standing because he is...
	has a suspicious record.
	I won't elaborate further.
	He actually, no I will, he tepidly defended the... there was a lord or an MP that was caught up in a grooming scandal and he defended him on the grounds of saying it was homophobic before quickly retracting his letter because it looked really bad.
	Interesting.
	Very weird.
	If we just scroll down, John, there's quite a few prominent names on here, like Dominic Raab, for example.
	He was recently Deputy Prime Minister, now he's not even going to stand again.
	We've got Nadine Dorries, who's quit as an MP.
	And we've also got Dehenna Davidson, who was the darling of the 2019 intake MPs, who probably belonged better in the Liberal Democrats.
	And even she's going now, and she's a pretty good bellwether for how they think the Red Wall's going to go.
	Almost definitely going to lose a lot of seats there.
	If we go on to the next one, as I said, Nadine Dorries has now stood down and she's just going to double down on her talk TV show on Friday nights at 8pm because she's intelligent enough to warrant a television show and definitely doesn't go quite heavy on the booze.
	But she was in mid-Bedfordshire.
	If you've never seen the clips of her, she talks in a circle in Parliament.
	She'll sway like this.
	Oh dear.
	Well, I mean, it's not like it's out of character for a Tory.
	Or any politician, really.
	There is a story from a special advisor that I... After Michael Gove's fiascos and antics, it's become particularly noticeable within the Tories.
	That's a fair point.
	There was a story from a political advisor I know, and he relayed how in the Theresa May years, they were using her drafts of her Brexit deal as a placemat to cut up lemons and limes for their nine o'clock in the morning gin and tonics.
	So that's how seriously these people take politics.
	Onto the next one, as well, we have another quitter.
	This is Nigel Adams.
	And now, Nigel Adams had been nicknamed Big Dog within the Conservative spheres because he was one of Boris Johnson's go-to men for operations that would salvage his reputation, like Operation Big Dog, which was saving his reputation shortly after Partygate.
	And Adams is now resigning as a Member of Parliament, and they're having to select someone new.
	So all of these will result in by-elections.
	How do you think, given any detail as to why they're leaving?
	So, there's a couple of suspicions.
	Number one, it's because Boris himself is now left as an MP, so they're allies of his, and they've remained allies of his.
	There's also the suggestion that, and we'll come onto right at the very end, Boris Johnson has unleashed his honours list, because every outgoing Prime Minister gets to select people who get peerages in the House of Lords, who get knighthoods, damehoods, MBEs and OBEs.
	Orders from royalty.
	So, commendations for doing their job, even though politicians shouldn't really get that for doing their job, especially if they do a bad job, but anyway.
	But these two weren't on it, despite being dyed-in-the-wool Boris backers all throughout their tenure.
	So they've put their reputation for lying for Boris, so yeah, they're slightly peeved.
	And Nadine Dorries, the morning of, had said she's not going to step down, and then by about one o'clock she then went on TalkTV to explain why she's stepping down.
	You could always...
	Put forward the idea that they might be hoping that if they show solidarity with Boris that he might change his mind on who he wants to put forward for these peerages.
	Well, he can't do that now because the peerage list has been locked in and there was some speculation as to whether or not they had their peerages blocked by Rishi Sunak because Rishi Sunak has to sign off on Boris's peerage and lord and whatnot suggestions.
	Um, so one of the peerages that was taken off was Stanley Johnson, Boris's dad, because he's kept trying to get him a peerage, and Tsunak just went, no.
	Like, come on.
	I mean, that's too obvious.
	But some of the names he did sign off on, which we'll get to towards the end, are equally as ridiculous.
	So what I'm gathering from this is that it seems that...
	Destroying the country, that was a line that they were more than happy to cross.
	Letting in millions of foreign immigrants who have no cultural ties to this country, that was a line that these people were willing to cross.
	Widespread economic turmoil, they were willing to cross that.
	Covid restrictions, that was no problem whatsoever, you didn't even have to ask me twice.
	Spying on critics.
	Spying on your own critics, but not getting a peerage.
	That was where they really drew the line.
	They said, no, that's where I'm not going to draw, that's where I won't cross.
	That's too far for me, man.
	Well, it was a thumb in the eye for them, because that costs them money and job security.
	I suppose they'd already sold their soul by that point, so if you're not going to get a little tickle for it, why do any of it in the first place?
	Yeah, spot on.
	So if we go to the next one, this is Boris's resignation statement in full, and I just thought I'd pull out a couple of choice quotes, because we can see the narrative formation from Boris's perspective here.
	And I don't have to tell people by co-host Harry or watching the podcast this, but Boris Johnson is not on our side given the policies that he inflicted upon us, notably Ukraine war spending, the fact that he intervened at the start of the war to prevent a peace treaty being signed and has resulted in lots of more Russians.
	Two weeks to stop the spread.
	Yeah, he decided to prolong lockdowns and implement them in the first place.
	He has been the architect of many, many things that have ailed Britain recently.
	But he's positioning himself as a true Conservative.
	And lots of people are going to fall for this.
	So, he says, I've been an MP since 2001.
	I take my responsibilities seriously.
	I did not lie to Parliament.
	And I believe that in their hearts, the Parliamentary Committee that are investigating Partygate know it.
	Their purpose from the beginning has been to find me guilty, regardless of the facts.
	This is the very definition of a kangaroo court.
	They have still not produced a shred of evidence that I knowingly or recklessly misled the Commons.
	Now, he did say that he didn't know that there were any parties going on, even though... Even the ones he was attending.
	Yes, even though the ones he was pictured attending, even though the ones that his advisor came out and...
	in leaked video footage was trying to create a narrative about if they ever leaked even the ones where his appointees who he's now giving peerages and obe honors as we'll see later on sent out emails saying bring your own booze to it even though we're not meant to be doing this so bit incredulous for him to say that he didn't know it was going on and even so even if you'd like to feign ignorance that not attending or organizing it you put us all under lockdown it wasn't meant to be happening in your vicinity let alone involving you anyway so
	So, and I'm not trying to hit the point about hypocrisy, because we both know it's not about hypocrisy, it's about hierarchy.
	But if you're going to impose the restrictions, the least you could have done is live under them.
	Or you could have just not imposed the restrictions at all, which I would have been very happy with.
	And that's what I voted for.
	Well, once again, we spoke about Schmidt just a few minutes ago, as well as friend and enemy.
	One of the things that he has spoken about as well is the idea of who is the sovereign, is who makes the distinction, the distinction of the exception.
	The exception being if you set a rule Who and what is allowed to break those rules?
	So he set the rules, and he decided that he and all of his pals were allowed to break the rules.
	Yeah.
	And the rules are entirely arbitrary, and as I covered with Carl last week, all of the lockdown restrictions in the UK saved a maximum of 1,700 lives, and that's drastically eclipsed by the suicides, the deaths of despair, the missed cancer screenings, And all of the economic turmoil that has resulted from the money printing under lockdown, which Johnson oversaw and signed off on.
	And he can pretend that he dragged his heels as much as he'd like, but he certainly didn't, because we had to live under it.
	And he says, we need to show how we are making the most of Brexit, and we need in the next months to be setting out a pro-growth and pro-investment agenda.
	We need to cut business and personal taxes, and not just as pre-election gimmicks, rather than endlessly putting them up.
	Now I'd like to remind you that Boris Johnson did not do anything about Brexit laws while in.
	He dogmatically focused on the pandemic.
	He did not do anything about immigration, which was one of the primary concerns and promises of Brexit.
	And also he can talk about tax all he likes, but he broke the manifesto pledge that said we're not going to put up taxes to raise the national insurance.
	That was his policy.
	It wasn't just Sunak's.
	So Sunak is a continuity candidate from Boris.
	It might be something fun to do actually, just go back to the 2019 manifesto and just find every promise made and just see which ones were broken and I'm almost certain it'll probably be 100% of them.
	Yeah, pretty much all of them.
	I mean he got Brexit done, he did it as a very bad divorce that we're still paying for, but he got Brexit done so that's one out of ten maybe?
	Great, thanks Boris, appreciate it.
	And he finishes with, we must not be afraid to be a properly conservative government.
	Oh, really?
	Where was that for the last 13 years?
	Or the years that you were specifically Prime Minister?
	That would have been helpful, wouldn't it?
	Where was all of that new Labour legislation that you should have been trimming in that case?
	You should have had a public bonfire for multiple copies of the Equality Act, but instead you decided to double down on it.
	Well, I mean, David Cameron, I believe, was the one who signed it in, because it was done under Gordon Brown, but I believe that the passover from one government to the other had already happened, and then David Cameron's Conservative Party just signed it in anyway.
	And then he picked lots of candidates on the basis of it and voila, we get Liz Truss, Priti Patel, etc.
	So, speaking of another position where Boris used to occupy, Sunak has decided to use the concurrent selection process for the Conservatives' London Mayoral candidates as a political football to spite Boris and undermine Boris' attempt to weaken the Conservative Party out of vengeance.
	And so, Boris' preferred candidate This is Mr Samuel Kasumu, and Sunak has now taken him out of the selection process, so he's eradicated him from consideration.
	And Nick Connor, who's a senior source in Kasumu's camp, has accused Tory headquarters of blocking his candidacy over close links to Boris Johnson.
	Kasumu was a former race advisor.
	Conservative government race advisor.
	Do I need to say more?
	in Johnson's Downing Street operation and had received top profile endorsements from close Boris allies, including former Home Secretary Priti Patel.
	The move by CCHQ to block Kasumu came less than 24 hours after Johnson resigned as an MP.
	A senior Tory source reportedly told Mr Kasumu's campaign that he was blocked over concerns that if they let him on the list he would win, beating preferred candidate Paul Scully.
	Now on a purely electorally expedient calculation, and this is a sad fact of London, if you're going to run someone against Sadiq Khan, you're probably going to need a young black guy.
	That is the state of conservative politics.
	I mean, we've seen the ethnic demographics of London.
	It's no longer a majority English city.
	So you're going to have to get someone who's going to appeal to the demographics that exist within London.
	And for the most part, those sorts of demographics tend to have massive levels of in-group preference with who they'll be voting for.
	Or the white liberals that still live there have massive outgrowth preference, and so even if you're going to try and get some swing voters, those still living in London don't want to be seen as racist, so they're more likely to vote for a black guy rather than just voting for a white guy over a Muslim.
	Again, we're not justifying this, we're just saying from the mind of capitulated conservatives, this is how they would think.
	But instead, they were going to go with Paul Scully.
	And then, looking at all the resignations, if we go to the next, Paul Scully was also blocked from the candidacy.
	Now, the reason that's been speculated is because they couldn't afford another by-election.
	Because they're about to have three, and they're petrified of losing four on the trot.
	So they're keeping an MP in place, and so now there's a bit of a scramble over which candidate they're going to pick out of Susan Hall, who was a former London City Council Chamber member.
	She follows me on Twitter, I should know exact job title, I feel bad.
	Daniel Korski, and Mohammed Hussain.
	Oh, Mazarmul Hussein, sorry.
	I'll put my money on that person.
	I would wager that that is going to be the selection for, again, expedient reasons.
	Now, if you weren't convinced that all of this is a giant, well, circus, look who's celebrating.
	George Osborne.
	One of the men who ruined the country.
	The man who appointed a Blackfoot Rock portfolio advisor to be Jeremy Hunt's advisor, who is now destroying the country as Chancellor.
	George Osborne is saying, what a lovely evening.
	He's delighted.
	Bye.
	The clearing out of the neocon faction of the Conservative Party in favour of a total ubiquity of the globalist faction of the Conservative Party.
	Again, Boris Johnson is not our friend.
	Is there much of a difference between these two factions?
	I imagine there's a lot of overlap.
	There is quite a bit of overlap, but I would say the neocon faction are chiefly concerned with Ukraine, whereas the globalist faction are chiefly concerned with AI, the UN, a global sphere of influence rather than just a Eurocentric sphere of influence.
	Truss, Johnson, Patel, they're more neocons.
	Sunak, Hunt, they're definitely close.
	So there will be overlap between these two groups, it'll just depend on which idea they are focused on more?
	Yeah, some of them are technocrats, some of them are neocons.
	So the technocrat camp is very much in control of the Conservative Party at the moment.
	So George Osborne is celebrating as a technocrat.
	So a lot of this serves the cementing of technocrat interests until this interesting development.
	Now, Nigel Farage on Sunday went on Camilla Tomini's show on GB News and decided to, unprompted, discuss the possibility of a Farage and Boris pact.
	Now, we're going to play the clip and allow Nigel to speak for himself and then we can discuss the implications of this.
	Boris Johnson's road with the Conservative Party is coming towards an end.
	That's a really interesting caveat, with the Conservative Party, but he's got some road politically elsewhere.
	If he wants to.
	I mean, that all depends on him.
	The way I see it, It's fascinating.
	Tobias Ellwood there saying, we inherited a lot of debt.
	Well, do you know how much they inherited?
	700 billion of national debt.
	It's now 2.5 trillion.
	And as you quite rightly questioned, Tim, this is now, this Conservative government is now corporatist, Globalist.
	Shows no interest in bringing in the benefits of Brexit.
	Whatever they say about immigration, they have no intention to reduce these vast numbers of net migration that are coming into the country every year.
	This is now a full-on Social Democrat party.
	OK.
	So are you saying there's an opening on the right for Boris Johnson?
	He'd have to pivot on a number of different issues, right?
	Oh, yes.
	He's pro-immigration.
	I know.
	That's not going to play well with the right of the Conservative Party as it stands?
	Electorate?
	Yeah.
	I mean, look, you've got a group of MPs who are dedicated to Brexit and getting the benefits of Brexit.
	They want to bring numbers down.
	They want to help small business with deregulation.
	They actually believe in smaller government.
	But there are only about three dozen of them.
	In fact, we're back to where we were at the time of the Maastricht Rebellion.
	We're back where we were 30 years ago.
	This is now, you know, Hunt and people like that are the modern day incarnation of the Howes and Hurds of yesteryear.
	So, To your question, there is now a very big opening in British politics.
	Just as there was with Osborne and Cameron, with Miliband leading the Labour Party and Clegg.
	And I used to say ten years ago, you can't put a cigarette paper between them.
	And it was that gap that UKIP very effectively filled.
	I think the gap between Westminster and the country is now bigger than it was 10 years ago.
	I think the sense of broken Britain, the sense the health service doesn't work anymore, that people's kids and grandkids can't even get onto the housing ladder, I think these things are very, very real.
	And so there's an enormous opportunity there.
	Now, You're talking about partnerships.
	You're talking about going into partnership with Boris Johnson.
	Have you considered that?
	I disagree with Boris Johnson fundamentally on many of his metro-liberal views.
	But if anybody can turn on a sixpence and say they now believe in something completely different, it's Boris Johnson.
	The important thing to remember is this.
	On the biggest issue of our age, the biggest constitutional question we were faced in our lifetimes, most likely, namely Brexit, that Boris actually was on the same side as myself and others.
	There are now, and I've heard it this morning, major Conservative donors and supporters who say they will never support the party again.
	Right.
	Now, maybe in ten years they will, but they will never support the party again.
	So there is an opportunity.
	If Boris Johnson wanted to, and to use, and the good side of Boris of course is, just look at today's newspapers, he's very good at dominating news, he does have personality, he does make people smile, and if he wants to defend his Brexit legacy, well I want to defend my Brexit legacy too.
	So would there be a possibility?
	Very interesting stuff.
	together on the centre-right, it'd be Boris Johnson, there'd be other MPs that would join in with this as well.
	Have you discussed this with Boris Johnson?
	Not with him directly, no.
	But I have discussed it with people very close to him and around him.
	Right, so you've...
	Very interesting stuff.
	So, Nigel Blater goes on to say that he remains very critical of Johnson's foreign policy and vaccine rollout, Which is an interesting iteration on what Richard Tice was saying beforehand when Andrew Bridgen was counselled by the Conservative Party and said that Andrew Bridgen would not have a place in the Conservative Party for his comments on the vaccine.
	And so Bridgen became Reclaim's first MP rather than leaving as an MP, he just defected.
	And then Nigel also said that he hasn't decided if he'll do more frontline politics yet.
	So Nigel himself may not be running as an MP under reform, he doesn't know yet, but It seems to me that he's proposing some sort of expedient alliance with Boris Johnson, whether or not that is for a merger with reform or just for the sake of destroying the Conservative Party and levelling the playing field.
	If he was to undertake any kind of alliance like this and not run on the front of it, on the front lines, he would probably do best to stay kind of a behind-the-scenes Dominic Cummings-esque figure.
	I think that would be very silly, though.
	Pulling the strings.
	I know I'm saying that if he did decide to, and if he was going to align himself with Boris Johnson, then he would have to be keeping Johnson on an incredibly tight leash because he brought up some good points there.
	Boris Johnson is, for some reason, very popular with people.
	He can dominate the news.
	He is, to a certain extent, charismatic in a way that people enjoy.
	He is, I would consider, damaged goods at this point, and I do think that Nigel Farage has all of those qualities himself that he could use for his own advantage.
	But...
	If he was to make this alliance, then yeah, he would need to remain very, very tight on what Boris can say and can do, because Boris is a metropolitan liberal at the end of the day.
	That's the point he made that you laughed at, it's that he was trying to give him a backhanded compliment to say that Boris can change on a dime, but his lack of principle makes him more a liability than an asset, I would say.
	It does make him quite dangerous.
	And so this is the two visions that I was discussing with Carl off of air for this clip that could play out if there were a Reform slash Farage and Boris alliance.
	So let's say that Boris defects the Reform Party.
	Highly unlikely because Boris, I think, would quite like the Conservative Party levelled to then step back in and fulfil his hasta la vista baby concluding parliamentary speech promise, I will be back.
	I would like the Conservative Party levelled as well, but for completely different reasons.
	So I think we take different perspectives on this.
	I will pour school on the current Conservative Party all day long, but I think that the existence of the institution means that the more likely route to achieving our ends of a wholesome country, if we capture it, then wait for it to be abolished.
	I don't think it can be captured.
	At this point, the Conservative Party has been around for What is it, 400 years almost?
	And in that time has sadly been possibly the most successful political party in the history of politics as we know it.
	Known politics going back thousands of years, they are the most successful political party to ever exist that we know of.
	And every single time it has been successful they've said we're going to do this, And they have turned around and done the exact opposite thing.
	We want to maintain protectionist rates.
	Sorry, we've just repealed the Corn Laws.
	We want to get Brexit done.
	Well, we've got Brexit done, but it's so that we can be a more globalist Britain.
	We're going to repeal immigration.
	We're going to reduce immigration.
	Sorry, we've more than tripled immigration.
	Everything that they do has been to the detriment of this country's security and solidarity and I believe that in a Peter Hitchens manner that the Conservative Party is just there to take energy away from actual right-wing movements that exist within the UK and drain them of real momentum and energy because at the end of the day we exist within a uniparty two-party system.
	We have external parties that exist on the peripheries that are there mainly for protest votes.
	UKIP made a good go of it a few years ago but the way that the system works right now they only got one seat despite getting what was it the second most amount of votes?
	They got four million votes.
	It was something very it was it was something ridiculous they got a lot of votes but because of the way that the system works they still only managed to win one seat from it so the conservative party because they are so ubiquitous within this country because everybody knows the Conservative Party.
	They just exist to drain that energy and momentum and any potential for change away from the system.
	And not only that, when they do that, they then take that idea, like the Brexit idea, and turn it into something that becomes inherently leftist.
	So, all of that I acknowledge.
	However, I think the more likely route, and I'm a results man so I'm happy for either outcome, frankly, I think the more likely route to reconstituting the country in a reactionary-conservative approach will be to capture the institution much like how Trump led an insurrection party within a party with the MAGA party occupying the Republican party and pushing
	Either more libertarian-slash-conservative policies, or at the very least, pushing the traitors to the forefront and making themselves known, because now the scorn is heaped upon the Republican Party apparatchiks.
	Lots of them are getting primaried, lots of them are trying to be pushed out.
	So that would be, especially if the conservatives are in the opposition, as the Republicans are at the moment.
	Amassing their forces.
	That would be a good opportunity for the backbenchers who believe some of the things that we believe to launch a recapture attempt against them.
	But I understand that's improbable.
	Without a Trump-like figure in the Conservative Party, I don't see that happening.
	Yeah, so we've got to wait for that to happen.
	But anyway, so...
	Back to the point.
	So let's say Boris defects to reform.
	Unlikely.
	But they did have Jacob Rees-Mogg's sister, and Anne Whittacombe, who's a former Conservative MP, as MEPs in 2019.
	They do have an existing foothold in alternative media, so Richard Tice is on TalkTV.
	Farage is on GB News, and then there are supporters within the Boris camp that have said he had upwards of 100 MPs that were supporting him in October 2022 for his return to the leadership bid to challenge Rishi.
	Now, some of these didn't go on record, but that means there are quite a lot of Conservative MPs in the waiting that owe their careers to Boris and might be likely to flip if they've got nothing left to lose because being associated with the Conservative Party and in the Red Wall is more of a danger than switching parties and hopefully getting elected there.
	So when Farage said there were a few MPs waiting to go, that might not be untrue.
	I don't think Mog would ever flip though, just because he is an institution man and despite having an honour being given to him by Boris and his sister joining Reform slash Brexit party, it's unlikely that Mog, one of his greatest allies, would follow him.
	So that would be a problem.
	There is the alternative that Karl has proposed, which Karl would really like, but I see as even less likely, and that is reform being absorbed at some point into the Conservative Party.
	I don't think that's going to happen, mainly because there are quite a few elements in reform that would like absolutely nothing more than to see the Conservative Party destroyed and then take their place.
	But, Carl raised an interesting point, and he said, if Boris slash Farage was the table, the idea of encompassing that, then Rishi's going to look terrible to the Conservative base.
	Because according to Matt Goodwin's polling, 6 in 10 of those that voted Boris in 2019 aren't going to vote.
	They're not switching to Labour, they're just totally disenfranchised.
	And the Conservatives are so ailing in the polls behind Labour, because Labour are defaulting their way into office because the Conservatives are so bad, they can't afford to lose the 6-9% polling that Reform has been getting.
	So if Sunak rejects the pro-Brexit Reform Party alliance, or accepting some of their MPs, or accepting some of their members, Then it's going to look really bad for Sunak, and the Conservatives are going to hemorrhage even more support among the pro-Brexit side.
	And so Sunak will be caught in a bit of a bind, and so Boris will get what he wants anyway, which is the hemorrhaging of Conservative support, them being sent back to be weak opposition, and so he can ride in as the continuity alternative candidate to take the mantle back up again.
	So, those seem to be the scenarios that are playing out, but in neither of those scenarios does reform, or patriots, or Nigel Farage benefit.
	So I don't see this as a sensible alliance.
	And the reason I don't see this, and this is something that you've raised, is because the easiest betrayal on Brexit, to point out for Boris Johnson, is on migration.
	And Migration Watch sent us this press release.
	On Thursday, thank you to Jeremy for this.
	This has now been published far and wide, so we're a bit behind the ball.
	But they've found that if the UK continues its migration levels, by 2046 there'll be 80 million people here.
	And that's an underestimate, because as Dan's already gone over, the food industry is estimating that they're already about that number in the UK already.
	We just don't know about it, because that's how many people we're feeding.
	So it's going to be, what, upwards of 90 million?
	Well yes, this'll just be purely off the back of the known recorded amount of people in the country, whereas there's probably this many in the country already, if not more if we go off of things like food, the amount of food that people buy, like the amount of sewage, like the amount of phone contracts that are put up in the UK as well.
	All of these figures point to there being Far more people.
	Because it's very easy for them to just come over here and wait for their visa to expire and stay.
	Because what are they going to do?
	Send them to Rwanda?
	No.
	Yeah.
	Let's go through the actual stats then in the next link.
	So the UK population they're saying is about 67 million and they say it will be between 83 and 87 million by 2046 if migration continues at the current levels.
	And remember, Boris Johnson made this record and Rishu Sunak is merely continuing Boris Johnson's record.
	Over the past 25 years, since 1997, something happened.
	The UK population has increased by nearly 9 million, from just over 58 million to 67 million, and counting in 2021.
	Between 1996 and 2002, net migration from overseas to the UK has run at an average level of 190,000 per year, but the five-year average level has tripled from 113,000 between 1996 and 2000.
	to 347,000 between 2018 and 2022.
	The number of households headed by persons born outside the UK rose by 2.7 million between 1990 and 2019.
	The number increased from 1.6 million out of a total of 22.6 million in 1990, that's 7%, to 4.3 million out of just 27 million, 15% of the total, by 2019.
	So that's more than double the amount of households headed by someone who was never born in the UK.
	And it's important to note in all of this as well that if you look at the statistics the actual native-born population of ethnically English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish people within England has remained at a pretty steady 45 to 44 million ever since 1997.
	In fact in that time I believe it dropped over It was either over 2001 to 2011 or 2011 to 2021, from 45 point something to 44 point something.
	So, the actual native population has dropped, if only slightly, but other than that has stayed pretty much constant for, um, 60-70 years post-World War II.
	Yeah, that's because we're experiencing a birth rate decline and also a general outflow of native Brits who are going, well, hang on, why am I being taxed so foreigners can buy cigarettes and trainers?
	Off to Spain!
	Yeah, or Ireland, or the US, or any more friendly nations to the British spirit of enterprise.
	This has meant the need for more than 4 million more homes, with an average of 2.35 people occupying each household.
	There are a few reasons for this household occupation rate.
	Households in 1911 had an average of more than four people per dwelling, but this fell to just 2.4 by 2022.
	Now you'd think that that is actually a good thing, but that means less native population children, that means more people spread across more households, and that's because the UK is one of the leading countries in the world for family breakup now.
	So more children are raised between two households.
	There's actually children's commissioner Dame Rachel D'Souza found half of all children in England are currently living split between more than one household.
	That is just civilization acid.
	You know, how are you going to transmit values if every child doesn't have a stable mother and father-parent dynamic and they're constantly at war with each other?
	And also, part of this is because if you have more adults arriving than children via migration, well, those adults need separate housing.
	So they're going to show up and they need housing on demand, independent from each other.
	Speaking of housing, in this report it says Government analysis suggests that high immigration since the 90s helped drive up housing prices by a fifth.
	Based on the ONS statistics from 2018, immigration at a level of net migration to England, which is around half the present level, would account for a majority, 57% of additional households during the 25 years until 2043.
	The government has now set a target, which is now advisory, so it's not even going to be fulfilled, to build 300,000 homes per year.
	But England actually needed to build 461,000 homes in 2022 to cope with the increased demand.
	England has averaged only 180,000 per year over the past decade, while the number of homes added in 2022 was just 235,000.
	averaged only 180,000 per year over the past decade, while the number of homes added in 2022 was just 235,000.
	So that's half the amount they needed to build last year for the new record of migration.
	And now this year, net migration could reach a million, a new record, and they're still falling behind targets.
	So just build more houses, bro, is not the solution.
	It is lowering migration.
	Otherwise, we're not going to have anywhere to live.
	Or I'm going to be living with my parents until I'm in my 40s.
	Thanks.
	In preparation to human batteries for underworld's population, quote, government statistics show that approximately 65 square miles of supposedly protected land was set aside for house building between 2015 and 2021.
	So there goes the English countryside, I suppose.
	It's estimated this will result in the need to build between six and eight million more homes...
	By 2040... 2046, I believe it was again.
	So that's equal to between 15 and 18 cities the size of Birmingham.
	We need 18 more Birminghams to facilitate the current level of immigration.
	I don't want the Birmingham we already have.
	No.
	No, I went there.
	Go and check out my Conservative Party conference coverage for a montage of just how multicultural vomit and giant concrete slab architecture that city is.
	But reminder, we are in this situation because of Boris.
	This is the whole point of this segment.
	It's to go back to the fact that the Brexit betrayal was Boris.
	The record immigration.
	Boris.
	Why are we allying with him?
	Just because some people go, haha, he's funny, he got stuck on a zipline once for a couple of flags.
	He's not a friend.
	He's an enemy.
	And let's go over to just this.
	Now, this was a year ago.
	This is my first ever video on Lotus Eaters with Callum.
	This was just shy of a year ago this week.
	If we go on to the Guardian one, again, immigration is the reason that you can't get more houses.
	Because even the Guardian's admitting now that the ONS said house prices grew faster than earnings in 91% of local authority districts in 2021.
	It added that in England, a home typically costs an average of 9 times average earnings, up from 7.9 times the average earnings in 2021.
	So that's about a 1.2% increase.
	In 1997, when something happened, the figure was 3.5 times.
	point two percent increase in 1997 when something happened the figure was 3.5 times so that's nearly a treble thanks boris The ONS said housing affordability had worsened in 300 of the 331 local authority areas in 2021.
	It added that in England average property prices increased by 14% while average earnings fell by nearly 1%.
	So, the pandemic money printing and the immigration policy has led to us being impoverished.
	And this is just going on about demographic collapse in the earlier migration report, just another point as well.
	To provide historical context, during the period between 1996 and 2021, the UK's birth rate had fallen from just over 1.9 births per woman in 2020 and 2012 to 1.53 per woman in 2021, well below replacement level.
	Now this is the excuse that we need to endlessly import more immigrants to upgrade our birth rate, right?
	I think one of the things that is constantly ignored when you hear excuses like the one that you're You're explaining there is the fact that one of the main reasons that women aren't having as many babies is just because of the fact that for so many people it's completely unaffordable.
	So you're ruining the country and ruining their ability to have children and then because they're not having as many children you're using that as evidence for why you need to import more people and making the situation worse.
	It is completely cyclical.
	These people know what they're doing.
	I don't just believe that the Conservative Party needs to be destroyed utterly and completely.
	I believe that the people inside of it need to be punished for treasonous behaviour.
	I would agree that these people need to be held legally accountable, yes, for their ouroboros of cultural and economic disintegration.
	Well, we know that the birth rates problem also isn't going to be fixed by immigration, because of this interview I did with Stephen Shore a couple of weeks ago, which is free for everyone to watch, by the way, and he went around the world looking at demographic data from pretty much every country, and he found that even in nations like India, Bangladesh, and Sub-Saharan Africa, in England and Bangladesh, their birth rates are now below sub-replacement, so they're following the UK's model, and in Sub-Saharan Africa, every decade, they're losing one child per woman.
	So, this is a global trend, so even if you want to mass import populations from other countries, Regardless of cultural disparities or various educational intelligence levels that might not map onto our economy and have the same high standards for healthcare, engineering, etc, then that's not going to be a viable solution in a couple of years.
	So, what now, guys?
	GDP, line go up?
	Not a tenable philosophy, but all right.
	So conclusion, what's the solution to the problem?
	Well, Migration Watch have directed us towards this website.
	It's a new website, some great graphics.
	For example, it says that 1.4 million visas were granted in 2022, something that most people don't know, and that was under the Conservatives.
	And so they've got this petition, if we go to the next one.
	That they're trying to send to Parliament and various MPs and so they allow you to help write letters to your local MP and try to get them to raise this.
	It's about all we can do to create a pressure campaign at this point until a viable alternative party or viable alternative Conservative leadership rise up.
	But this is the point.
	That viability is not going to exist as long as Boris Johnson still lingers as an electoral force leveraging power over the disintegrating Conservative Party, and so this isn't a smart move for Farage to do.
	And I just wanted to finish on some Boris cronyism here, because I've been alluding to it since the start.
	Go to the last one, please, John.
	His honours list for resignations Included utterly useless people faming upward.
	So Priti Patel gets a damehood.
	Well-earned.
	Simon Clarke, Minister for Housing and Leveling Up.
	After all of those stats, he's getting a knighthood.
	Are you taking the piss?
	And that's a hell of a backhander right there.
	Michael Fabricant and Jacob Rees-Mogg are getting knighthoods.
	Now, I don't mind Mogg.
	Fabricant is a genuine bumbling idiot with the worst fake toupee I've ever seen in my life.
	Wait, is he that one?
	He's that one.
	He's getting a knighthood, right?
	He hasn't got two brain cells to rub together.
	Maybe the Queen willed herself into death so that she didn't have to deal with this.
	I hope Charles drops the sword.
	Party Marty, Martin Reynolds, the guy who did the... Oh, I didn't mean on them, I just meant to the side, so we can't pick it up again and knight him, definitely.
	Martin Reynolds, who organised the parties under Partygate.
	He's getting an honours, Order of the Bath.
	Carrie's advisors are getting OBEs.
	Boris's hairdresser's getting an MBE.
	Are you joking?
	Nope.
	Boris Johnson had a hairdresser, first of all, and she's getting an MBE.
	Yeah, I just thought I'd finish on that total farce.
	Nigel... What did she do?
	Does she only own a hairdryer?
	No, she only owns a balloon to quickly rub it against her scalp.
	Nigel, just don't bother, mate.
	Alright.
	And staying on topic, staying in the land of jolly old Blighty, let's look at the opposition.
	What's the opposition doing right now as the Conservatives bumble their way into an obvious defeat?
	Well, the Labour Party is taking a Conservative turn because, like Nigel Farage, and like lots of backbenchers in the Conservative Party, they've realised that what the country is crying out for is a dose of Conservatism.
	Now, do I trust the Labour Party?
	To actually go ahead with any of the things they are currently promoting, and Keir Starmer in particular is currently promoting, as part of their election campaign, because that's what they're ramping up to.
	No!
	No, of course I do not, because they are Labour, they will remain Labour, always.
	Do I trust the Conservatives if they started doing the exact same thing?
	No, I don't trust any of them.
	I've said this before, none of the parties in the UK, or at least neither of the two major parties, in the UK represent me, they don't represent my interests, and they don't represent the things that I care about.
	But Labour, being the much more politically savvy currently of the two, because instead of having an actual communist like Jeremy Corbyn in charge, they now have a Blairite like Keir Starmer in charge, who is actively taking advice from Tony Blair himself behind the scenes.
	And Davos.
	And Davos.
	They are becoming much more politically savvy in the messaging that they're putting forward, and making it seem as though they are going to be taking a rightward shift.
	And certainly in terms of the rhetoric they're using, that is what they're doing, and that's what we'll be examining today, along with a centrepiece that I found.
	A New Statesman article.
	For those who aren't aware, New Statesman is a UK-based left-wing publication, oftentimes very socialist, that actually has an article that I found called Rescuing Conservatism, which, reading it, felt as though it was written by a mixture of Karl, Thomas and Roger Scruton.
	With a few trip-ups here and there, but it was remarkable how on point it was for the sorts of messaging that would typically appeal to people like you or me.
	So, before I get into that any further, we've got lots of excellent content and work and articles and videos on the website.
	As usual, including this recent article from Noel Yaxley talking about Europe's shift to the right, which I thought was very appropriate given that Labour are taking a shift, rhetorically, to the right.
	So you can check that out alongside everything else that we've got on the website if you would like.
	So let's take a look at what the polls are saying.
	So this is a recent poll taken at the taken just last week, saying that according to these polls, Kiss Armor is going to be beating Blair's landslide in a general election.
	And once again, like you said in the last segment, this is not necessarily because conservative voters are flipping.
	No.
	It's because Conservative voters are giving up.
	Because they know that if they vote for Conservative, they're not going to get what they want, they're going to get Labour.
	So what would be the point in turning around and deciding to vote Labour so they can just get Labour?
	So if the two options are Labour, they're just not going to show up at all.
	But this puts Labour in a massive position of strength, because they say...
	He's on course, Starmer's on course to win more seats than Tony Blair's landslide victory according to the first big constituency polling conducted under the new boundaries.
	Best case scenario for Rishi Sunak is the Conservatives are the second party in a hung parliament.
	The 10,140 MRP poll conducted by Focal Data for the Best for Britain suggests the model used to translate the polling into seats uses the new boundaries that will shortly be approved for the next general election.
	The poll recorded Labour's national support at 35%, 12 points ahead of the Conservatives on 23%.
	This would secure Labour 470 seats to the Conservatives' 129.
	A 290-seat majority.
	Can you imagine the state of the country if Labour's diverse and inclusive line-up of MPs had that level of a majority?
	Not that the Conservatives are going to be putting any real opposition in in the first place, but still.
	I was also going to say that how low the approval ratings are of polling for that party, to put that in perspective, I mean, when President Trump was polling about, what, 60 odd percent approval, that was considered somewhat low at times, whereas the Labour Party have 35 percent and they're the de facto government.
	I know, they've got 35% approval, except they could have a 290 seat majority, which is more than the Blair landslide, because even at his top in 1997, before everybody realised who and what Tony Blair was and decided that they were going to hate him, Iranian scholars notwithstanding, He only had a 179 seat majority, so we're talking more than 100 seats.
	Now this is best case scenario projections for Labour.
	The best for Britain cautioned that in other scenarios, Labour's results would be much less positive if the Reform Party decided to stand aside in Conservative marginals as their predecessor, the Brexit Party, did in 2019.
	In 2019, Labour would win only 401 seats to the Conservatives 202, a majority of 152.
	In a scenario where greater weighting is given to the levels of education of voters who are currently undecided, Labour would win 370 seats to the Conservatives 232, giving Starmer a majority of 90.
	If both of these factors were combined to create a worst-case scenario for Labour, Starmer would win 316 seats and Sunak would have 286.
	Leaving Labour just short of majority.
	And according to this polling, that is the worst-case scenario.
	Now, polling is not the be-all and end-all.
	It is not always accurate.
	But, if, from the other information that we've looked at so far, this podcast is also accurate, it's not looking good for the Conservatives either way.
	Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but Labour getting in charge is also a bad thing.
	So, either way, you know, it's just, do I want to take the Cyanide or the Anthrax?
	What would I prefer?
	Which one will take me out quicker?
	That's the options that we've got here.
	And as I mentioned, Keir Starmer has been really ramping up the conservative rhetoric here.
	He's been saying that in a recent speech that he gave at Progressive Britain, of all places, he said, in the next article please John, he said, I don't care if people think I'm a conservative.
	He vowed for new labour on steroids, which I suppose is a form of conservatism at this point.
	Given Cameron's capitulation to the Blairite paradigm.
	I'm going to conserve 1997 Blairism instead of David Cameron's 2015 Blairism.
	Which is an improvement, to be perfectly honest, in what we've got right now.
	In the subtitle there's a Starmer quote that says he blasts patronising contempt for those who fly our flag.
	Might I remind you that Emily Thornberry is basically still the lead lawyer for the Labour Party and she's the one that tweeted out that photo of a white van flying the Well, in all likelihood, Keir Starmer has been making some moves behind the scenes to get them to stop making such over-acts of treason and contempt, so he's probably whipping the party into line.
	He also said the Tories can no longer claim to be Conservative, so, well, we both agree there.
	Don't we?
	He also in this article they talk about how he's making a virtue of conservatism in the next article please in Prospect magazine and here's some of the ideas that they're having so Tories have threatened Britain's great institutions over the past 13 years or once again they're playing into the fact that everybody knows the Conservatives have been useless and they're playing into the truisms that have come of that so Labour can turn around and say they've threatened the institutions, they've threatened the solidarity of England, they've threatened everything, they have gone back on all of those problems.
	Labour can say those things and it'd be true But I don't trust what they're saying that they will do off the back of it.
	Um, one thing that could derail them, though, is the what is a woman question.
	Because, as we have seen... Well, if Keir Starmer has at least come out and said 99.9% of women don't have a penis, so his next true conservative move will just be to...
	Bump that up a little bit to 100%.
	And he won't do that.
	And the Red Wall will magically rebuild itself.
	Exactly.
	Out of ideological commitments, he will refrain from doing that.
	And so I'm not saying that I want the Conservatives to win because I'm apathetic at this point because we're going to get the same brand.
	But the amount of seats Labour might win might be undermined by the popularity of the What is a Woman question, thanks to Matt Walsh.
	This is true, but if he can hit all of the other points that he's talking about, it's very interesting to me how much they've changed tact and how the Conservatives are so inept as to not even go this far and talk about these sorts of things.
	So he said that he wants to make Brexit work.
	So it isn't promising a reversal, he's not saying that they'll go on a second referendum to reverse it.
	I'm sure down the line if they got in they would.
	They don't need to, they'll just re-enter the single market.
	Yeah.
	But for the time being, there's not going to be a reversal.
	He accepts that this can only now be delivered by fixing Johnson's terrible Brexit deal, and from what you said, it is a pretty terrible deal.
	They didn't tear up any of the EU laws, and that's also thanks to Rishi Sunak.
	Yes.
	When you add in his robust defence of the monarchy, the BBC, the armed forces, NATO, and support for Zelensky in Ukraine, There is a bedrock of Tory-type conservatism in the Sarma prospectus.
	As much as we may cringe at defending NATO and Ukraine and such like that, it is certainly Tory conservatism right now.
	Yeah, it's capital C conservative, it's not small c conservative.
	Beyond the railways, nationalisation has now been discarded by Labour and the privatised utilities are also to be conserved.
	On tax too, Starmer's positioning is largely conservative, with no threat of higher taxes even on the rich, although it does kind of contradict it in the same paragraph when it says, but Starmer promises to deliver greater fairness, signalling with his constantly trumpeted tax on non-doms, which highlights Sunak's personal family wealth and his failure to deliver basic fairness.
	So, I mean, as long as he's going after foreigners, that's always higher taxes for the foreigners, which...
	Also the privatised utility point is also kind of a lie because he's creating a publicly owned renewable only energy sector and by 2030 that's going to become the dominant thing.
	This is true and this is why once again the conservative rhetoric has been ramped up but if you look at some of the other Things that he's putting forward, his other positions, his other policies, then there is a massive contradiction going on there that he's going to have to square the circle somehow if he wants to maintain on brand, if this is the branding that he wants to go ahead with right now.
	He also started to attack Rishi Sunak on immigration during a PMQs last month where he said, Um, in an announcement made as Starmer spoke, Labour said it would scrap a rule under which overseas staff brought into the UK to fill vacancies on the shortage occupation list, including health IT and engineering workers could be paid up to 20% less than the equivalent domestic wage, which is obviously one thing that encourages Employers to hire those workers is that they can pay them less.
	So he's actually saying they'll fix that.
	The party said that it would seek to change the apprenticeship levy, whereby large organizations set aside 0.5% of their payroll for apprenticeships, but which has been criticized for the limited range of available training, meaning much of the money is never used.
	He then started to shout at Rishi Sunak saying, how many work visas were issued to foreign nationals last year?
	he went on saying the figures are out.
	It's a quarter of a million work visas issued last year.
	He knows the answer.
	He just doesn't want to give it.
	And the new numbers tomorrow expected to be even higher.
	The prime minister stood on three Tory manifestos.
	Each one promised to reduce immigration.
	Each promise broken.
	This is what I'm saying.
	He's really hammering the sort of rhetoric that would normally appeal to us if it weren't being spoken by Keir, no, I won't charge Jimmy Savile Starmer.
	Is he being possessed by the ghost of Enoch Powell?
	That's what I'm guessing from here. - That's strange. - The Prime Minister stood on, sorry, The reason they're issuing so many work visas is labour and skill shortages, and the reason there are shortages is the low-wage Tory economy under his government's rules.
	Business and IT, blah blah blah, paid 20% less than British.
	Does he think this policy is encouraging businesses to train people here or hire from abroad?
	They've lost control of the economy, they've lost control of public services, and now they've lost control of immigration.
	All of this is true.
	All of this is true, and this, for the Red Wall voters, will be like red meat thrown out to them.
	This is what they've been wanting to hear for a long time, especially from Labour, which is a party they more naturally align with because they are union workers.
	They want their jobs protected.
	Labour promised to protect their jobs.
	One of the most effective ways that you can do that is restrict foreign labour coming into the country.
	Whether they will actually stick to any of this rhetoric I'm doubtful.
	Yeah, I don't believe that Labour are the solution, even if you can identify all of the problems.
	And then I move on to the article that I mentioned at the beginning of the segment, which is rescuing conservatism from, of all publications, the New Statesman.
	This is written by a man called Andrew O'Brien, who I looked into.
	He is the head of a cross-party think tank called Demos, and you can see that cross-party element worm its way into the rhetoric that he uses throughout this article.
	But for the most part, once again, this almost feels like it could have been written for us.
	Which is rather shocking.
	So one of the first things he says, I do not believe that conservatism is doomed.
	There is a recognition across the political spectrum of the limits of 80 years of liberalism.
	Conservative ideas are essential for Britain's future.
	I'm listening.
	The great conservative, this is where it loses me, this is the first part where it loses me, the great conservative victory was not Thatcher's in 1979 but Attlee's in 1945.
	Attlee was a politician committed to conservative ends through socialist means.
	Nope.
	That's where it loses me there but then it picks back up where it says conservatives believe in the power of state and markets but also in the power of community built on strong overlapping institutions, families, charities, shared social spaces and political organizations.
	This is the deep rich conservatism that must return.
	The charity sector were hollowed out by the social welfare programs that aptly introduce you utter mushroom.
	This is where some of the mixed messages come in and where it loses me as I said.
	Yeah.
	There's a bit of Contradiction going on, but for the most part it's shocking that this would come from a left-wing publication, especially one that does so often champion Labour.
	Collective institutions are the bedrock of conservatism, but during the Cold War the right came to believe all collective institutions were the route to socialism.
	The right still lives in fear of this phantom Marxism.
	I would actually I kind of agree with that statement to a certain extent.
	It's not phantom when it's been captured, but the problem is not the institutions, but the Marxism.
	I would believe it's the people who man these institutions, which has been infiltrated, but I do believe that the right still occupies a headspace where it believes that we're still in the Cold War.
	Well yeah, they're obsessed with Thatcherism.
	Yes, and so does the left, to be fair, because you often see people posting on the left wearing t-shirts saying things like, I still hate Margaret Thatcher, mate, she's been dead for 10 years.
	So Thatcher's legacy still looms large over all of political discussion, which I think is one of the reasons why everything does tend to go around in circles, because everybody's trapped in this 1980s paradigm, which we have moved well past.
	We're 40 years beyond that point.
	Privileging the individual as a consumer has eroded our shared social institutions through removing any sense of the need for sacrifice for the community.
	It is no surprise that this has led to the erosion of the taxes, philanthropy and volunteering that are necessary to underpin society.
	So you can see what's going on here.
	Say something that is alright and then taxes.
	Which you can assume that this person is meaning we need to raise those taxes to fund public works and such.
	Maybe if it was say the 1950s and we had low taxes and we needed public works to rebuild the country etc but we already have ridiculously high taxes.
	And it's not even that.
	As it is right now.
	It's the idea that lower taxes and a stronger moral framework would fill that gap with charity and social institutions which are voluntarily staffed rather than have their funds collected at gunpoint.
	Now, he later goes on to talk about Martin Wolf's new book, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, which I have not read, so I can't give an opinion on it as of this point, but he talks about the Bretton Woods system, saying it was a conservative reaction to the denomination of capital and global free flow of wealth.
	I would disagree with that massively, because Harry Dexter White, one of the main people who orchestrated the Bretton Woods system, was literally a USSR socialist spy embedded within Roosevelt's Roosevelt's White House, but anyway, Wolf defines citizenship as the concern for the ability of citizens to have a fulfilled life, but as Patrick Deneen has argued in Why Liberalism Failed, this is an essential problem with liberalism.
	It is generic, we are asked to sacrifice, but for what?
	For whom?
	For our own self-interest, it seems, to preserve the economic order, and this is backwards.
	Our economy should serve our social values and not the other way around.
	Now that was very interesting to me because Patrick Deneen is somebody who has spoken at a number of national conservative conferences across the world, across the West, and I have listened to the audiobook of Why Liberalism Failed.
	It is kind of baby's first reactionary book, which it was very, very interesting to me that this had been introduced into this article, that it would even reference somebody even as moderate in that sense as Patrick Deneen in the first place.
	And listen to this.
	This is where it makes me convinced that Thomas had a hand in writing this article, okay?
	For conservatives, the emotional attachment to our family, social institutions, history and culture can provide concreteness.
	It is recognition of the power of love, the longing for messiness over the abstract ideas of perfection.
	This is the power of conservatism, so we've got a little bit of scrutiny in there.
	Through a shared national life, what Hegel termed a sickle-closed German word, we can find ourselves in a shared historical, cultural, social and political community.
	So Hegel has been mentioned, so Thomas immediately jumped to mind.
	You control F for market forces and reified.
	Although, I did actually control F for reified.
	Sadly it doesn't show up anywhere in the article.
	Although we will need to develop new institutions to cope with rapidly changing technology, particularly with the rise of digital and social media, Conservatives must look to preserve and adapt our existing institutions.
	The widespread grief at the death of Elizabeth II shows that there is an instinctive love for our shared institutions.
	So perhaps this person has been watching some of Carl's coverage.
	of the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the funeral, because that sounds a lot like what he was saying.
	But he'd count the NHS among those institutions that we need to conserve.
	That's why he cited Attlee.
	This is very true.
	And this is once again where the conservative rhetoric has been ramped up, but it still comes with a lot of the Labour baggage.
	And he ends this by saying, Starmer's speech should be an urgent warning for the Conservative Party.
	The Labour leader has shown that he understands the need for the Conservative turn, particularly with respect to economic security as well as national missions.
	He must trust his instincts if he wants to become the second great restorer after Attlee.
	So there we go.
	It's grinding up against itself again.
	And then when we look into what Keir Starmer is, the policies and proposals that he's actually putting forward, this is where the cracks in the armour really start to show up, which is his net zero plans, which are still going ahead.
	And this will be blocking new North Sea developments.
	And he's saying that oil and gas will still be important for many years to come.
	Yes, but they are still going to be blocking those, which has been infuriating the union base that Labour should be appealing to.
	Now, Conservatives, ...are also still obsessed with net zero.
	They're all still obsessed because the entire political class of the UK is obsessed with impoverishing our nation through destroying our own energy independence, but Keir Starmer wants to speed it up a little bit faster.
	Once again, Sorry, Conservatives are Labour going the speed limit.
	Labour wants to ramp it up a little bit and get into top gear with this.
	So he insisted that oil and gas will be important for many years to come, but he defended his approach as he visited Somerset backing nuclear energy this morning at the time of the article being written.
	You know, I support the backing of nuclear energy.
	It's the fact that he wants to also destroy a lot of other elements of Britain's energy independence while he's at it.
	He is already struggling to contain anger about his proposal to ban the North Sea oil projects and borrow £28 billion a year for the Green Prosperity Plan.
	He's also under pressure from environmental groups to stick to this radical policy platform.
	Excuse me.
	Masterminded by Shadow Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.
	Groups, including the Countryside Charity and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, have issued a statement to The Guardian saying, we urge you to stand firm on Labour's policy of no new oil and gas developments and its significant investment in a well-planned, nature-positive, renewable and energy efficiency.
	What he also wants to do is have the entire countryside covered in solar panels and wind farms.
	Yeah, you know, the kill birds RSPB.
	That's things that, you know, we're famous for our green and pleasant land.
	We want it to be a nice mirror reflective land under these plans.
	Offshore Energies UK, which represents major oil companies, said Labour's plan to block all new developments in the North Sea could lead to 45,000 job losses and a 60% drop in domestic production.
	Chief Executive David Whitehouse told the Daily Telegraph, if this policy is enacted, we will become increasingly reliant on imported energy.
	One Labour MP told the Mail on Sunday, it's all middle class bollocks.
	We won't reach our targets for converting to electric cars and we may end up simply importing fossil fuels from aboard.
	This is all very true.
	It has emerged that the green energy pioneer and Just Stop oil backer Dale Vince donated £1.5 million to the Labour Party in the last I've had a debate with that idiot before as well.
	No surprise.
	And Sir Keir has always denied that the money has influenced party policy, which I'm going to have to throw a big X to doubt for.
	And the last thing I wanted to point to as part of this is that along with everything else, he might be saying, making noises about immigration, but he is still pledging for this, which is a Bernie Grant leadership program in memory of a pioneering MP.
	Bernie Grant is a six-month training program for black aspiring leaders.
	So we've still got all of that equity, inclusion, and diversity in there.
	We've still got the DEI, the DIE, So Labour will always be Labour, no matter what noises Keir Starmer is making in the direction of the right.
	As far as I'm concerned for right now, they are mainly just rhetorical tactics.
	Maybe he might come across, maybe he might come through with some of it if he does get into power, but I am very hesitant to believe anything right now.
	Right, we've got about 10 minutes, so video comments.
	Tony D and wee scurvy Joan here with another pirate tale of South Jersey.
	Black Bart, the most successful pirate who ever lived, was making his port here in Cape May, New Jersey when the British Navy caught up to him and blockaded him in.
	He took his two ships, the Royal Fortune and the Good Fortune, and fought his way out.
	But the Royal Fortune took too much damage and sank into the bottom of the Delaware Bay, laden with pirate gold.
	I can't wait for Tony D to play Mr Gibbs in the remake.
	I'd love that.
	I also, I've got to say, I love the little bandana on little... Little Joan, yeah.
	Little Joan as well.
	That was beautiful.
	Okay, on to the written comments.
	Dominic Jones, just wanted to say that out of all of the media subscriptions I've tried, this is one of my favourites.
	I think it's entertaining, thought-provoking content and great value for money.
	Thank you.
	Well, cheers to that.
	Thank you as well.
	We do have, at this point I must say, a rather ridiculous library of videos and articles that you can go through, so we will keep you busy for months if you want to go through everything.
	And to be fair, it'll probably be very rewarding to do so as well.
	And your subscription money is going to be put to good use in some upcoming developments which we will announce soon, so look forward to that.
	Ignacio, maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but I need to ask you guys.
	Did the they as a singular pronoun exist before the trans mind virus?
	I swear to God, in all the years of learning with this lovely Irish lady and reading and listening to English material, I did not see it used.
	Maybe I'm going crazy.
	No!
	No, no it wasn't.
	It was never a pronoun to define one person because it's plural.
	When I was growing up it had begun to get common usage when you didn't know the sex of the person that you were talking about, but even that, as far as I'm aware, was a bit of a malformation development of the modern era, whereas before if you didn't know explicitly the sex of the person you were referring to you would default to he.
	Or even then, we have a phrase in England which is, who's she, the cat's mother?
	It's impolite to refer to someone with their pronouns, particularly in their presence, just use their name.
	Because it's to show consideration that you actually care about someone.
	To be fair, when I've been in the same room as my mum before and said she instead of mum, she's been furious with me.
	Yeah, mine's done the same.
	Who's she, then, is she, Harry?
	Yep, exactly.
	So, no, it wasn't a thing in common English parlance.
	Uh, Turaj, congratulations on a year at Loisies, Conor.
	You've won me over, as I'm sure thousands more.
	Oh, yeah, well, my official year of starting full-time is on July the 5th, I want to say.
	No, it might be the week after.
	Like the 11th or 12th, or something like that.
	So almost a year, but yeah.
	A year since recording that video with Callum.
	Alright, on to the comments of the first segment.
	Do you want to do yours?
	I'll give a few.
	Baron Von Warhawk, who could possibly have guessed that the massive amounts of people the left is letting from nations that toss gays off buildings wouldn't only reject the whole pride movement, but join forces with the evangelicals who think that being gay is also punishable by damnation?
	Indeed, not even Nostradamus could have seen this one coming.
	Don't make me support mass migration.
	Lord Narovar, is math related to science?
	No, but it is related to cheeky bum sex.
	We don't say groomer enough anymore.
	The letter M is for mutiny, says I just wanted to learn calculus.
	Andrew Narog, as much as pride is the primary enemy of the moment, let's not forget that Muslims and the left do tend to ally on all other causes, at best they're an ally of the moment.
	Absolutely, and that's what I wanted to emphasize at the end.
	Let's go to your comments.
	SH Silva, he believes you're correct.
	The Tory party cannot be captured.
	It's a neoliberal institution through and through ever since Thatcher.
	You don't have a once-in-a-lifetime figure like Trump to cause that change like the US and waiting for one to show up will continue the degradation before any serious change can occur.
	Yeah, but you're saying since Thatcher.
	The problem is you can step out of that paradigm because that's not the prevailing mood of the paradigm from years before that.
	And so if you repeal the neoliberalism, which some conservative politicians explicitly want to do, they're just relegated to the backbenches at the moment, there is a glimmer of hope.
	Like I said, I'm a results man.
	I just think that's probably the more probable arc than the marginal parties which currently have yet to willpower, but many of whom I quite like, so.
	Hammurabi.
	The very second Labour wins, they're going to drop the mask.
	Sadly, I don't think the general public is engaged enough to realise it.
	Yeah, I think the Red Wall voters will just want to hear their slogans repeated back at them.
	I'm not saying that they're stupid or anything, but just the fact of the matter is that if you are a unionised worker, the likelihood is you have got more things to worry about in your day-to-day life than keeping up with every political development that is going on.
	Yeah, they're likely just disengaged because they've got more things to do.
	Same with your typical Conservative voter as well, they just don't care anymore because politics has shown itself to be a complete racket that will never get them anything that they want or asked for.
	Yeah, this is the purpose of our job.
	We try to make it as digestible as possible, but remember as well, there are lots of people that are so disengaged and don't know we exist, so share the content around and hopefully we can wake up some of the boomers out of the boomer truth regime.
	Just finally, on my bit, AlphaTheBetas, how can we say Boris got Brexit done when the borders are wide open?
	If more migrants are entering the country now than during pre-Brexit times, and the country is still beholden to EU law, how is that Brexit?
	Yeah, it's Brexit in name only, but you forget that the global and neocon factions wanted Brexit in order to have control of our borders.
	And by control, they let them completely into the rest of the world and sub-Saharan Africa, rather than just free movement with the EU.
	So he executed Brexit, but he did it horribly badly.
	And so we're still beholden to EU law, and we still have mass migration.
	I think that's all we've got time for.
	Okay, well that's fine then.
	No worries.
	Thanks very much as always, Harry.
	We'll be back tomorrow from one o'clock and we also have some live streams upcoming at the end of the week that we're going to announce, so stay tuned.

▲