All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:29:30
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #685
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
Today it is Wednesday the 28th of June and we are Having episode 685.
Today to discuss about things, we're joined by Nick Buckley and Bo.
And we are going to talk about the elephant in Europe, how Nick wants to be the mayor of Greater Manchester, and also how, seriously, wokeness has to end.
Now, before we begin, we have some announcements to make.
This is our Rumble exclusive for tomorrow.
Harry and Connor are going to talk about James Lindsay on Christian Nationalism Part 2.
So tune in for tomorrow, 3.30 UK time, and listen to the really interesting discussion about James Lindsay and Christian nationalism.
Now, before we begin, we have two firsts.
One is that, Nick, you're the first guest we have on our new studio.
Fantastic!
How does it look like?
Stu, look, this looks fantastic, this studio.
I saw that a couple of months ago when it was still a building site, but now it's done.
It's top-notch.
It's fantastic.
That's excellent.
And we have Bo here joining us in the podcast, and you haven't been in the podcast for a while.
Yeah, it's a rare appearance, a rare Bo show you're being treated to today.
How does it feel to be back?
Yeah, no, good.
Yeah, yeah.
And it's good to be in the new studio with an even newer background.
So, yeah.
Excellent.
Right, on with our first segment.
Now, I really like the expression, the elephant in the room, because it's supposed to indicate something that everyone sees but no one talks about.
And in this case, the room is Europe.
Now, this is a difficult discussion to have, but we need to have it.
So, I want to say that many crimes have been happening in Europe lately, and this leads to a growing feeling of insecurity amongst its people.
Now, the way I see it, in a relatively healthy social order, people are supposed to be able to express their concerns to politicians, and politicians, among other things, need to sort of care about law enforcement.
But it seems to me nowadays that we have many, many, many Indications that the governments in Western societies are much more interested in just virtue signaling and having a ticking box agenda.
And this raises the question as to whether really they care about the people or they pretend to do so.
What do you think?
The problem really is short-termism.
So politicians, and it's been going on for 50 years, politicians now are career politicians.
And a career politician wants to be voted in at the next election.
They're not looking at, they're not planning for 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now.
So as a career politician and they're worried about an election in 18 months time, all they're doing is trying to throw a little bit of meat to the people and that doesn't disturb anything.
They just want the status quo so they can be voted in again and that's the heart of all our problems in the UK and across the Western world.
But do you have to?
Yeah, I fear it's much more pernicious than that, much more sinister than that.
It seems now that one of the worst crimes you can commit, the thought crime of noticing.
You dare not be allowed to notice.
That you're having crimes committed against you on sort of a civilizational level.
That your people are blown up at concerts or on a bus or on a train.
Or your children are stabbed in a park for no reason.
That you're not allowed to notice.
I think it's in 1980, well it is in 1984, where Orwell says, the party insists, the thing it insists upon most is that you don't believe the evidence of your own eyes and ears.
That's what they're asking us now.
Is that insane?
It's to not pose the question, the elephant in the room question.
Don't notice, don't notice the elephant that's trampling you.
Because it's against diversity and the values that we're supposed to be I don't think it's that.
I think it's don't notice it because if you notice it and you demand answers and actions then you will see as a politician how pathetic I am and how weak I am and how I've got no ideas.
So I want you not to notice it because if you don't notice it I can carry on pretending I'm a good politician.
If you notice it this house of cards falls down.
That's why they don't want you to notice it.
That's an interesting take.
I'll have to think about it.
But I think you have a point there.
Now, let's go to the next tweet, which is by you, Nick.
And it's good to have the opportunity to ask the author of this quote tweet more about what you mean.
You're saying here, our police forces have been failing for decades because they do not recruit only on merit any longer, but engage in box taking.
The best person for the job should always get the job.
We need a royal commission into policing for the 21st century.
What did you have in mind?
And I'll let this video playing in the background.
Yeah, so this video is showing four police officers trying to arrest two youths and they can't.
The reason why they can't is because two of the police officers are women who are just not strong enough.
And that's not a criticism of women.
We all know women are not as strong as men.
But we want a police service now that reflects the community.
And do you know what?
I don't want that.
I want the best person for the job.
And the best person for the job will be males.
That's not to say there's no room for females in the police force.
But if you're tackling a six-foot-four burglar, let me put this to you.
Let's say you are a burglar and you're robbing someone's house.
and you've got your sack and you're putting some jewellery in it and you hear the police siren outside and you run to the front window and you look outside and there's a 17 stone six foot five burly police officer stood in the garden and you go I'm going out the back.
So you run to the back, and outside the back is a five foot, seven stone, police woman.
And you've got to go through the front door or the back door.
We all know which door you're going through.
And that's because she's not built for that job.
And that's part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is, you know, the police also then wanted to start reflecting diversity of the communities they represent, which sounds great on paper, but we don't have those quotas for doctors or dentists or anything else, but we do for the police.
So what happens is, You'd there's certain parts of any community who'd make good police officers in every community but let's say let's look at the Asian community so those individuals who'd make good police officers are being told by their mum and dad you're not being a police officer you're being a doctor you're being a surgeon you're being a barrister So they don't join the police.
So what we have to do then is we have to reduce the recruitment process to make sure we get some Asian people to join the police.
So they're inferior because they weren't good enough in the first place.
The ones who would have made great police officers have got a better career.
So we employ those people, and then what happens?
Not good police officers.
So we have to fire them, or they're incompetent.
And once you fire them, that sends a signal out that, oh, Asian people are not welcoming the police force.
Well, no, that wasn't the case.
The case was we took someone incompetent, tried to turn him into a good police officer.
It failed and we've had to sack him.
Hence why we have a police force that we have now.
Lots of them are not fit for the job because we just boxed it.
And I think that this raises issues of meritocracy because we have, sorry.
Yeah, this raises some issues of meritocracy because if the whole thing is about box ticking, then we can't be certain that we have the right person for the job.
And who is the right person for the job?
When we talk about police, it's the people who can enforce the law.
It's not a joke.
It's serious.
And it seems to me to reflect the short termism that you mentioned before, because it's not just about ticking the boxes and thinking of who is it going to look good to employ.
It's also how can we protect the community?
You need to think a bit more long term than that.
We do and part of the problem happened when we started changing police forces into police service and we don't need a police service we need a police force because police are dealing with a lot of time violent criminals and you need force for that but when we started developing these police services it was about we need to represent the communities.
I've worked in Dozens and dozens of diverse communities across Greater Manchester and I've never met a black person, an Asian person, a Chinese person, a gay person who said to me, do you know what?
I want to see police who look like me.
They all say, I want to see more police in my neighbourhood.
That's what I want to see.
I want criminals caught.
I'm sick of being burgled.
I'm sick of my car being broken into.
When you're a victim of crime, you don't care who those police officers are.
You just want good, decent police officers on your streets.
And that's what we're missing.
I think it's really important to talk about this because we have an orchestrated attempt to present the DIE Agenda, the Agenda of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity, as being the fundamental cornerstone of the value system of Western societies.
And honestly, I don't think it is.
And what about, let's say, reason and science?
Let me just say one thing, because in science, for instance, we try to explain phenomena.
And we try to explain phenomena by...
Focusing on their causes and by understanding what brings them about.
And the same applies for political phenomena as well.
So, when we have, for instance, a Western society that has been built, to a large extent, not entirely, but to a large extent, by the institution of science, well, why should we stop posing questions?
Why should we stop posing questions that come to mind?
And the major question here is whether, for instance, Illegal uncontrolled migration leads into increase of crime.
I don't think that this is a question that we are allowed to pose anymore.
Yeah, now again, it's one of those topics that you're just not supposed to ever think about, let alone talk about, let alone really grapple with.
Because again, it's like a cornerstone of the entire sort of leftist or should we say globalist worldview.
That we're all the same.
That all cultures are completely equal.
And that everyone is of value.
And there's no such thing as barbaric values.
It's just complete nonsense.
But they have to insist upon the liar.
You're not allowed to question that liar.
And it is a liar.
Because their whole house of cards tumbles down very quickly as well.
Exactly.
They don't even pose the question of what are the values of distinct people.
There are all sorts of cultural continuities and discontinuities between host groups and groups that are hosted.
And this is something that is not allowed to be discussed.
It's at least the way I see it.
We should pose these questions and we should talk about these questions because, frankly, there may be interesting answers there.
Now, speaking of interesting answers to questions that we are not allowed to pose, you can visit the website.
And you can have for five pounds a month, you could have access to all our premium content, and you could watch discussions like these, Live Hangout 35, where Carl and Callum are talking about grooming gangs.
They examine a timeline of the history of the grooming gangs as publicly known.
And this is something that is a very heavy topic, but we need to talk about it and we need to talk about it more.
So by all means, visit our website and with just five pounds a month, you can have access to all our premium content.
Okay.
So one of the things that seems to me to be very weird is that we constantly listen to crimes happening and we are to think that they are sort of isolated incidents.
And when everything is presented as an isolated incident, what is essentially communicated is that you're not allowed to question whether there is a pattern here.
How does this sound?
To a certain extent, these are isolated incidents.
Well, that's not the issue.
The issue is the first duty of any government is to protect the citizens of that country.
And that's the first priority of any government.
And you know we've got tens of millions of immigrants across Europe and every now and again we get something like this you know every couple of days there'll be something like this.
When you look at that percentage of the millions that have come it's a tiny tiny small percentage but again that's not the problem and the problem is why are we taking a chance?
Inviting people, allowing people into our country who have not been vetted, who some pose a danger, some are criminals, some will be psychopaths and even if even if we give some credit there as in it'll be the same percentage of the general population but again that's not the point because why are we allowing one criminal into the country because that poses a risk itself and the reason why we don't talk about it or nobody wants to talk about it it goes back to my first point because if we talk about it
The people then will demand answers.
The politicians don't have answers because they don't have backbones.
Yeah.
And they can see the problems and all they're thinking about is, I don't want to cause a storm for two years because I'm up for election.
Yeah.
But when you say that they are isolated incidents, in one sense, every action is an isolated action, but isn't there a value in posing the question as to what are the conditions that may lead to increased chances of these events taking place?
And that's the immigration side of it.
That's allowing at the moment, let's be honest at the moment, anybody from anywhere in the world can get to Europe.
No checks, no border control, get a boat across a little river or a little sea and you're in Europe.
Then get another boat across the English Channel and you're in the UK.
That's unprecedented.
We've never seen anything like this before and the fact our government cannot secure our, and we're in Ireland, it's harder for France, it's harder for Germany, but it should be a lot easier for us.
The fact we can't do it is absolutely shocking.
And there is a danger there.
I mean, it's not just immigrants themselves.
I mean, most of all, I don't know about most, but you look at the Albanians, organized crime.
They're not fleeing.
They're not fleeing anything.
And we had an asylum seeker the other day, got housing in Oldham in Greater Manchester.
And her reason, domestic violence in Rwanda.
So now we're taking people suffering, supposedly, from domestic violence.
Or if you're gay from Africa, that's enough now to claim asylum somewhere.
We've just got open doors.
And the biggest problem, I feel, is who was ever asked?
Who was ever asked about any immigration?
Who was asked about European immigration?
And you're from Greece!
So who was ever asked?
Who was ever asked about Immigration from Africa or from Syria or from the Ukraine who are white people.
We were never asked about any of this.
It's always imposed upon us because the people with the power to impose it on us suffer no consequences because they're already well off.
They've already have gated communities.
They're not competing for the low paid jobs and trying to get their kids in school or see a doctor.
They don't suffer because of this.
Let's hear Beau on this and then I'll say why I asked this because of what happened to Greece in 2015.
But do you want to add something on that?
Well, I would say there absolutely is a pattern.
There absolutely is a pattern.
The pattern of who does beheadings in the street?
Is there a pattern there?
Of course there is.
Who blows up public transport?
Or depends.
Well, yeah, I mean, we had 30 years ago, it would have been the IMA.
Right.
But not 30 years ago.
Now.
So, so I think to deny that there is a pattern at all.
is to put your head in the sand.
It's a terrible and unbelievable reality, but there is one.
Just look at statistics of who commits certain types of crime.
History Debunked, Simon Dove at History Debunked, who's a contributor for Lotus Eaters, is very good on this sort of thing.
It's just being honest.
It's a terrible, terrible truth, but just being honest with the patterns that are there.
But again, when we say you're not allowed to notice, that is really what you're not allowed to notice.
Pattern recognition.
Because, you know, you'll be automatically branded as a bigot or a racist or just a Nazi or something.
Well, then we shall have to suffer those insults.
Because I'm not going to lie to myself.
I refuse to do that.
And that's what it is first and foremost.
That's what they want.
They want you to lie to yourself first.
And then you can project out that lie.
Well, I refuse.
And so should everyone else.
That's the first battle, first and foremost.
In yourself.
To refuse, to refuse that.
One incident that took place in Greece, and this is why I asked about the pattern, is that, for instance, in 2015 we had a unemployment rate of around 30% and the government that was elected there, the Syriza government, they opened the borders and in a whole year we had an influx of 10% of Greece's population in one year.
Now, they're socialists, right?
Yeah, the Coalition of Radical Left is what they mean.
They opened the borders and we had in one year the entire 10% influx of the country's population.
The equivalent for UK would be 7 million, to give you a number to bear in mind.
So there's a question there as to when you have an economy, That you don't make it more competitive, because that was the whole issue of that party, to prevent the economy from being competitive.
When you have unemployment rates of 30% in your own country, domestic unemployment rate, how is adding 10% of the population to the mix going to make things better?
And that's not to say anything about individual people.
As they say, it's all about an explosive social mix.
So let's have a look at some of the isolated incidents that took place this June.
Now, one of the videos here.
The one where we saw a Syrian migrant in France who went in Annecy and stabbed children in a park and also people.
Luckily, I think no one died, but that's not because of what this person did.
That's because of him not Succeeding in killing them.
So this person here was not someone who came right now from Libya.
He was in Sweden.
He had the asylum status in Sweden and he just wanted to go to France and get asylum status in France and was rejected three times and went there and he went there stabbing people.
Now, one thing to notice here is that the reception here was really, really, really interesting.
When we had this video, I remember the day, they started taking it down, even from Twitter.
People were told to take it down.
And it seems to me, if we also have a look here, that there was an orchestrated attempt to present this incident as an incident that is an isolated one, and that, God forbid, anyone should talk about the issue of Let's say uncontrolled migration.
Now we have here, some days ago, we have Annecy's mayor who described the town as a refuge for those fleeing war days before Syrian migrant knife attack on toddlers.
And he said, Annecy is a land of resistance to fascism, a land of solidarity.
And that was the mayor, Francois Astorg, who said this in a response to a nationalist march through the town.
Now, I take issue with this because when people are This Astor is an evil person.
fascist just because they may raise this question, that's really bad.
Basically, it's maddening.
This Astor is an evil person, a maniac, and people like him, people like Macron, any sort of globalist like this who instantly try and defend the criminal, their first thought is to stop any backlash, their first thought is to stop any backlash, is just try and stop people noticing the barbaric crimes That knife man was a true barbarian.
And the people, this Ashdog fella, and I don't use the word evil all that often, I certainly don't use it lightly, That's an evil thing to do to go there straight away with it.
It's indicative.
It seems to me that this is a kind of politician that cares more about how to appear in the to handle this in a communicative fashion and a performative fashion than sympathizing with the people.
This was some days ago, but it illustrates the whole the whole way of operation.
We can have here this again, this by The Independent.
It says, the troubling news of the knife attack in Annecy, France is a multiple tragedy.
The six people, including four young children, are the obvious victims and will deserve everyone's best wishes.
Sadly, many will seize upon the assailants' refugee status in Sweden as proof that borders should be closed and that all refugees are nothing but ready-made criminals.
Hopefully, many more people will recognize that the stabbings are no indication of the wider refugee crisis.
Now, this is an open question.
At least that's the way I see it.
So, Several things are going on here.
So first of all, We need to understand this mayor what his vision of the world and his country is and his vision of the country will be there shouldn't be a country it should be a world nation and he probably believes we're heading that direction anyway and all we need to do is speed it up.
If we can mix Asia, Africa, North and South America with Europe and we all start mingling we will get a world
global citizen and that's that's his aim and everything you do in life there will be collateral damage so he puts these kids down to collateral damage of being stabbed for overarching good that will come once we create this global world with no borders no wars no disparities between um income and he's got this utopian dream and that's what and that's why people who talk about this say these things now
The knife attack, I mean.
If you're mentally ill.
Or you're a psychopath and you're living somewhere in the world, anywhere in the world, the odds of you moving to a new town, a new place are quite high.
Because once people realize you're a psychopath, evil, not a nice person, your life becomes unlivable there.
So those people are always moving on.
And our open borders have really allowed psychopaths from anywhere in the world to migrate to somewhere better.
And then we're surprised when they're still psychopathic, when they get here and do terrible things like this.
Let's watch isolated incident number two here.
I'm sure you'll have seen this.
I think this was, this was horrendous.
This, I mean, because it's a better video, this is more shocking than anything else we've seen.
This is absolutely horrendous.
This.
Yeah.
For those who.
who are listening to us.
Without watching, we see a man in France trying to forcefully abduct a young girl from a woman.
We don't know if it's her mother or grandmother.
I think it's her grandmother.
I don't know if he was actually trying to abduct her or not.
I think he's trying just trying to get something.
It doesn't really matter, actually.
It doesn't matter.
He was stealing something.
He was stealing something.
Yeah.
The point is, is that the reality is that things like incidents like that, actually play out loads.
Like this one just happens to have been caught on camera and then gone viral on Twitter.
But in fact the reality is that all sorts of fairly low-level violence and intimidation, horrible crimes really, are being perpetrated across the West by foreigners.
And that is a pattern, that is just simply a fact.
And so Yeah, it's sickening to see.
I mean, it's absolutely sickening to see.
And the people that their first knee-jerk reaction is that, let's not talk, let's not have a conversation about mass immigration or noticing patterns.
Okay.
They are the problem.
Those people.
I have here some information that says the attacker is a 30-year-old man who is homeless and has been in and out of police custody for many cases before.
As per the authorities, the man has 20 offenses against his name, including violence and kidnapping.
At the moment, the police are conducting an extensive investigation to find out the reason behind the attack.
Now, let's go to Greece, because there was committed a horrible crime in the island of Kos, that is in the eastern side of the Aegean Sea.
Now, we have a 27-year-old Polish woman who was murdered, and it looks like she was She was tortured before that.
I will just say, this is a tweet by Ada Lutch.
This beautiful lady was named Anastasia Patricia Rubinska and she was 27.
She moved from Poland to Greece to work during the holidays.
She was reportedly being found naked and wrapped in a plastic bag on the Greek island of Kos.
Four Pakistani and Bangladeshi men kidnapped and murdered her while she was going to meet her boyfriend.
Once again, it's as the theory has proved, having an open border and letting everyone enter your country without a filter is a threat to every citizen.
It's not about racism, it's about safety.
Exactly.
I completely agree.
Now let's go here to look a bit about the incident.
I won't read much because it's horrible.
If you want to read more about it, you can enter this link and see it.
But it's good if we don't exactly describe exactly how she was tortured and killed.
Now, there's another incident, though, because there have been other women who have said and accused grooming gangs in Kos.
And this is another article.
It says, woman testifies about her near rape by the Pakistani friend of Bangladeshi who killed Polish woman.
Now, let's scroll down a bit.
It says, a chilling testimony implicates a Pakistani friend of the 32-year-old Bangladeshi man accused of the murder of 25-year-old Polish woman Anastasia in Kos.
A 30-year-old woman claims she almost fell victim to rape 20 meters from where Anastasia Rubinska's body was found on the Greek island, of course, by a man belonging to the very close circle of the 32-year-old beginning of June.
So basically, if you see, if we look at her testimony, they tried to spike her drinks.
And they tried in the exact same place to do what they did to the other poor lady, which involved torture, raping, and then disfigurement of the body so fingertips would not be found.
It's a serious issue.
I think we need to be thinking about safety and talking about this.
And sometimes, you know, there's a question of risks and whether we want Western societies to become, let's say, a lab for a globalist experiment.
That's why I've described someone like Macron, or you could say that guy for Hofstadt or that witch van der Leyen.
These are maniacs.
These are maniacs that have abandoned the concept of borders.
They don't care at all about safety.
Or if they do, they want none.
They actively want no safety.
It's insane.
And even a few decades ago, when I was coming up, it just wasn't the case.
Right?
When you were younger, Nick, it just wasn't the case.
Governments used to actually look out for the safety of their citizens, at least on some level, at least in part.
Now, not only have they abandoned that charge, They're actively making it worse every single day.
These are maniacs.
Right.
And let's go for last bit to end this segment.
Let's go to Manchester.
Again, Nick, this is a tweet from you.
You write, this nightmare never ends.
The councils and the police failed many young girls in Greater Manchester over decades.
I intend to hold senior police officers accountable if they failed in their duty.
I will sack them if proven.
And you are talking about a case here that I would really like to hear from you in person about Men accused of being in Rochdale grooming gang to go on trial in 2024.
We have here the links for what happened, but I would like to hear from you if you have... Yeah, so I don't want to go into too much detail about this particular thing because these gentlemen have not gone to court yet.
So, you know, that's a different matter.
We've had this whole, and the beginning of my tweet was, will this nightmare ever end?
Because it's almost daily, if not daily, every couple of days, there's a new case in the papers of more people being arrested, more people going to court for grooming.
And, you know, the grooming gang scandal in Rochdale, in Manchester, all over the country.
And it never seems to end.
And it's not like all these are dated cases from 30 years ago.
This is still going on now.
And we know from the reports that have been written, it's predominantly a Pakistani Muslim crime.
Pedophilia isn't.
You know, I've had that up to Three, four different men arrested for paedophilia.
They're all white in different cases.
So this isn't that all Muslims are paedophiles, all Pakistani men are paedophiles, but this particular part of paedophilia, the grooming of vulnerable girls, plighting with alcohol, drugs, takeaways, free taxi rides, is predominantly a Muslim Pakistani problem.
And the reason why it is a problem is because in our society, Our young vulnerable girls are seen as trash and part of that is our fault because we over-sexualize women in our society.
It was only 10 years ago I saw some thongs for children, five-year-old, six-year-old thongs for girls with a picture of Chevy on the front saying eat me and we're buying them for five-year-old girls in our country.
These girls also had no fathers at home So when you take away a fiver from a home, you leave that family and those children vulnerable to criminals and to paedophiles.
So part of this problem, we need to take some responsibility ourselves as a culture for setting this up for them to be abused.
Now, when we're looking at this, you know, these men, let's say these men all get convicted or other men have been convicted.
They go back to their communities.
They're not shunned, they're not shamed.
They live in the same houses, do the same jobs.
The wives don't leave them, the children don't leave them.
And that's because it's seen as not really a crime.
Those white tarts were asking for it.
And white children are dirty anyway, so you can do what you want with them, as long as it's not a Muslim girl.
So part of this is cultural.
Part of it links to their religion, but it really is cultural.
And how do we tackle this?
Well, this bleeds on from the immigration thing before.
Most of these people, or their descendants, are not illegal immigrants.
They were legal immigrants.
But again, we were never asked.
And there were never, ever, brought into the fold of the UK.
They've built their own communities in Uldu, in other parts, where it's like a mini Pakistan.
It's a mini Bangladesh.
It's a mini Rwanda.
It's a mini Nigeria.
And we never should have allowed that.
They should have assimilated into the culture.
And we fail these people because we allow them to come here for a better life, but we allow them to bring their failing culture with them.
So they come here, they set up their failing culture, which didn't work in their homeland.
And we wonder why they fail in this culture, because they didn't embrace a better culture.
Here I think is where we see the woke, let's say animosity towards institutions, because when you have frequently countries that are hosts of plenty of immigrants, there's a thing about our institutions.
So why people choose to come to the UK, for instance, why do people choose to go to Europe or to the US?
It's primarily about institutions.
But we see that the same people who say, let's open the borders and have uncontrolled migration, they're the same people who seem to attack these institutions day and night.
I think that's something that has to be raised.
They mean only the worst for our society, for our civilization.
They mean to destroy it.
I think only in a very, very limited sense, Nick, have we failed anybody.
I do accept on some level the over-sexualization of our modern society, but only in a very limited sense have we failed anybody.
Their values are antithetical to ours.
That's not our fault.
I won't accept any guilt for that.
If that's how they're going to be, to endlessly groom white children, well, that's a cancer in our civil society.
And what do you do with a cancer?
You don't reason with it.
You cut it out.
You say they go back to their jobs.
They go back to their families.
They're certainly not deported.
They need to be deported.
Okay, we need a government and a Home Office with some goddamn balls that will deport these people.
So does that get rid of them?
And how do we get that?
We get there by having better politicians, better government.
And how do we get that?
We get there by voting for it and ensuring we get it.
That's part of what I mean by we failed because we've allowed this to happen.
Everybody in this country has allowed these things to happen by not standing up.
People are beginning to stand up now, but even now it's only several people.
You know, it's still not a mass movement of saying, how dare you have allowed this to happen to our country?
We've not held one politician to account.
We're bringing it upon ourselves.
And we're doing it mainly because we see it as we don't want to cause a fuss.
We want to be polite.
We want to be welcoming.
But again, we live in a democracy.
All the problems in democracy are down to the people.
Yeah, I mean it's difficult when they sort of really quite actively suppress parties.
Right?
They're actively suppressed parties, right-leaning parties.
You haven't got an option, often, to vote for anyone other than the mainstream parties.
Yeah, I'm not saying it's easy.
I'm not saying it's easy.
But we do need, if we're going to solve this, we need to look at the root causes.
And the root causes are the British people are not taking their democracy seriously enough.
And we've allowed our politicians to be our masters and not our servants.
Well, I would say every Prime Minister and Home Office Minister since 1997 should be brought to account for their crimes against this country.
I'd go back even further.
Yeah, OK.
I'd go back even further.
Yeah.
Pog second world war.
Right.
I think we need to be going to the second segment because the first segment took some time.
Let's hear why and how Nick wants to become Mayor of Greater Manchester.
This runs on nicely from that conversation about it's our fault for not voting for better.
So part of the problem is we moan all the time, you know, about this isn't good enough, that's not good enough and it's very rarely someone has a solution and someone's willing to put their head above their parapet to say let's have change here.
And so hence I'm standing for Mayor of Greater Manchester Next May elections, 2nd of May.
So if you live in Greater Manchester, you can vote next May.
Make sure you vote for me.
So why, why have I decided to stand?
Well, we've had a May now for eight years, eight, nine, seven, eight years, something like that.
And has Greater Manchester got any better?
Well, I think the vast majority of people would say no, it hasn't.
It's got worse.
The only thing you can point to After seven years of, has it got any better?
You know what?
We have slightly cheaper bus fares today than we did a couple of years ago.
Cheaper bus fares.
So if that's all you care about in Greater Manchester, then you need to carry on voting for the Labour Mayors because they're doing an amazing job if you just want slightly cheaper bus fares.
But for me, everything else is falling apart.
Housing, we've not got enough housing, crumbling community cohesion, we've got ghettos springing up where people won't go from one neighbourhood to another, nobody feels Mancunian, no one feels British, no one feels English, we're all split, we're all splitting into these different micro communities and mark my words, when times get hard and they're getting harder now, Violence will happen if we don't feel like one people, one community, one city, one country.
Things will deteriorate and that's why we need to start developing community cohesion and start developing a sense of family.
We attack the family all the time and that's the cornerstone to any community in any nation.
If we have the next So, when Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, stood five, six years ago for the first time, he said he was going to end rough sleeping in three years.
He's now had five.
Rough sleeping's slightly better now in Greater Manchester, so let's give him some credit.
I pulled him up on this on Twitter a couple of weeks ago.
I said to him on Twitter, you've not ended rough sleeping, you said you'd do it in three years, it's been five.
He went, oh well Nick, there's spare beds every night now in Greater Manchester for anybody who wants one, so therefore I think I've lived up to my promise of ending rough sleeping.
I went, Your manifesto promise wasn't I'll create beds.
It was your policy was I will eradicate rough sleeping.
There's people still sleeping in the streets opposite my flat in the city centre.
You haven't done it.
But he feels he's done it because I've created some beds and if these people don't want to move into those beds, Well, that's not my problem.
But that is the issue of rough sleeping.
It's not about offering people support and offering people beds.
It's about getting them into those beds, getting them into support.
I'll end rough sleeping in a year.
And the reason why I'm confident of that is because I've been involved in homelessness and rough sleeping for over 15 years now.
I've won regional awards on homelessness.
We do it by creating hostels.
So let's say we look at a disused warehouse in the city centre.
We turn that into a hostel by getting lots of garden sheds inside so we have then units of living.
So a bed in there, a TV, no cooking facilities in that.
We section the place off so we have hardcore people who've got serious drug problems and we have sections where we have low-level need people with no drug problems and we can move them on into better accommodation quickly.
Because if you put a vulnerable person next to a chronic drug addict You have two chronic drug acts a couple of weeks later, so let's not create more problems.
We then have them indoors, we then can have the services coming out, drug services, social services, people coming to offer food and support and arts and crafts, anything they need can be brought to them instead of being brought to street corners and them living in cardboard boxes and entries.
We then clamp down on begging.
Begging is one of the main reasons why we have rough sleeping across the UK, because begging funds their drug habit.
The more drugs they take, the more broken they become, the less likely they want help and support because they're slowly dying.
You end begging, you do that with the police, you end begging, no more drugs, they will take support, they will take accommodation off you then.
Let me ask one thing, because when we say we end begging with the police, how is the police going to prevent it?
Because the way I hear it is that one of the main weapons of the police is physical presence, but that is not sufficient, because one of the ideas Well, actually the main weapon of the police is the fear of future punishment.
So what happens when you have people who are in a condition where they don't think they have a future, and by implication they don't fear Any future punishment?
Yeah, so I used to run Manchester City Centre 15 years ago for Manchester Council in terms of crime and disorder and begging came under my remit.
At that point we had less than 10 people begging in the city centre and they earned hardly anything because the second they sat down they got moved on.
So the police will not be arresting people begging because what's the point?
They've got nothing to lose anyway.
What the police do is the police move on.
You need to get up.
You need to move on.
If you don't move on, I'm going to arrest you.
You're going to be in custody for 15 hours.
You're going to earn no more money.
We're going to take all the drugs off you, all your money off you.
And we're going to inconvenience you.
And we'll do it again tomorrow.
And we'll do it again the day after that.
And we'll do it again the day after that.
After three, four, five days of that, that person then goes, No point going to Manchester City Centre begging because I earn no money, I get hassled, any drugs I've got on me get confiscated.
It's not worth going.
That's how we used to have the city centre 15 years ago because people knew.
The vast majority of people begging in any town or city are not even homeless.
We did a questionnaire five, six years ago and two-thirds of the people begging in Manchester City Centre had accommodation.
It was their job to come to the city centre every day to beg for money.
An average beggar earns £100 a day.
A good beggar can earn £300-400 in Manchester City Centre a day.
A good one.
There's not many that good.
Wow.
But, you know, that's the sort of money you can earn.
So I'm in the wrong business?
No, absolutely.
But we can do this in a year.
Not end homelessness.
We're not going to build houses.
We can't do any of those things in a year.
But I can ensure that every fellow citizen will be in accommodation will have somewhere to sleep every night that has support base there that can help them unpick their lives and move them to somewhere better because at the moment we don't have that and it'll work in Greater Manchester and if it works there it'll work across the country and other places will take this idea and I call this tough love it's not about being pink and fluffy um if we have the next link
So a few years ago, Greater Manchester Police got placed into special measures.
Now what that means is it was a failing police force.
They'd been warned every year for so many years, you're failing, you're failing, you're failing, and the Mayor kept going, we'll work on it, we'll work on it, we'll work on it, and eventually the government went, no.
We're now running your police laws because it's failing.
They lost something like 125,000 crimes that were phoned in or reported, were never put on their computer system and went straight into a bin.
125,000 crimes including rapes, all sorts of things, lots of low-level crime as well.
But it wasn't just one particular theme, it was all crimes.
That's how poor Manchester Police were failing.
So what happened was the Chief Constable was forced to resign.
Let me say that again.
He resigned.
I was going to say, how isn't he behind bars?
Well, he probably didn't do anything illegal.
He should have been sacked!
If you messed up here, Carl Benjamin would have you in the office and go... It should have been pilloried.
Yes!
He was allowed to retire with all his benefits.
He should have been sacked by the mayor.
But we don't sack anybody in the public service.
We now go to...
We'll move you to a different department, or can you resign?
He should have been sacked for gross incompetence, but he wasn't.
So anyway, after a couple of years, they're out of special measures now.
But the reason why this annoyed me is because I was based in police stations for many years.
I've trained police officers.
I've developed police plans for them to tackle anti-social behaviour.
I know what I'm talking about when it comes to police.
We're now developing a knife crime epidemic in Greater Manchester.
Almost every day, every couple of days, I tweet the matter of the news about a new stabbing, a new death.
It's becoming a mini London.
And the reason why is because pink and fluffy policing doesn't work.
And if elected mayor, we're going to ramp up stop and search.
There will be no carving knives in Greater Manchester.
And how will I achieve that?
Easy.
We'll go to every community, every local council, not local council, local ward, and we'll give them a referendum every year alongside voting for their councillor.
And we'll say to them, in your neighbourhood, do you want more or less stop and search?
And if they vote more, they get it.
If they vote less, well, they get less.
But then, when your child gets stabbed, don't come crying to the mayor and the police that, what are you doing about youths carrying knives?
Well, in your neighbourhood, you wanted less enforcement, so you got less enforcement.
And I'll tell you now, every neighbourhood will vote for more stop and search.
The poorer the neighbourhood, the more ethnically diverse it is, the more they will vote for stop and search.
Because it's their children dying in pools of their own blood on the streets, and they love their children.
And I know that.
They will vote for that.
That's how we're going to do.
Night crime.
Anti-social behaviour.
is one of the biggest complaints you get in every major area.
Antisocial drinking, litter, low-level crime.
I'm an expert in tackling antisocial behaviour.
I've been doing it for like, you know, over two decades now.
I've got many awards for tackling antisocial behaviour and we do that by zero-tolerance approach.
Because the person who smashes that bottle on the street is also the same person who burgles your car, who robs your house, who assaults your mum.
Serious criminals commit low-level antisocial behaviour.
If you can nip it in the bud, or catch them doing low-level stuff, and not think, that's not worth my time as a police officer, I'm looking for the serious stuff.
Well, no, no.
You've got them on something smaller.
It's about tackling all crime, and then people understand, in that neighbourhood, we're not having any of this.
You will be challenged, you will be pulled.
One thing is that, for me, when it comes to crime, we have very frequently people who think that they can get away with it.
So if, let's say, low-level crime is not tolerated the way you say it, there is no habituation into Committing crimes.
So I think that sounds good at least to me.
Well lots of social scientists have looked at this and have said increasing prison sentences or punitive punishments for crime Doesn't work.
Because when you're committing crime, you don't think you're getting caught.
What reduces crime is you thinking you may get caught.
So when you're being pulled up on the small stuff, and then you go to commit a larger crime, you're going, Oh, I got caught dropping litter.
I got caught graffitiing.
I got caught smashing bottles.
There's a chance I might get caught doing a burglary.
So it's the fear of future punishment?
It's the fear of being caught that stops criminals, not the sentence they're going to get.
I don't know the exact numbers, but I have seen statistics showing that the vast majority of crimes are done by a very small number of criminals, i.e.
people that just will not stop re-offending.
They will not stop.
What do you think of the idea of those types of people, once it's proven beyond a doubt, like you've got many strikes or something, or once you've got a rap sheet a certain length, That you just put those people in prison until they're old.
Yeah.
It's as simple as that.
Yeah.
They need an extremely long custodial sentence until they're old and broken, essentially.
Yeah.
I can't do this as mayor.
The mayor doesn't have those powers, but you're right.
So if you could lock up, you could lock up young males who at the age of 18 or older, but from 18 onwards, who have got a history of committing crime and violence and antisocial behaviour, and you lock him up till they're 30.
You've then taken a small percentage of males out of the population who are committing somewhat like 80% of all the issues and they grow out of it.
So by the time they've hit 30 their offending rate then goes off the cliff.
So those key 12 years you can heavily reduce crime in any population by taking out a small percentage of dysfunctional men and even smaller percentage of dysfunctional women as well let's not let's not forget that let's be equal about this but there's always more men doing this.
Yeah you're right.
Would you reduce the number of WPCs because we touched on it in the earlier segment didn't we?
Yeah female police officers.
It's fine to have women in the police force behind a desk doing administrative jobs but on the beat They're physically not capable of restraining a desperate man.
So would you reduce, if not eradicate, WPCs on the beat?
I wouldn't eradicate them just because they're female.
What I would do is I would look at the recruitment process and the physical fitness process, and I would have that as a gold standard.
And if you're a woman, or you're a one-legged whatever...
And you can pass the physical fitments and well, you get the job.
So it's about, it's about merits.
It's not about saying we don't want these people, we don't want those people.
Doesn't that bar need to be really quite high though to walk the beat?
You need to be able to restrain a dude who's 6'2", 6'3", 200, 250 pounds.
You need to be able to pin him down and put him in custody.
You're dealing with criminals, yes.
There's very few women, very few women are physically capable of that.
That might be the outcome of my policy of looking at recruitment, but my recruitment will be getting the best people for the job.
If women can't match that, well, they won't get the job.
But I wouldn't say I don't want to employ women because some women will be able to do the job.
Fair enough.
And there might be some sectors in the police where we need that, where we need undercover operatives.
So you can't have, you know, six foot six, burly man pretending to be a woman, unless he's a trans woman, of course.
So there will be different jobs there that they can do.
But if we're looking at Frontline policing.
That's just what I'm talking about.
Of course, there's many, many roles for women in the police.
Just that thing on the street where you're going to have to fight someone on the street.
Yeah, exactly.
So we need people who can do that.
To round up the policing bit, I'm going to turn Greater Manchester Police into a police force.
I'm going to reject it's a police service.
We'll take down any literature, any banners that say Greater Manchester Police Service and we'll replace the word service with force.
It's going to be a force and I want criminals in Greater Manchester scared of the police.
And I want residents, not necessarily loving the police, but going, you know what?
Those police sorted out those drug dealers.
Those police sorted out that Knife Primary Show.
And I wouldn't mess with the police.
That's the sort of police force I want in Greater Manchester.
We have the next image.
Net Zero.
So in London, you've got the ULEZ.
In Greater Manchester we've got something called the Clean Air Zone.
It's been postponed at the moment.
It's Andy Burnham who's the Mayor of Greater Manchester.
It's his baby project.
He's spent hundreds of millions on it up to now and it's going to cover the whole of Greater Manchester to reduce air pollution by commercial vehicles.
So they've got the cameras up already.
Hundreds of millions spent on cameras and just when it was going to go live last year Big public outcry and Andy Burnham lost his bottle and went, we'll postpone it.
I'm going to send the project to Westminster to be reviewed.
And he designed the project.
So it's now at Westminster.
Nobody now wants to implement it.
Nobody wants to take responsibility for it.
And hundreds of millions have been spent.
And it was all, it basically was a condestion charge for commercial vehicles in Greater Manchester, which would have been several years later expanded To include my vehicle and other people's cars and motorbikes.
It was going to be expanded.
It's a money-grabbing scheme.
Now for me, on day one of becoming Mayor, the scheme is not suspended, it's scrapped.
It will be scrapped day one.
I will open the books up so people can see where this money's been spent and how it's been wasted.
Hundreds of millions for a scheme that's never going to see the light of day.
Net zero is a con.
We all know it's a con and Greater Manchester will know it's a con.
I'm not going, as Mayor, I will not endorse any projects that attacks car use, that makes us poorer or restricts our movement.
We were born a free people in Greater Manchester and we'll remain a free people in Greater Manchester.
That doesn't mean we don't have to look at public transport and we don't have to look at congestion.
There's many problems we need to look at but simply saying we're going to ban cars or we're going to tax cars even more is unfair.
Having a car gave the working class of this country freedom.
It made us be able to travel independently.
It made we could get a job somewhere else and take our children on holiday or we could take our children to better schools.
If you start taking cars off people, the only people it affects are the poor and the working class.
The privileged and the rich Well, they'll pay the fines.
They'll pay the extra duty.
They'll pay twice as much to buy a car.
It won't bother them.
It'll bother me and you.
That's who it's going to bother.
So that won't happen in Greater Manchester because net zero will lead us to living in caves back to the Stone Age.
It's a state-sponsored racket, isn't it?
It is.
Extortion is what it is.
But again, just like all the other woke stuff, it's beginning to fall apart.
Now people are looking at it and now that we're in poorer times people are going no I don't want this I can't afford this.
Sounded great a couple of years ago when everything was going okay 10 years ago we're saving the planet.
Greta Thunberg said five years ago the planet will end last week.
We're still here, so it's not going that bad.
But the Net Zero Con will be called out in Greater Manchester as a con.
And when we get Extinction Rebellion and we get Just Stop Oil marching, there'll be no marching on the street to Greater Manchester.
They'll be arrested within seconds.
We're not policing that.
We'll be arresting them.
Brilliant.
According to Al Gore, New York was supposed to be underwater by now, wasn't it?
It's from the Jorvin, I think.
In 2012, I remember you talking about the Mayan calendar.
Well, every prediction about the environment has always failed to come to pass.
Every prediction.
If we have the next image, who knows what a woman is?
Now the reason why this is one of my campaigning messages is because this separates the normal person from the woke fool.
This does completely.
So I know how to define a woman.
It's an adult human female.
Do you, Stelios?
No, I do.
I was just going to say that I think that YouTube takes issue with this.
Just, you know, just saying, yeah.
I think it's a great way, though, to separate the wheat from the chaff.
It's when people say, oh, you need to define what Englishness means or what Britain means.
No, don't.
No, actually, you need to define what a woman is.
No, I'm not even going to start down that road.
I don't need to define it.
You've just revealed yourself as a lunatic if you think it needs a definition.
Everyone knows the one in their right mind who isn't a wokeist.
Yep.
But yeah, good for you for saying so.
I keep saying to people, when you have politicians knocking on your door in Greater Manchester for the local elections, for the mayor elections, ask this question.
Let's find out if they're ideologues.
Let's find out if they are lunatics.
If they can't answer this question, then what good are they in Greater Manchester?
It either means the stupid, the lying, The mental or more likely the cowards where they know the answer they just don't want to say it out loud because some of their voter support will disappear.
So do you want a coward representing you in Greater Manchester or you know Let me say one thing.
We have a friend of the show, Britt, who's also my good friend for years, and she told me that she was about to vote.
It's, I think, close to Leeds.
And she sent this question to several of the candidates.
I'm really thinking of voting for you.
Can you please tell me what is a woman?
And only one responded.
Only one and she voted for him.
Yeah, I think I should just say that we live in such crazy times that this is an issue that people actually discuss.
I mean, if you said this five years ago, I'd have been locked up that this was going to be a political question and you've seen our political leaders try to answer this and it's pathetic and you wonder why we've lost trust in politics.
But you're right, you know, have a look at your politics and your politicians where you live and you're not going to agree with everything a politician says, such as myself.
Find something that means something to you, that's important to you, and vote on that issue.
Pick the politician.
You're not going to get someone who agrees everything you think.
But if this is important to you, then vote on this.
Otherwise, you're part of the problem.
You're part of the problem when men with lipstick are going in women's changing rooms, or male sports cheats are taking women's titles off them.
You're part of the problem.
So make sure you vote, and make sure you vote on something you believe in.
if we can have the next image.
So here at Lotus Eaters, we all believe in free speech.
And I want to stand on a free speech platform.
I did a university event a couple of weeks ago and met Antifa for the first time.
They were slightly underwhelming.
Screamy, shouty children with masks on and they were pathetic.
And it wasn't just them.
There was union representatives there with their union banners and they were screaming and shouting.
It was just, it was all performative.
It was like children in the playground.
And the people on the free speech side were almost just as bad.
They were screaming and shouting and antagonizing.
And we need to get, and I told them off, you need to get away from this.
This isn't a playground.
If we're here for free speech, we can't have you screaming, shouting your slogans at those idiots and you sticking your fingers up to them.
We need to be the adults in the room.
I mean, there needs to be dialogue.
Yeah, especially when there is dialogue, there needs to be a room for dialogue.
When someone starts from the very beginning and portrays every sort of minute disagreement with their entire agenda as something that is entirely, it's just evil, then you have no room for dialogue.
It's just a facade.
It's people pretending to talk to each other.
And that's when those people you shouldn't try to talk to because they're not coming in good faith.
So just ignore Mantifa, ignore those demonstrations and stop and don't antagonize them.
But for Greater Manchester, I'm going to commission a free speech union to create a free speech charter for Greater Manchester.
Now as Mayor I can't start creating laws, I don't have those powers, but what I can do is start defining what we want in Greater Manchester that the law allows us to do and we're going to simplify it and there'll be a charter endorsed by the Mayor's Office that anyone in Greater Manchester can point to and go no, Boss?
No.
Police officer?
No.
Person in the street?
I can't say those things.
You know how I know I can say those things?
Because it's on the Mayor's website.
We have a free speech charter in Greater Manchester and at number nine it says I can say those things and every point will be backed up by the law of this land.
So people will know what they can say and what they can't say.
And I want the people of Greater Manchester to have free speech.
And part of that free speech will be to criticise me.
And you should criticise me because I'm not perfect and I don't have all the answers and I might be lying.
And I might be a fool.
So you should use your free speech to have a look at me and have a look at what I say and have a look at what I want to do.
And then criticise me if you think I'm wrong and tell me where I'm wrong, because I could be wrong.
But I want you to have the speech to do that in our democracy in Greater Manchester.
So that's my sort of main policy at the moment.
I've got a huge one that I don't know when to announce.
So that might be towards the end of the year, but that's going to be huge.
Absolutely.
Groundbreaking policy that I'm going to announce towards the end of the year.
But then we'll have some other stuff as well in Greater Manchester.
You know, I want people to be able to vote on what they want.
So another idea might be, when you have your local elections, let's find out if the people would like a death penalty, which the Mayor cannot implement.
But let's start going to the people and ask them serious questions about where they want to see Greater Manchester or the country going.
Because at the moment, we all think we know the answers.
But let's get some Answers from the people, and then we can start looking at policy based on that.
Right.
So let's move to our third segment.
Now, seriously, wokeness has to end.
We are going to talk about some really mad cases today, and actually it fits quite well with the previous topics, because our podcast today has been very much crime Related and crime relevant.
And this is a difficult topic, but I think that it's a topic that we need to discuss.
Now, one thing is that lately I'm trying to understand wokeness and its operation in the world, and I'm trying to understand also the rhetoric behind it.
We have had some conversations about it that will be released in, I believe, two weeks from now.
Yeah, and it's really interesting to see how woke propaganda is working.
But one thing to notice is that it seems to me that wokeness is just useful idiocy.
And the more idiotic it gets, the more useful it is to those who want to play divide and conquer against the people.
And the more useful it gets on that front, the more dangerous it is for the population.
The population becomes disempowered.
Now, one of the ways to disempower people is to make them incapable of independence.
Independent thought, independent action.
It's all about spreading a culture of victimhood and a culture of dependency upon someone else.
Usually it's the state, and that is why the woke movement has so much power.
It's because it's not that it has so many people behind it.
It has, let's say, the power of Western governments.
They give them the power.
We don't have, let's say, a small groups of people who have so much power.
Such a power is given to them.
And I think that the distinctive, the distinctive, let's say, use and function of wokeness is precisely to play divide and conquer against the people and dissolve communities because communities can be a good, let's say, negotiate parties in negotiation with the government.
Whereas when we have governments against specific individuals, negotiation becomes a bit less, a bit less Strong and a bit less fair.
And there's also the issue of, let's say, of power.
It's the notion of active citizenry that you mentioned a lot on your segment.
Yeah.
And the issue of having a community whose opinion you regularly ask for.
So it seems to me that when communities are being dissolved, it is something that governments want to, and they don't take account of the people.
They don't care so much.
They think that they're going to get away with increased centralization.
But we are going to talk today about the madness behind it, and the idea that when we are trying to, let's say, think of Independence of independent adults, and we try to think of the social order.
We need people who are going to be able to be active citizens and who are going to be responsible for their lives as well as for their community.
Now, speaking of responsibility, you could visit a website.
Where for £5 a month you can gain access to all our premium content, and you can have a watch, for instance, this Symposium No.
24 I did with Josh, where we are debating the issue of causal determinism and moral responsibility.
This is very heavy in a philosophical sense, but people have liked it a lot, and by all means give it a watch.
And it raises interesting questions as to how when we consider people to be responsible and it seems to me that in Wokeness we have a lot of double standards.
And we have, let's say, groups of the population that are supposed to be entirely bad and that they cannot ever perform good deeds.
They're just bad.
I think of, for instance, critical race theory and the focus on whiteness as being a bad thing, that no white person can ever do a good deed.
And on the other hand, we have A double standard.
People who belong to the groups with protected characteristics, they can never do bad.
They only do good things.
But when they do something bad, it's someone else's fault.
It's the establishment's fault.
It's the system's fault.
It's, you know, whiteness' fault.
It's always the fault of the indigenous population.
Yeah, it's riddled with double standards and contradictions and just, yeah, rational or some sort of failure of rationality.
A madness!
For example, diverse peoples built Britain from ancient times.
But wait, they built a systematically racist system though, we're all so told.
Did they?
How does that happen?
So all colonialism is terrible, so whiteness takes responsibility for that.
But anything that's good, you're not allowed to take responsibility for.
The contradictions are absolutely endless.
Yeah, his very heart is an irrationality.
For me, it's about trying to understand where it came from.
So my theory is, we've got two things here.
We've got a genetic predisposition for socialism which I'll talk about in a minute and then we've also got the Marxism doctrine of oppressed and oppressor and it's a linking of those two things that has really developed from political correctness into wokeism today.
So I've come to the understanding that built within us is a sense of socialism and that comes from when we lived in tribes.
So when we lived in tribes most of those family members were family members.
We had people, old people who couldn't go hunting, couldn't go gathering and we looked after each other because we were one big family.
So when tribes historically got too big they would separate and they'd split into two and you have two tribes and one would move away.
So that genetic predisposition for us to want to look after people, to share what we have with people in our community, is part of it.
But that's just empathy and tribalism and an in-group preference.
It's not really socialist.
It's not socialism.
It's not socialism the way we mean socialism, but it's why we're predisposed to socialism.
I see the point you're making and agree.
I just wouldn't use the word socialist or socialism to describe it, but I agree with the point you're making.
Wouldn't you say that, for instance, this is a kind of caring for the community?
Yes.
And you could say that the community is like an extended family.
Yeah.
And that no one said that there isn't any innate disposition to not care about your family.
But wouldn't that be considering the other side too much?
By naming it socialism, it would just say that human benevolence and empathy is socialism.
In fact, it seems to me to be a bit conceding too much ground to the left.
And also, it focuses on the idea that only the left can talk about community and caring about the community, whereas this is one of the main issues where the left has a problem now.
They used to present themselves as being pro-community when we had a very simple dilemma during the Cold War, that we have the individualist West and the socialist East, yeah.
But after that it seems that the world is a bit more complex.
Yeah.
When you say that it's, if we say that it's an innate tendency to look after each other.
It is.
The point I was trying to make was that's why socialism won't die.
Okay.
And that's why socialism is always reinventing itself going back because there's something in us that appeals to us because of our genetic predisposition to want to support family community tribe now that's so that we've got that but then the political correctness and the walkism came out of Marxism so the oppressed and the oppressor so they've latched on to that so the problem we have now is we want to be good people We want to share our resources.
We want a community.
We want a nation.
And we are quite happy paying our taxes.
We're quite happy for this.
But then a fifth column has taken the Marxist doctrine of oppress and oppressor and are using that for their own benefits, are using our goodwill and our good nature against us for their own means.
So it's a combination of those.
If there wasn't any of the first bit, Them trying to use our good nature against us wouldn't work, but it's because they've tapped into our good nature and our manners and our wanting to share and be good people and they're using it against us.
That's the issue.
Absolutely.
What a despicable thing to do.
What a disgusting thing to pervert that.
The best thing about humans is to invert that against us.
Sickening.
I think we're running out of time.
Yeah, okay.
So one thing to say here is that let's focus on some of the double standards.
So we regularly see people who are in favor of woke rhetoric being against disinformation and misinformation, but pro people identifying as cats and foxes.
They are in favor of free expression of themselves, but They want to curtail the free speech of others.
They think that their emotions are sacrosanct, but when it comes to other people claiming dissatisfaction with their communities and their state, they think that this is basically tyranny.
They want freedom for themselves, but change for others.
And also when it comes to The non-woke are only responsible for bad deeds.
They can never be good people.
Now, it seems to me that what wokeness does is that it aims towards social disintegration, viewing laws and discipline as tyranny.
Now, let's look at the next link here.
From NBC, it says, the coming for your children chant has been used for years at pride events, according to longtime march attendees and gay rights activists who said it's one of the many provocative expressions used to regain control of slurs against LGBTQ people.
Now, let's go to the next link.
Yeah, it says, nope.
We are coming for your children.
Chant as New York City drug march elicits outrage with activists say it's taken out of context.
Organizers say the New York City drug march is meant to be lighthearted and to poke fun at anti-LGBTQ sentiment.
Now, frequently you hear woke people being against comedy and portraying any kind of comedy as being a sort of violation of their sentiment and as being a sort of concealed and implied Bigotry.
Now, they're allowed to make jokes, other people are not.
So they're saying them chanting we're coming for your children was satirical?
Yeah, they say it is.
Okay.
Yeah, and there's some things we shouldn't make jokes about.
Well, a few years ago, they could get away with that a few years ago.
And it probably was so typical a few years ago, but taken in context in today with Drag Queen Story Hour, with mutilation of children, then it's not quite funny now, is it?
Because it seems to be happening.
Right.
Yeah.
Very odd.
Right.
So, one thing to say is that in order to build a stable society, you need to have a young generation that learns by its parents and its teachers the ways of the world.
And to teach the ways of the world, you have to not confuse people.
One of the first things that people learn in order to find out the ways of the world is to distinguish between cats and human beings, or foxes and human beings.
Let's look at cats.
Now, it says here on the telegraph, no child should be forced to affirm a classmate's identity as a cat.
We must inject some common sense back into schools and society more general.
Now, we regularly come across news where we have students who are asked to conform with pronouns and we have Teachers who are afraid to basically discipline the students and say, no, no, you're not a cat and people shouldn't play along with it.
Apart from cats, we have foxes.
It says, woke madness spreads as pupil now tells teacher they identify as a fox.
The same thing that happens with cats is the same thing that happens with foxes.
Now, there's a question, where does this lead?
And I want to say, I want to look at the following thing, because it says here, Tory MP demands government pass sex education transparency law.
Miriam Cates accuses schools of hiding materials from parents as education experts says law change will reassure families.
But now, because we have to speed up a bit, what I want to show and say is that, you know, apart from all the Madness with people identifying as cats and foxes.
They're really important concerns about law enforcement.
And there are several new views of how justice and criminal justice should be approached.
And you will see that they are really, really, really weird because the implications that they have is that anyone who wants, for instance, the members of gangs, The implication is that they are bad people.
That's where this emotion leads.
Now, we have a case here where we have in, let's say, in California, we have suspected purse snatcher faces murder charge in dragging death of popular California bakery owner and activist.
Now, a 19-year-old man was charged in the killing of a popular California bakery owner fatally wounded in a purse snatching after being dragged by the getaway car and hitting her head in the middle of the street.
Ishmael Jenkins Birch was charged with murder and second-degree robbery in the killing of Gen A Angel in February.
Now, what is interesting in this case is that this unfortunate victim, Jen Angel, was a member of several restorative justice organizations.
And restorative justice has a lot to do about not wanting to incarcerate perpetrators of crime.
Yeah, or criminalize them.
Yeah, so let's have a look here.
You could just see, Jen was murdered four months ago.
Her woke friends are worried that her killer might end up locked in a cage.
Now, sorry, what?
I tell my friends, I don't want, if something unfortunate like that happens to me, I don't want this to be your reaction.
Now, let's speed up again a bit here and focus on the restorative justice claim.
Now, restorative justice brings those harmed by crime or conflict and those responsible for the harm into communication, enabling everyone affected by a particular incident to play a part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward.
This is part of a wider field called restorative practice.
Now, Nick, I think you are the person to ask about this.
What is this?
I was working with Great Manchester Police 20 years ago when they introduced parts of this restorative justice process.
And on paper sounds great.
You've got a 15 year old boy doing graffiti.
So rather than arrest him, give him the criminal record that might affect his future prospects.
He's not been in trouble before.
Why don't you get him to clean it up?
That'll teach him a lesson, speak to his parents and that could be the end of it.
On paper sounds good.
But as humans, we're always looking at shortcuts.
We've always got busy loads when we're working and we don't always put the time into it.
So very quickly in Greater Manchester, it became an easy way for police officers to get crimes off their list.
So you would have someone break a shop window and it'd be like, right, apologize to the owner.
Now sweep up the glass.
That's it.
We're done.
And they'll be like, well, that's not what restorative justice is about.
You've been arrested 54 times, right?
Why don't you apologize to the person you've slapped?
And that can be the end of it.
And it's used as a shortcut now.
It doesn't work.
The people who created it, sat in universities, were pink and fluffy and can only see the best in people.
But when you work in the field of crime disorder, you come across many people who are hardened criminals and it doesn't work on them.
One thing to say is that we have some some slides that we didn't have time to show.
By all means, if you want to listen and find out more about the case, you can check our links underneath.
But one thing I say, and I think we should end with this, is that this notion of people saying, well, the victim didn't feel like, didn't have the sentiment that she didn't want or he didn't want.
The perpetrator of crime to be, let's say, to be Incarcerated.
It completely neglects the community because it doesn't matter at the end of the day are the feelings of individual people and what feelings they would have if they contemplated that which sometimes it's completely hypothetical.
But we should at the end of the day remember that the police and the criminal justice system is supposed to protect the common good.
And it's not down to the individual feelings of people and how they feel about it or not.
It's about protecting society and the common good.
It's not about feelings.
And also it's open to abuse.
So let's say a victim or the family of a victim can have a say.
They can be intimidated.
Right.
So, let's end this segment and let's watch the videos now.
It's loading, I think.
Resident crying.
So I went over to see if I could help, just comfort her.
This wasn't exactly the way I wanted to return to the Lotus Eaters, but I feel that people deserve to have their stories told, and I kind of wanted to get this off my chest.
I've just been visiting my grandparents at a nursing home, and as I was waiting to be let out, there was no one else around, no other staff, and there was this resident crying.
So I went over to see if I could help, just comfort her, and I asked her, you know, is everything all right?
She said, no.
And I asked, what's wrong?
And she said, you know, I want my family.
I don't know where I am.
And, um, yeah, I'm not okay, guys.
I'm... God.
I'm sorry to hear that, Thane Scotty of Swindon.
I wish things get really better for you soon.
Tony D. and B. Scurvy-Jones here with another tale of pirates in South Jersey.
The Skunk!
It was a ship during the Revolutionary War.
Twelve men slew Captain by Captain Snell.
And he and his men would camouflage the ship, and with their one cannon, fire upon the British as they came up the great Hug Harbor River.
Nice.
In this way, they captured 19 British ships during the Revolutionary War.
But one day, the British set a trap for the skunk and fired upon the ship before they knew what was happening.
Snow was forced to escape, and they never heard from the skunk again.
Nice.
Let's go to the next video.
So I was seeing Carl argue with the Marxists on Twitter about the Nottingham attack and whatnot.
And I always found it a little weird that they're pulling the not-all argument when, as Marxists, they tend to askew individualism.
And whenever a white person commits a crime, they immediately start saying it's the entire community that's at fault.
The point is, whenever they pull this not all nonsense, I always ask them, do they support reparations from white people for past wrongs by people that look like them?
I don't know what to tell you.
I don't think that they have any consistency what they say.
They say whatever they feel is going to be politically expedient for them to say that moment.
And last video, I think.
Carl, I'd be interested to see your take on the politics of the Two Ronnies miniseries, The Worm That Turned.
Made in 1980 and set in the futuristic year of 2012, it's a dystopian depiction of a world in which feminism led to the wholesale displacement of men from their positions of power and resulted in a society in which forced transgenderism was the norm.
Our hero is a tea lady working for the commander of security, played by the siren of Swindon, Diana Dawes, and also who runs an underground film house by night.
When he's discovered, he enlists his friend who helps him escape to Wales, a region which, at least in this timeline, didn't succumb to progressivism.
Right.
Well, I'll definitely show that to Carl.
Now, let's go to some comments.
We have some honorary comments.
Adam Hack Davis.
Bo, everything you have said has been spot on.
If you ever got into politics, I would vote for you.
Well, I am hopefully running for reform in Swindon.
Excellent.
Ross Diggle.
Please, can we have Bo more often?
Fun Club.
Matt P. Bo, Nick and Stelios, dream team.
Thank you very much.
And General Haiping.
Oh yeah, bring on the Bo Show.
Good to see the power of the Bo return to the podcast.
I know General Haiping.
He leaves lots of comments on my Epoch stuff.
He's a good bloke.
Great bloke.
So thanks for that one.
Right.
Now, Adam Kalinowski.
As a current serving officer for nine years, Nick is 100% correct on the current state of recruitment.
Lord Nerevar, we know we live in evil times when drawing attention to the industrialized rape of children that happens every day is a TOS violation and can't be posted on most major platforms.
Thank you gentlemen for discussing it anyway as harrowing as it is.
It is harrowing, it's not easy, but thank you for understanding this.
Now, Ethelsen95, the current state of border control and policing is definitely heading towards anarcho-tyranny.
The state will not enforce the law and protect people, but they will damn sure prevent you from doing anything to protect yourself or your property.
Ignacio Yunquera.
If people want to keep female officers, they must give them guns and equalizing tools.
But they won't even allow them for male cops in general because criminals.
Omar Awad.
People allowed, within quotation marks, this to happen because we've been trained in democracy.
They keep us just comfortable enough to keep the majority docile.
The people will only get what they want when the ruling class fear them.
I think that's correct because in politics, it's power politics, at least the way I see it, the default.
If people regularly disrespect you and you don't fight back, Prepare to be more disrespected.
So, and it seems to me to be close to the active citizenry that you were talking about.
I think history has shown that comment to be true again and again and again.
Now let's go to comments for the second segment.
Vicky Karner.
Always love to see Nick.
Best of luck in your run for mayor.
If you were running in my area, you'd had my vote hands down.
Thank you.
Ignacio Yunquera.
I want criminals to live in constant fear.
Simple as.
Lord Nerevar.
You may be a bit of an underdog candidate, Nick, but if anyone can help Manchester, I believe it's you.
Best policies I've seen from a mayoral candidate in my lifetime, and I'm hoping you'll be able to put them into motion.
Thank you.
Bay State.
If Nick becomes mayor, I'm moving to Manchester.
The one place in the UK that cares about what's right.
Keep it up, Nick.
Matt P. I saw the video of Antifa shouting Nick down.
He actually managed to make them mostly shut up and try to actually listen to him near the end by speaking such potent common sense.
James Corr, you've got my vote, Nick, and I really hope you win.
Thank you.
Drew Doomhand, no one doubts that we need better officials and politicians in the West.
The better question is, are we willing to elect them or are the anarchists correct and democracy has ultimately failed?
Leave a short response so you should end the podcast for today.
It's a good question.
We don't know.
Democracy is an experiment.
You know, the world we've got today in the West is only, you know, 150 years old.
We don't know.
You know, the natural state of things is a mugged issue.
It isn't the UK.
Let's hope we can prevent that.
Okay.
▲
Export Selection