Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 23, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:38:50

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #725

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 23rd of August 2023.
	I am joined by Stelios.
	Hello.
	Of course, I'm Josh, and I'm very pleased to announce that Godfrey Bloom is here with us as well.
	And just a little bit of background, although I'm sure I'm probably going to miss some things.
	So I'm sorry in advance, but I think most people know you as an MEP of UKIP, but you are also an economist, I suppose, a military historian.
	You've worked in the financial world as well.
	Is there anything else?
	I've missed stuff.
	I always dislike introducing people.
	It feels very productionistic, I suppose.
	Well, that's pretty close.
	I mean, the MEP stuff was a very small bit of my life.
	I mean, I'm an old man now, 73.
	I've done rather more than that, thank the Lord.
	But yeah, that's pretty much basically it.
	But my real background is Geopolitically, military affairs, and the City of London career that I had as an investment manager.
	But that's the real meat of it.
	Politics is, of any sort really, is a bit of a lark, isn't it?
	Well, I mean, it's our living for us, but I would like it to be a lark if I could get to that point.
	But today we're going to be talking about the Black Ribbon Day, which is a, I suppose, a day of remembrance, which is today towards the victims of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes with particular emphasis on Stalinism.
	And because this is probably going to go out on YouTube.
	National Socialism, because I can't say the other variant, and Stelios is going to be talking us through the Polish referendum on immigration, and then I'm going to be talking about Sadiq Khan just outing himself as being explicitly anti-white, as far as I'm concerned.
	There's no other way of reading it, but let's, I suppose, get into the first segment, shall we?
	I wanted to, this is actually something that Stelios drew my attention to, draw attention to Black Ribbon Day, which is a day of remembrance within Europe for the victims of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes with specific emphasis on Stalinism and, because this is going on YouTube, mid-century Germanism.
	I'm sorry I have to use euphemisms, but unfortunately the censors in Silicon Valley do not allow civil and productive discussion about these sorts of things, even if you're being entirely negative about them, which I certainly will be.
	But this date in particular is significant because it marks the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which of course was a pact between the Soviet Union and the mid-century Germans.
	Sorry to keep on using it.
	Basically promising to invade one another and to divide up Poland and the likes.
	But I'm not focusing on that necessarily, and I'm sure many of you are familiar with it already.
	But there are, of course, many abominable actions here that we can talk about.
	For example, the actions of the Germans themselves in the interwar period.
	I think everyone knows about this.
	This is well-trodden ground that The YouTube censors will not allow us to talk about, but I feel like I don't really have much to add on that.
	Of course there are the actions of Mussolini's Italy as well, the domestic assassinations and the invasion of Ethiopia.
	And of course, there are elements of both sides in the Spanish Civil War.
	But what I thought would be particularly interesting to focus on, because it seems to be a deliberate civilizational blind spot, are the atrocities of Marxian communism and socialism more generally.
	And if we could go to the Black Book of Communism here, this is just the account of the numbers provided by this is, I think, a best-selling book, which tried to tally up the death toll of communism in the 20th century.
	Of course, these estimates vary wildly, but it is as follows.
	65 million people in the People's Republic of China, 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million in Cambodia, 2 million in North Korea, 1.7 million in Ethiopia, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in the Eastern Bloc, 1 million in Vietnam, 150 million in Latin America, and 10,000 deaths resulting from actions of international communist movements and communist parties not in power.
	So that's just more generally.
	Those are numbers that are just impossible for people to get their heads around really.
	And there's a quote often misattributed to Stalin, which he didn't say this, but it is rather fitting for his actions that one death is a tragedy and a million is just a statistic.
	I think people forget that these are these are people with lives and families and numbers this large, it is impossible to get your head around.
	And I know that this is well trodden ground, but I thought it would be good to do it justice because we've not mentioned this this day before.
	But rather than covering things that many historians have examined in greater detail than I have and probably will do a much better job of doing, I thought it'd be interesting to talk about Where are these movements in the modern day?
	Pardon me, before we move forward, can I say one thing about this book?
	Of course!
	The main thesis of this book is that violence is integral into communism, and this is why it has been vilified by a lot of Marxian-friendly critics around the world.
	It's a really interesting book.
	By all means, you have to read it at some point.
	It's not like Marx says, oh yes, we need a peaceful revolution, is it?
	I mean, Marx, famously, a defender of the right to bear arms, which many of his contemporary fans are not so much, which is a bit of a shame.
	But what I wanted to focus on particularly, because the National Socialists and the Fascists aren't so much Modern contemporary movements, they're basically an obscure irrelevance, thankfully.
	But communism, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily have as many laws outlawing it.
	It is perhaps more widespread and socially acceptable.
	Many European parliaments have active, avowed Marxists in them.
	Not to mention, of course, our own.
	They definitely seem to treat them in a better light.
	Yes.
	And frequently, politicians and people who claim that both sides had totalitarian aspects, they frequently get vilified.
	It is worth mentioning as well that there are, of course, some mid-century German enthusiasts in Ukraine.
	One of the last bastions, of course, because they saw them as liberators against the Soviets.
	But I think one notion that needs examining is that The notion of the far right being on the rise, and I did an article examining this in 2021, and basically by redefining what a dangerous extremist is, it led them to saying that the terror threat was up 90% in the UK, mostly pensioners, because they were viewed as far right.
	And there's actually a quote from Colonel Richard Kemp, who was a terror expert who led Cobra Intelligence Group, saying, I know that the authorities are trying to emphasize far right extremism rather than Islamic extremism.
	I can tell you that the threat between the two is not comparable.
	Of course, there is a marginal threat from the left and right, but not comparable.
	In the interest of trying to appear even-handed and appease people that criticize the PREVENT program for focusing on Islamic extremists, I know they are looking at far right extremism more to counter those accusations.
	Authorities have tried to infiltrate the threat and to try and appease critics of those policies.
	And this is something that I think we've all seen in the media, that people are trying to emphasize, particularly mainstream journalists and politicians, But there's some sort of rise of the far right in Europe, and they've been saying this for about 10 years.
	I imagine they probably said it in the EU Parliament, didn't they?
	Yes, indeed they did.
	It's a rather interesting phenomenon.
	When I say politics is a bit of a lark, it's because politics has nothing to do with the politics of yesteryear.
	It doesn't matter who you vote for now, what country you live in, it doesn't make any difference.
	We live in a, you know, it's a one-party system we have in Great Britain.
	It's a one-party system, broadly speaking, that is in the United States and many other countries.
	You can't vote out the lot that are in and vote in another lot who think differently because they all think exactly the same.
	And the thing with fascism is that it has been used, the word has been used as a pejorative term by students who don't understand the concept of fascism.
	It is a political system, for better or for worse, in my opinion, worse.
	my opinion, worse.
	But at that risk, of course, I'll just explain it very briefly, although I'm sure that all your subscribers will know.
	But at that end, of course, I'll just explain it very briefly, although I'm sure that all your subscribers will know.
	But basically, fascism is a combination of the government, if you like, politics and big business and banks.
	But basically, fascism is a combination of the government, if you like, politics, and big business and banks.
	And that is how it sort of came about as a system.
	And that is how it sort of came about as a system.
	And of course, Mussolini was the perpetrator of that political system.
	And he knew that in order to make that work, he would have to bring in the big corporations.
	And he was very keen to bring big corporations in, you know, the Fiat Empire.
	And of course, then we had National Socialism in Germany, which actually manifested itself a bit later.
	And And then, of course, that system knew that it also had to bring aboard the corporations.
	So you see, you know, AG Farman, Krups, and all the rest of it.
	You cannot run that kind of system without the full endorsement of the big corporations and the banks.
	So you have this very unholy alliance, and of course the difference with fascism broadly is that the means of production are controlled, whereas in communism the means of production are owned.
	It's a slightly fine line, but if you think about it, it's not as fine as all that, if you think it through.
	Now the irony, and I was out there for 10 years with the European Union just as a member of the European Parliament, and for those in America who probably don't know, the European Parliament is not a law-making body, it's an amending chamber, and a very light-touch amending chamber.
	The rules and regulations and laws are made by a bureaucracy, an unelected bureaucracy, and it goes to the Parliament, who might tweak it a bit here or there.
	There are 10,000 lobbyists in Brussels representing big business, because small and medium-sized businesses cannot afford lobbyists.
	So what do you have in the European Union?
	You have big business, corporate, the big corporations.
	You have bureaucrats.
	You have a veneer of democracy, which is the Parliament, and it's just simply a veneer of democracy.
	And this is the problem now.
	Whether we like it or not, or whether anybody likes to actually use the word, and I don't use it in a pejorative sense, The European Union is, broadly speaking, a fascist organization because that is what they do.
	Now, that's uncomfortable and people get very uncomfortable about it, but that's the truth of the matter.
	And of course, it's not just Europe which had lent in that direction.
	If you look at your history and you look at Germany and Austria and Italy and Spain who went to that, it's something the Europeans are actually a system that they're relatively comfortable with.
	And of course we're seeing it now come to America, the United States, we're seeing the big corporations, highly regulated, and of course it's highly regulated, that's where your control comes from, your regulations.
	Not law, this isn't law, there's no court of appeal, there's no...
	debate about how these laws come about.
	So your systems of control, people, your institutions, your constitutions, and all these kinds of things have been thrown away.
	And this is why we now see, for example, that the one, of course, is Ofcom, which control broadcasting now in Great Britain, which is a government appointment.
	So if you have a radio show or something like that, or a TV show, which is uncomfortable with the government's point of view, or the opposition's point of view, which are the same, Ofcom can close you down, or will try and close you down.
	We've seen this, particularly with GB News, just for example.
	They may well be expanding these to online-based companies like ourselves as well, because of course you can't have the internet, because if you have the internet then there is a means of holding the government accountable that isn't within the government's control.
	And it's no surprise that, despite the fact that this isn't necessarily directly for the British public, it is a global podcast, The British government gets to determine what we can and can't say.
	And that is something that if this legislation goes forward, which it seems like it is, they may well try and shut us down.
	So it's of very significant importance, particularly for this company, that these sorts of things get pushed back on.
	And of course, the big business thing, and as a fan of Austrian economics, like myself, you'll be able to identify this trend is that The problem is that through the big companies having access, it impedes the competition that smaller businesses rely on to survive.
	And so even if they're innovative and more efficient, they can't compete on an even footing.
	And so these companies can basically use the power of legislation and government.
	And the fact that they're insiders as well, to brutally beat down their competition.
	Of course, they often get invited in to write legislation or write it themselves, and then an MP signs off on it.
	And then that's that.
	And then they've deliberately written the legislation as to target their competitors.
	And this happened with Microsoft in the United States, for example.
	Yes, of course.
	This is exactly how it works.
	And this is fascism.
	This is big business and government in cahoots.
	And I suppose it's a natural progression of things.
	But it's interesting.
	We're talking about the book they were mentioning on communism.
	It's interesting.
	I read a biography of Joseph Goebbels.
	uh last year and it was interesting uh on the concept of propaganda and all of this of course is based on propaganda so that people go with it because they think that it's for the common good and they are being persuaded that this is for the common good uh and uh this is this is how being persuaded to think but of course Goebbels has had some pillars of propaganda first of all dissent is not allowed you dissent is simply not allowed because if some if you if you bring on somebody with a different point of view
	You might get people going to the pub and say, did you see that bloke, you know, who's having a go at the government because they're wrong?
	You can't let people like that in through the door.
	And this is particularly true of the so-called climate, the climate emergency.
	You will not find anybody who takes a contra view in mainstream media, even if they are highly qualified scientists with impeccable pedigrees.
	You'll see the little Swedish girl, you'll see plenty of her, you'll see plenty of celebrities, Harrison Ford, the Prince of Wales as he then was, not scientists, woefully ignorant about the whole concept of this, but of course They can then persuade people that if you repeat, and this is Goebbels, if you repeat the lie often enough, it will become received wisdom.
	So there's no dissent, there's received wisdom, and Goebbels, believe it or not, even in the 1930s and 40s knew That celebrities were very useful, because if you look at a celebrity that you like, if you're looking at David Attenborough, who's frankly a celebrity, rather than anything else, or Emma Thompson, or all these Hollywood movies who are absolutely wearing their heart on their sleeve about saving the planet,
	And they're probably broadcasting from their beachfront properties, which they've flown to with their private jets, and all this kind of thing.
	But they are useful because 80% of the public aren't going to drill down and find out what the truth of the matter is scientifically and interpret the data.
	They're not going to do that.
	They watch the Gogglebox, probably only half-concentrating, Eating their tea, doing the ironing, putting up a shelf as they listen to the BBC or something like that.
	And this is the kind of thing that goes on.
	So nobody, and of course the schools and universities, have stamped out critical thinking and risk assessment.
	That is not allowed.
	You're not allowed to do that.
	Exactly.
	And one brief remark that I have to make here is that when you said before that a lot of Europeans seem comfortable with a system that operates in the EU, I don't know to what extent they feel comfortable with the rhetoric.
	As opposed to the substance.
	And you indicated before that there is a kind of distinction between the substance and the rhetoric, or the structural operation of a fascist regime, and the rhetoric.
	Because the rhetoric is not, hey, let's mobilize the people by saying that we're gonna team up with big business in order to hurt their interests.
	That's not the, that is not the, The rhetoric.
	So there is a question as to whether people are cognizant enough and able enough to see through the rhetoric into behind it and see the substance.
	And what I regularly see, and I think you indicated this as well, is people using language in a completely mistaken manner.
	And I think Goebbels was also saying that throw mud, some of it will stick.
	The sheer volume of repetition of a particular use of a particular word, it tends to become a really established meaning, in conventional meaning, into the minds of people.
	And slowly and steadily, words that have assumed a kind of symbol Like liberty, for instance, in the Western world, they slowly and steadily seem to be bad.
	Or we have people who are completely against liberty posing as its defenders.
	Just to augment what you were saying there, I think some of the psychology of language indicates that people tend to define language rather than by, you know, reading the dictionary and memorizing the definitions, which would be incredibly boring, but probably quite useful for you.
	They tend to define words by how they're used colloquially.
	And quite often one has to venture into the world of academia where you butt your head against pedantry, but it also challenges your understanding of certain terminology.
	And sometimes it will be for better or worse.
	It depends on your discipline, who's teaching you, all sorts of different things.
	But it's not until you get to that sort of level of interrogation, which most people tend not to do, depending on their discipline as well, before you start to realize that words aren't just defined by their colloquial usage, they do have objective usages.
	And more often than not, they're not always abided by.
	And I think that that's a problem because a lot of the time you've got people like Members of the Frankfurt School suggested that you change the definition of words and so this is a deliberate and willful tactic to smear the terminology of their political opponents or use terms in ways in which they were commonly understood previously but now have become other things.
	Yeah, I think you're absolutely right.
	I mean, the things that suddenly became words you couldn't use, unlike at the very beginning, it was quite a so-called pandemic, which, of course, it wasn't a so-called pandemic, herd immunity.
	And suddenly, of course, that was pounced on as being terrible.
	But that's the long and short of it.
	Herd immunity is a well-tried and well-tested and well-understood phenomenon.
	It's not a phrase you're allowed to use, but of course, the biggest The biggest change, of course, is the term liberal, which of course came from the United States.
	And of course, if you're a classical liberal, like I am myself, and you tend to look perhaps historically to the Gladstonian era, if you would, or even, interestingly enough, the conservative government of the late 1890s, Lord Salisbury, who was very liberal with a small l.
	And libertarian, if you read some of his wonderful speeches.
	More my cup, to be honest.
	Well, he was wonderful, but liberal.
	There is nothing liberal about a liberal American.
	Nothing liberal at all!
	They have thought police, hate crime.
	That's exactly what I said.
	When they want to incorporate the word and the other side, sadly, seems very frequently to give it to them.
	They don't say, no, I won't allow you to take the name Liberty and pose as its defender.
	When what you want to do is basically increase the power of the state, its reach, tax everyone to oblivion.
	That's not what it is all about.
	The only person who jumps quickly on that kind of thing, in my experience, you will have more experience broadly than I'm probably having in this, would be Jordan Peterson, who won't let it pass.
	He'll pounce and say, no, I'm not going to go with your misuse of that word, or your changing that word, or whatever that word may be, or that phrase.
	And he'll jump on it.
	But of course, one of the problems that we have is twofold, really.
	That is, we have mainstream media, Who are bought, totally bought and sold by the government of the day, or indeed not even the government of the day, but the institutions of the globe.
	So that's the IMF, the WFO, the WHO, the UN.
	The speak that comes, and of course this is a speak that the youngsters are getting in their houses and they take it.
	It's unchallenged because they're not trained in critical thinking.
	on all these matters.
	This is the problem of language and the change of language.
	And that's something that's very difficult to know quite what to do about.
	If you're going to go with that, if interviewers are going to go with that, and of course the lack of education in our mainstream media, if you look at...
	If you look at most well-known BBC and Sky producers, they haven't had the benefit of a traditional education.
	Of course, I've met a lot of these when I was in office, on air and behind the scenes and so on and so forth.
	These men are incredibly stupid people.
	These people are stupid, believe me!
	You only need a few... go for a couple of pints with most of them, and you think, my God, you don't know anything about anything!
	And I'll just... it's a bit of an aside here.
	It might be unfair, but it was... there was... any questions?
	Yes, it was any questions, I think.
	A member of the audience said, can any members of the panel quote any poetry?
	These are supposedly the great and the good have been brought on to any questions, to answer questions.
	None of them could actually recite any poetry at all!
	Now this is appalling!
	This is appalling!
	How can you be one of the great and the good and be so woefully ill-educated?
	Everybody should be able to quote just a bit of poetry somewhere along the line.
	I think Jacob Rees-Mogg might have been on the panel at that stage, and of course they couldn't shut him up, but most people haven't had the benefit of traditional education.
	For example, when David Cameron was in America and was talking about Magna Carta, He didn't know anything about Magna Carta at all.
	He didn't know anything about geopolitical history.
	It was embarrassingly bad.
	They suppressed that interview, which came from America.
	They suppressed it when it came back here.
	Now, he got a first, albeit it was a drinking course at Oxford, of course, which is Mickey Mouse, and we all know that, but he got a first in PPE at Oxford.
	He wouldn't last five minutes in an old-school 1950s grammar school debating society.
	Not five minutes.
	These people are woeful.
	And until we have members of mainstream media and our representative politicians with the benefit of a traditional education, I don't see how we can move forward.
	No, I very much agree.
	And although I went to a comprehensive, I thankfully had some very dedicated parents that augmented the things in which the comprehensive education didn't.
	And so I feel very fortunate that I've actually had something comparable, not quite to the level of a traditional education, but I can at least, you know, hold a candle if I try.
	But I think we're quickly running out of time for this segment, so I'm going to quickly power through.
	So this is something that I thought was a hilarious piece of irony.
	So there is, of course, the Socialist Worker Party, and on the 23rd, which is of course today, this evening, all across the country, they have lots of meetings talking about how they can further Marxian socialism, I presume.
	Socialism at the very least.
	And some of these topics are hilariously naive towards The history of the 20th century, more or less, and I'm going to read some of the titles of them.
	Can identity politics end oppression?
	My answer would be no, it creates it.
	Can degrowth save the planet?
	That's going to result in depopulation.
	Obviously they don't add that.
	Anti-fascists and revolutionary, a rebel's guide to Gramsci, which I find funny because Of course, Gramsci was all about subverting language and they're referring to fascism, which is one of the best case studies for them doing so.
	Rosa Luxemburg and the mass strikes, crime, punishment and prisons.
	Can we abolish them?
	Somewhat scary question.
	Can we abolish prisons?
	How can the revolution win in Sudan?
	I don't think you stand a chance.
	Far right on the rise and how do we stop them?
	Which is of course a sort of garden variety narrative at this point.
	Can we live in a world without borders?
	No.
	Reform revolution, a Marxist history of the Labour Party, which I find funny.
	They're trying to shed that reputation.
	Is biology the root of women's oppression?
	Which I think is more of a Simone de Beauvoir view rather than a gender critical view.
	Cuba, has it ever been socialist?
	Which is laughable.
	1936, sorry, Cable Street and the lessons for fighting fascism today.
	I find it funny that they've got to go back to Moseley in 36 to find a contemporary example of them actually Fighting actual self-identified fascists.
	No return to the back streets.
	Fighting for abortion rights.
	That's cut and dry.
	Capitalism in crisis.
	Is socialism possible?
	It's funny that they're asking this question as the Socialist Worker Party.
	At least there's some introspection going on.
	Is it a crime to protest?
	No.
	Jobs and climate action, can we have both?
	Which is my personal favourite because they're admitting that through having climate action, so to speak, you're going to lose lots of jobs because it's going to damage the economy and there's some weird sort of self-awareness there and I just thought it was somewhat comical if if not it's so unbelievably depressing that these these sorts of questions are the ones that they're considering and that there's a socialist worker party at all because it speaks of a profound ignorance of history.
	People know that a national socialist party or a fascist party might be very much undesirable in Britain and yet here we are a 20th century counterpart of atrocities asking all of these quite frankly naive questions that they should know better than to ask.
	Many years ago, I was boarding a train at King's Cross.
	I was just going through the beginning of King's Cross.
	Many years ago.
	It was days where, if you were in the city, you had to wear a bowler hat.
	I had a bowler hat.
	Yes, a long time ago.
	And suddenly all hats and all descriptions disappeared.
	I was in my pinstripe suit, my bowler hat, my rolled umbrella.
	And there was a very pretty girl selling Socialist Worker Party magazines.
	She was very bonny and very well-spoken, because I think most of the top people of the Socialist Worker Party went to public schools, which is ironic in its own right.
	So it was really quite amusing, because she looked at me up and down, and with a very wry smile, and a sense of humour in left-wing people is actually quite rare in my experience, she gave me a very sardonic look.
	I've actually had a funny exchange with someone selling socialist worker things.
	I said, I presume these are free, aren't they?
	Because I was curious what they were saying.
	They said, no, we charge.
	And I said, oh, well, you know, you're just as much as a free market capitalist as I am.
	And he kind of had a wry smile and had a bit of a Almost like a good exchange, which I was quite surprised at.
	At least they were a good sport.
	But I'm going to have to quickly power on.
	So obviously opinions in Eastern Europe in particular are obviously very negative towards these ideologies there.
	If we can scroll down, Jack, we can see here Most of the Eastern Bloc approves of having multi-party systems and market economies.
	As you can see, places like Bulgaria, Ukraine and Russia in particular are actually more disapproving than approving, which I find interesting.
	But places like Poland, 85% approving of both market economy and multi-party system.
	Obviously East Germany.
	So basically the people who suffered Some of the worst atrocities on behalf of the Soviet Union are the ones most resistant to those sorts of ideologies, which isn't a surprise because I imagine that you've had this in the European Parliament.
	Some of the most on-point people about the dangers of left-wing ideologies and also many of the 20th century ideologies more generally are the Poles because they're the ones that suffered both sides really yes the Poles are an interesting phenomenon as a people
	I married into a Polish family so I know my wife is 50% Polish and they're a very excitable and Latin temperament which shakes some people by surprise They also actually enjoy a sense of humor very like the English.
	And with the Czechs as well.
	Yes, and the Czechs.
	They're very, very nice.
	And I've lectured on occasions at the Warsaw School of Economics.
	And there's a huge difference.
	If you talk to undergraduates of the Warsaw School of Economics, they can talk about all aspects Keynesism, Austrian school, Chicago school, they can speak about a lot.
	And if you drift over a drink talking about Napoleon's campaigns in the peninsula, they'll know all about that too.
	So the standard of education in Poland now, at the better universities, is significantly higher than it is in Britain, and certainly America.
	So it's fascinating.
	But they are bound by their history and their attitude.
	They cannot accept now that the Soviet Union has gone.
	They can't accept it.
	Their history is so bloody and so terrible at the hands of the Soviet Union.
	They cannot accept that the Soviet Union's gone and that the Russian Federation of today is nothing like that.
	It's in their blood.
	Hostility to the Russian is in their blood, which makes it dangerous because there are Brave nation.
	My father served in the Royal Air Force with Poles as well, so they're a brave, fighting nation.
	They're very small, but they're a bit like my Jack Russell Terriers.
	They're right up for having a go.
	And this is dangerous, you know, in the Ukraine if it spills over.
	That's one of the problems.
	The Poles, when I first met them, they'd only just come into the European Union, they hadn't been there long, and they were very upset because they'd just come out of the Soviet Union side, the Warsaw Pact countries, and that, they'd just come out.
	And they saw the dangers of the European Union because the rules and regulations were very Soviet in style, and they thought, what have we joined?
	You know, what have we come into?
	It's the same when I was in last year, or a couple of years ago, I was in Budapest, and they were saying the same thing.
	They're not at all comfortable with this sort of Soviet style political union, which is the EU.
	But of course, one of the problems is, although it's condemned heavily, the old Soviet Union and the pre-war Germany, there are people, there are MEPs and bureaucrats who don't actually see the irony there.
	They are horrified that you might suggest it's a form of Soviet Union or it's a form They are horrified.
	And yet, they are totally comfortable with abandoning, for example, the Nuremberg Code, which was brought in for consent to, obviously as we all know, consent to medication and medication by force.
	They don't see that.
	And if you mention the Nuremberg Code, they will try and explain that this is not the same thing.
	Of course, it's the same thing.
	Of course, it's the same thing.
	But they can't see that.
	So it's cognitive dissonance in these people most of the time that...
	Very difficult to deal with, and of course, you can't expect a Portuguese to think like a Czech, or a Czech to think like a Greek.
	We're all different.
	That's why we go on holiday.
	Vive la différence!
	Well that will bring us quite nicely, because I think we're out of time.
	I actually was going to talk about whether the World Economic Forum is communist, as many people accuse it to be, and I was going to say that, you know, calling it stakeholder capitalist is fair, but you could also call it the mid-century Italian word, which I don't want to get us in trouble with YouTube, and also I was going to talk about the
	The notion of cultural Marxism, how it tried to be labeled as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, whereas most of the time people are talking about the ideas of the Frankfurt School and how they talked about subverting culture, so it's just applying Marxism to culture.
	I don't see there being anything inherently prejudiced in that, but I think it's just a poor term.
	I think the terms like intersectional progressive, woke, are better to redefine what is the current zeitgeist.
	There's certainly a thread of Marxism in there, they've read some Marx, but they're drawing from lots of other more contemporary thinkers, and I think that muddying the water by using terms that no longer necessarily apply or call to things that are no longer applicable is sometimes a problem, but I'm going to have to end it there because we have overrun.
	Speaking of the European Union, I think that we have a really nice progression from one segment to the other.
	There are a lot of questions about the character of this union.
	And the question is, what is this supposed to be?
	Is it just an economic union?
	An entrance into it means that a lot of the member states will have to sacrifice to a significant extent what they perceive to be in favor of their national interest and traditional values that are not economic values necessarily.
	You could say values such as community, national sentiment, national loyalty, or things like that.
	Or is it something that can take the form of a confederacy Which respects its members?
	This is one of the major questions.
	And I think that one of the really interesting things to talk about is the Polish government that suggested that there will be a referendum on illegal migrations, among other things.
	There will be four questions and illegal migration is supposed to be one of them.
	But before we say more about that, and since we're speaking about whether we can co-exist despite disagreement, you can visit the website for £5 a month you can gain access to all the premium content and watch videos such as The latest symposium I had with Josh, Symposium 32, Surviving Disagreement, where we're basically saying that disagreement is a double-edged sword.
	On the one hand, it has a connection to violent conflict, but on the other hand, there is such a thing, at least I think, and you agree with me on that, that There was quite an ironic thing of we basically agreed throughout the entire thing on disagreement.
	Yes.
	I think there are ways in which we can turn disagreement into something that is actually constructive.
	I think one thing that we should have addressed is that there are people with whom civil disagreement isn't possible, whereby if, for example, they want to tyrannize you, you can't say, I want to agree to disagree.
	I think we did address it towards the end.
	Oh, we did.
	You said that there needs to be an exercise of judgment with respect to when someone actually disagrees on good faith or not.
	Yes.
	So, we did touch upon it.
	So, one of the things that we are going to talk about is the Polish Prime Minister announced that there will be a referendum simultaneously with the next Polish elections that are the national elections that will take place on the 15th of October this year.
	Now, the major, major, major issue of disagreement here between the Polish government and arguably the Polish people and let's say some officials of the European Union is the Compulsory migrant relocation scheme that has been agreed upon by members of the EU Council.
	That's quite an Orwellian term for it as well, isn't it?
	Compulsory migration.
	It just sounds scary, doesn't it?
	Let alone the actual content of what it is.
	And let us see here a bit what it is.
	Okay, it says relocation and resettlement.
	Relocation.
	Under the emergency relocation scheme adopted by the Council in September 2015, asylum seekers with a high chance of having their applications successfully processed are relocated from Greece and Italy, where they have arrived to other member states where they will have their asylum applications processed.
	If these applications are successful, the applicants will be granted refugee status with a right to reside in the member state to which they're relocated.
	The EU budget provides financial support to the participant member states.
	And if we scroll down a bit here, it says, In May 2015, the Commission proposed a European resettlement scheme, which was adopted by the Council in July 2015, To avoid displaced persons in need of protection having to resort to the criminal networks of smugglers and traffickers, the Resettlement Programme provides legal and safe pathways to enter the EU.
	That's weird because they're already in the EU.
	This is supposed to be a scheme that concerns migration from within member states.
	So it's really weird that they write it this way.
	It's also interesting that it almost seems like they're trying to make it easier for migrants to get to Europe, in a sense, from the language that they're using there.
	They're saying, well, you're not going to have to rely on people smugglers where you're going to have to pay a large fee.
	We're just going to ferry you across and process you anyway.
	Is there any point in even having defined borders anymore when you have an attitude like that?
	Let me continue.
	It says the agreed scheme will see over 22,000 people in need of international protection resettled from outside of the EU to the EU member states.
	But the main point of contention, it's one of the main points of contention, is that there is a sort of penalty for member states for every person that they do not accept within their borders.
	And the penalty is close to €22,000 per person.
	That's extortionate.
	So they're going to financially punish people for not taking refugees, and that's presumably if you're a member of the EU.
	Wow.
	Yes.
	I've never felt so good about leaving the EU, and I already felt pretty good about it.
	Well, of course, you can't have it both ways.
	When I was in Budapest a year or two ago, I got the feeling that they didn't like the European Union at all, and neither do most Poles.
	But they are in receipt of European Union largesse.
	It's the same with the states in America who get federal aid and then complain that they can't set their own speed limits on their motorways and stuff like this.
	He who pays the piper calls the tune.
	Now, what the Poles and the Hungarians are going to have to do, and the Czechs, is say, we don't want any of your money.
	And I've always argued that it should be a form of confederation, and there should be only a modest membership fee for everyone.
	Now, I'm a member of the East India Club, for example, in London.
	And we all pay, unless you're a country member, you know, because you can't use it as much, obviously.
	You know, we basically all pay the same.
	You know, we all pay our 500 quid a year or 600, whatever it happens to be.
	So we're all equal members.
	We all look each other in the eye and we all say, what you can't have is a membership where the British pay in or we used to pay in.
	The second largest tariff of the lot with the German second and the French third.
	You know, you're either a member of a club or you're not.
	You can't have this difference in membership.
	Now, if it was modest, if it was modest membership fee, everybody in a confederation, it would be perfectly easy for people to respect that view.
	So the Hungarians and the Poles do not want their culture Uh, overwhelmed by an alien culture.
	Uh, and, uh, that, that is the long and short of it.
	They're still broadly a Catholic, uh, Poland, but it's broadly Catholic.
	It's not as Catholic as it used to be, but it's broadly Catholic.
	Uh, uh, Catholic with a small C, you might argue a bit the same as Ireland or perhaps not quite so much.
	What you can't do is you can't bring in thousands and thousands of people who have a complete, their attitude to women, their attitude to money, their attitude to, uh, almost everything is completely different.
	Incidentally, I'm not saying they're wrong.
	I'm not saying Muslims are wrong or Hindus are wrong or Sikhs are wrong in their religious beliefs or cultural beliefs.
	They're not.
	It's nothing to do with me.
	It would be an impertinence for me to suggest it.
	But you can't dump thousands and thousands and thousands in small communities where that is the case.
	And of course, we're seeing This happened in relatively small villages across Britain.
	Kegworth, not that far across there from Leicestershire.
	Irish villages, maybe with only a few hundred people, suddenly the same amount of immigrants or asylum seekers.
	But of course, they're not.
	They're not.
	These people aren't because they've already come through several countries.
	And of course, they're all nearly all male in between 18 and 30.
	And you've only got to look at the photographs of the boats and the bits and pieces to see that.
	There's another agenda here.
	We've all got to be honest about this.
	This has got nothing to do with this.
	This is what the World Economic Forum and the United Nations actually want, and that's where your ideologues who come from the Commission who brought forward this legislation.
	It is to break down borders.
	They don't want the nation-state.
	They don't want loyalty to the family or loyalty to the tribe.
	They want loyalty to a form of globalism, which, of course, they are going to run.
	They are going to run.
	So the King of England, who is a huge advocate of the World Economic Forum, one of the initial members of it, he's got Highgrove, Windsor Castle, he's got Balmoral, he's got the Queen's Flight, he's got his own private Royal Air Force jets to fly him about, his Aston Martins and so on and so forth.
	Good luck to him!
	I'm not a Republican.
	I just wish he'd be a little bit less hypocritical about it all.
	And it's the same with the rest of them.
	And Kerry, and where did he get that?
	Here.
	Frankly, you can't do it that way.
	And so this is what people are going to push back on.
	They're going to say, just a minute, this is supposed to be us, but it's not everyone all in this together.
	Well, we're not all in this together.
	And I think the Poles and the Hungarians, And the text, to a certain extent, will suddenly go, just a minute, we didn't sign up for this.
	We didn't really sign up.
	And of course, in Great Britain, it was the common market.
	We signed up for the common market.
	It was about trade.
	It wasn't about a global dissolution of Parliament and our constitutional monarchy and our parliamentary democracy and our history and all these.
	It wasn't about that.
	That was never mentioned.
	That was never mentioned.
	It was about free trade, and of course I'm a free trader.
	I was 26 at the time.
	I voted for it.
	I voted for it because I thought it was about free trade.
	I was playing rugby, drinking lots of beer, chasing girls.
	I didn't pay attention to the small print.
	More fool me, but I have since, and I know what it is.
	But most people, most people in Western Europe don't really understand what it is or what it's turned into.
	They're beginning to find out now.
	One of the most insidious things about this entire situation is that Western Europe is basically holding Eastern Europe to ransom.
	Of course, Western Europe being some of the wealthier nations and the Eastern European countries being the main beneficiaries of some of the European Union's funding.
	And so they're basically forcing these European Union member states to choose between their economy or their culture.
	I don't think it's their, they don't have the authority to pose that decision on sovereign nations.
	I think it's an appalling thing to do.
	And of course, Taking the large economic hit or the cultural hit, you shouldn't have to make that choice.
	And particularly bureaucrats in Brussels and politicians, they quite often are from other nations.
	They shouldn't be having influence over, say, Poland or the Czech Republic's politics.
	And I was actually amazed because I went on holiday to Prague not too long ago, how much anti-communist stuff was on the streets.
	It was everywhere.
	I mean, it was great.
	It was fantastic.
	For me, because I'm very much into that period of history, as well as despising the people, the communists that is, not the Czechs.
	Of course, they were all very nice to me.
	And you don't really get a measure of the undercurrent of resentment, this sort of thing.
	And if you pose it in those terms, which I think it's going to increasingly be done, that this is an imposition from a foreign power, like, you know, Moscow was dictating to Poland and The Czech Republic, or Czechia as it's now known.
	That they have to do things their way.
	And if you put it in those terms, it's going to strike a nerve because these cultures are very resistant to this sort of thing.
	I'm hoping that that's the route it's going to go down.
	But sorry, Stelios, do fill us in.
	Let me just give you some of the details about this and we're going to have a very freestyle discussion.
	So it says here, Poland unveiled a new referendum question on Sunday pertaining to the EU's policy on asylum seekers from the Middle East and Africa.
	The referendum will ask Poles if they back taking in, within quotation marks, thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa.
	As part of an EU relocation scheme, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, the referendum is set for October 15, the same day parliamentary elections will take place.
	Now, one of the things to say is that the Poles are not, the Polish people are not entirely against immigration.
	And it says here that they have received more than a million Ukrainian refugees.
	And the Central European country has been less, but it's less open to asylum seekers from Muslim-majority countries.
	So, it comes back to the issue and the rhetoric of cultural continuities and discontinuities.
	Because the Polish people, they are aware that their fertility rate, we can check it here, it's close to 1.46.
	It's quite low, yes.
	Sub-replacement.
	It is way below replacement plate, replacement rate.
	So they are aware that they do need some kind of immigration, or at least that's how they claim.
	But the rhetoric frequently stresses the idea of cultural continuities and cultural discontinuities.
	That is why they have said that, for instance, they prefer Christian populations.
	I feel like they must have some sort of solidarity with the Ukrainians because they're a former Soviet satellite state that doesn't like Moscow.
	And also there's the fact that Poland of course is a bit worried being so close to Russia and so there's a certain sense of being involved in the way in which perhaps Britain, which is not geographically located near Ukraine, funnily enough, despite what any of our politicians may try to insinuate.
	Yeah, Russia's not so much a threat to us and so I feel like when you're comparing East and West, the Eastern Europeans feel a lot more solidarity with the Ukrainians and they're also more culturally conservative as well and more religious than the West and so they I feel a stronger sense of defending their own culture, particularly against Islam, which I think is a very noble aim, because I don't think it's compatible with Western values a lot of the time.
	Yeah, a lot of the time there seem to be some Western institutions that people from, let's say, other places, they don't want to respect.
	But one thing here, why is all this important?
	It's important because Of the role that Hungary and Poland are playing together within the EU, and it shows a lot about the other countries of the EU, the other member states, and how they approach the issue of migration.
	Now, generally speaking, there is a lot of pro-migration rhetoric because the average fertility rate of the EU is close to 1.5.
	And the replacement rate is 2.1.
	So there is a lot of rhetoric that there is labor shortage that has to be covered by migration fluxes.
	But there's another question here because the issue is and what I want to raise is that we are presented with a dilemma that is not exhaustive.
	These are not exhaustive options.
	So the problem is that there is such a thing called Article 7.
	I'm sure you know much better than myself what it is.
	And it is a way in which, when triggered, it involves the suspension of the voting rights of member states.
	So what happens is that the EU Parliament has to suggest The triggering of Article 7.
	It has to vote on it.
	And then the EU Council that is composed of the leaders of the member states and I think the president of the EU Council.
	They need to have a unanimous vote about suspending the voting rights of another member state.
	And Hungary and Poland are helping each other every time that there is such a vote.
	It's not unanimous because Hungary backs Poland and Poland backs Hungary.
	So the issue is that if this government, the law and justice order does not win the next elections.
	And if they are, let's say, they continue their, the other side takes over and continues the rhetoric that is, that sort of bans or talks down to people who raise the concern of national identity and maintaining the national identity wins, if that side wins, then
	Hungary will most probably lose its voting rights because the EU Council will vote unanimously to suspend Hungary's voting rights.
	So what I want to say is that we are presented with the following dilemma.
	On the one hand, we are told that all member states should embrace illegal migration and should just accept it.
	And on the other hand, everyone that does not accept it is sort of the the black sheep, and we should basically disrespect them and prevent them from having voting rights.
	And I won't say that there is a third option.
	Maybe the whole union starts caring a bit more about establishing a kind of Western, let's say, identity, which respects the identity of the individual member states.
	And the question is whether this is something possible or it's very idealistic.
	What would you say?
	Well, I think one of the problems that we're facing, and we've been facing this for some time, decades, in my view, and that is we are confusing birth rates, we're confusing population numbers, And immigration.
	We're sort of mixing them all in the same pot.
	So, for example, the Poles aren't making enough babies.
	They need to make more babies because there's not enough Poles.
	So, let's have more immigration.
	Well, that's completely and utterly absurd.
	What are the skill sets?
	Now, one of the problems we have at the moment in this country, and Poland will be no different, or less so, is that there are lots and lots of jobs, particularly in the hospitality industry.
	There's loads and loads and loads of jobs, but there's nobody with the skill sets to actually fill them.
	That is a child, of course, of a poor education system and a welfare state.
	So nobody is incentivized to start at the bottom of the hospitality trade or the agricultural trade or whatever it happens to be and work their way to the top.
	It's easier to lie on the sofa watching daytime TV.
	So nobody actually moves on.
	So who's actually coming in?
	Now we know for a fact that the people who are coming in as illegal immigrants and so on and so forth, bring no skill set.
	They bring no skill set.
	Very, very few bring a skill set.
	They're just people here because we have a wonderful Welfare system.
	And they're going to live in a four-star hotel and they're going to get three meals a day, medical care and spending money.
	I saw recently, sorry to interject, that in Germany about 80% of the Syrian migrants they took in are on welfare at the minute.
	80%, which is absurd, but sorry.
	Exactly.
	So we're looking at skill sets.
	Now, one would immediately look perhaps across to the Ukrainian who are genuine refugees, one might say, genuine refugees.
	Yes, they're Christian, they are Christian Orthodox, Christian Russian Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
	They are going to assimilate a lot quicker into I think the days are gone when Catholics are prepared to sort of burn the Protestants and Protestants.
	I think we've moved on from that, hopefully.
	So they're going to assimilate, and I married into a Polish family with the amazing name of Skowronek, which of course is Polish for Skylark.
	And my nephew, by marriage, is now an underwriter at Lloyd's of London, was captain of Yorkshire Under-21s rugby football, and was head boy at a public school.
	You don't get a more English guy than him.
	And my father-in-law, who finished the war having commanded a tank with 1st Polish Armoured Division in Normandy.
	Was a great assimilator.
	You know, he wore a hunting coat, a hunting pink.
	He insists on buying Sherpa vans for his business, which were hopeless and always breaking down, but they were British.
	So he's more British than a British person.
	And he made his million and he sent his children to public school and so on and so forth.
	Welcome us the flowers in spring.
	Who would suggest that the West Indians in the 50s and 60s weren't welcome?
	They helped out with, you know, Transport systems, NHS, so on and so forth.
	So we've got to get in our heads, and this is something that the ideologues can't deal with.
	There are some people who are welcome, and some who are not.
	And until we start talking the truth, some people aren't welcome.
	And we've got to bung them out.
	And if they came here illegally, almost 100% unwelcome, because why didn't they go through the traditional channels, which we could spend a bit more money on?
	But there's no point in bringing people in to do jobs that the indigenous population won't do because they're lazy or stupid.
	That doesn't take you anywhere, does it?
	It's not also an incentive to become less lazy.
	Yeah.
	So nobody's allowed to speak these truths, are they?
	Nobody's allowed to say some immigrants are welcome and some are not.
	Until we can say that, we're going to get nowhere.
	It's very frustrating, isn't it?
	Because, of course, we're getting asylum seekers from countries that aren't at war, like we get Albanian asylum seekers.
	They're not at war with anyone.
	Who are they fleeing?
	I mean, normally they're just bringing a drug trade.
	That's not only a stereotype, but a statistical fact.
	And the same also applies for Turkey, because Turkey is not supposed to be a country that is hostile to migrants, but they are not honouring their part of the deal.
	They are getting money from the EU, allegedly, to hold migrant populations there, where they are not prosecuted, and they are deliberately pushing them across the Eastern Mediterranean route.
	That was a very charitable way for a Greek to talk about a Turk.
	Well done!
	And let's say this here and show another tweet and end up with a segment.
	I'll give you just some statistics.
	This was a survey that was done, a study by the question mark social research office on a representative sample on a thousand adult Poles.
	And basically it says as little as 5.8% of Poles support the European Union's new migration deal.
	A vast majority of polls oppose the EU concept of the Migration Pact and mandatory quotas of migrants relocated, with 81.4% of respondents definitely or rather against these solutions.
	And at the same time, only 12%, 12.8% consider the EU proposal migration scheme rather reasonable, and only 5.8% were definitely in favor of it.
	So it doesn't seem, according to this study, obviously, it's according to this study, it doesn't seem to be very... But surely you'd get the same figures in France!
	Or Italy.
	Or Spain.
	These numbers for Poland are exactly the same everywhere else.
	It's the ideologues and the bureaucrats and fake politicians and people who want to destroy the whole system under the UN or WEF arrangements, and that's what it's all about.
	No, everybody feels the same.
	You go into any pub, get onto any bus, talk to anybody, but that's exactly how we all feel.
	So what happened to our democracy?
	I said at the very beginning, politics is a lark.
	It doesn't matter who we vote for, does it?
	What I'm particularly interested in is the ideology and the rhetoric, because the rhetoric of the EU is supposed to be pro-democracy.
	And when you're pro-democracy, you're pro the demos, the people.
	So you can't be in favor of that and simultaneously say that everyone who disagrees will have their voting rights suspended.
	This seems to be a contradiction.
	Well, it's interesting you say that, especially as a Greek.
	talking about the demos, of course, and the whole concept, the Athenian concept of democracy, to use a wonderful American expression.
	I love some of their expressions.
	You had to have skin in the game.
	And even Oliver Cromwell said that somebody gets the franchise or gets a vote because they simply breathe the air is ludicrous.
	And you'd never explain it to a man from Mars.
	He You have to have skin in the game.
	So if you're going to have a vote, if you're entitled to a vote, what are you contributing to the kitty?
	And if you go out, if we go out with some chums and we go on a pub crawl.
	We all put in £30 into the kitty and that's where the beer gets paid for.
	You don't put your £30 in the kitty, you don't get a beer!
	That's what democracy was invented for all those years ago.
	We have a headcount now in this country, in the Western Europe and America.
	If you have attained the age of 18, you get a vote.
	Can you think of more ludicrous abuse of the democratic ethos?
	And just one point to mention, because it is frequently not talked about, Pericles, who was supposed to be one of the grand figures of the Athenian democracy, was someone who wanted to restrict even more Athenian citizenship.
	You could be an Athenian citizen if you had one parent who was an Athenian citizen, and he was saying that we need to raise it up to both parents.
	So this is something that most people don't talk about.
	The issue is here that there is a rhetoric in the EU that is pro-democracy on the one hand, in words, but the substance behind their actions seems to indicate that they do not want the people to claim things such as, we care about our national identity.
	This is not allowed.
	And one person here, Guy Verhofstadt, who has written a lot about Further European integration and a kind of, let's say, United States of Europe, he says, an Orban-inspired referendum.
	This is the Law and Justice Party, is taking Poland out of the EU one step at a time, while Polish people, including the ruling party's voters, are among the most pro-European of all.
	Don't believe their party political games and lies.
	This is something that comes from the mouth of a very, let's say, esteemed European politician who That's quite charitable.
	He's the EU's biggest cheerleader, is how I'd describe him.
	I used to sit next to him in the parliament.
	He's one of the most appalling people I've ever met.
	I got that impression just by looking at videos of him.
	On any level.
	Can't even get his teeth done.
	I included this tweet for a reason.
	I think that we can end the segment here.
	Okay, so we are running out of time, so I'm going to have to fly through this segment, but I'm going to be talking about Sadiq Khan and his recent, I suppose, Rest Release, which I believe he wasn't actually a direct hand in, but the fact that this happened and it came from someone in his employ and this is the kind of thing in which emanates from Sadiq Khan is rather telling.
	That is of course, as The Telegraph Says here, Khan faces backlash after website says white family doesn't represent real Londoners.
	Although the sentiment itself, I disagree with, he's kind of, if you're looking at it objectively, correct.
	And I'm going to break down why I say that.
	Keep your pitchforks down by your side for the meantime, because I'm not agreeing with what you think I'm agreeing with.
	Here is the offending thing that was released.
	This is just a happy family, a British family by the looks of it, in London.
	You can see obviously Westminster behind the London Eye.
	And it says, doesn't represent real Londoners.
	It's sunny.
	Yeah, that's true.
	They're smiling as well, which you don't often see people in London doing.
	Sorry, I'm from the countryside.
	I've got to get these cheap shots in.
	But yes, the elephant in the room is that It's a white family, isn't it?
	That's why it doesn't represent real Londoners.
	If you were to view this in isolation, you might say that's a bit speculative.
	But Sadiq Khan has an entire background that supports this interpretation of why this sort of thing has been pushed in the first place.
	So, hang on, I need to scroll down to my notes.
	Okay, so it seems like to me that this is some sort of guidance for Sadiq Khan, a coaching.
	But there are lots of politicians that have spoke out about this.
	I just wanted to read some of the reactions within the political establishment about it.
	This is in the words of The Telegraph.
	As backlash among senior conservatives grew, Craig McKinley, an MP for South Bannett, told The Telegraph, the mayor of London has made it very clear through his selective choice of photographs to promote his office that white families do not form part of London anymore.
	It's nice to hear a conservative actually say it quite as straight as that.
	This is particularly worrying for a mayor that should be acting for all within his community.
	And I think it is indicative of the divisive nature of Sadiq and Labour's view on party politics these days.
	And I would lump the Conservative Party in that as well.
	I mean they're just as complicit if not more so considering they've been in power for What is it, the past ten or so years, if not more?
	Thirteen, isn't it?
	Lee Anderson, the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, accused Mr. Khan of dog-whistle politics, writing on Twitter, do your job, i.e.
	reduce crime, build some houses, stop robbing folk.
	I can imagine him saying in his voice.
	Susan Hall, who has been selected as the Tory candidate to take on Mr Khan in the race for City Hall next May, wrote on Twitter, All Londoners are real Londoners.
	We should be celebrating London's diversity.
	But sadly, the mayor is more interested in dividing people.
	He should apologize.
	I didn't appreciate the rhetoric at the start, but at least she's admitting there's a problem, which is my very low standard for conservative politicians these days.
	Where did this photograph come from?
	What is it?
	Is it advertising something?
	I think it was some sort of internal, okay, so it was guidance that was reported on by the Mail on Sunday.
	I only ask the question because it's fascinating.
	in real and relatable environments.
	So I think it was his press team suggesting to him, you know, this isn't real Londoners.
	Ignore these people.
	They're not important.
	I only ask the question because it's fascinating.
	I have never seen in, I don't know, maybe three years, a single commercial advert of any sort which wasn't a mixed marriage.
	I've noticed this as well.
	It's, it's unbelievably... It's actually three percent, three percent of the population.
	The Netflix couple.
	So that arguably, that doesn't represent anybody at all either, but you can't say that can you?
	In my household we have a game whereby whenever an advert comes on where there isn't an ethnic minority in, you get to drink and by the end of the night everyone's sober and it's a nice early night.
	We have a little game like that when we go on holiday because we can't recall stuff and fast forward.
	So you have to watch the commercials and certainly be sensitive.
	If I told you what we all shout at them.
	Jack, would you be able to go back to the original article and pull up some of the other things?
	Oh, here we are.
	So if you scroll down a little bit, I didn't realize that was it.
	Here's a photo that is supposedly good.
	You may notice a lack of the former, if you will, is the most delicate way of putting it.
	But these are the photos that SteakCon's team think are very good for him.
	Of course, he's there with no white British people.
	It's all ethnic minorities.
	This is supposedly the stuff that their team greenlit, which I think is emblematic of his politics, really.
	That, yes, we're going to basically ignore the people who originally inhabited in London and were driven out, more or less.
	If we move on to the census, this is why I said that he's kind of right.
	Sorry, Jack.
	I'm going to scroll down here.
	So we can't really see the tally here, but basically the dark blue is around 80 to 90% white British.
	And then you zoom into London and that's somewhat unrepresentative because that's in the majority, but you go to areas like Newham, 30.8%.
	And that's just white.
	That's not even white British.
	So of course that could mean anyone else.
	from the northern hemisphere and i know lots of people who live in london that are from other european countries for example that would be counted in this census and so the actual people who lived and grew up in london one of our very own uh though our historian um grew up near essex and of course he was within about half an hour commuting distance from london and so identifies with the city somewhat i was like We've also got Connor who's a Londoner.
	He says that loads of people and families
	have been more or less forced out by cost, particularly working class white British families have been forced out and people from abroad have come in and so when the percentages of the makeup, this is of course from the 2021 census so it's probably carried on along these lines, he is kind of, you know, his press team are kind of right that it isn't representative of London but also I think that that's kind of a bad thing that our capital city
	It's not necessarily that some of the people aren't welcome there, but it's that it's presented as this universally good thing that diversity is our strength, and these are the exact words of Sadiq Khan.
	And I think that, well no, if London and Britain isn't for the British people then who is it for?
	It's a very unusual notion but I wanted to draw attention to this because there is some degree of truth to it and if we move on to the next link Jack, here we have a video that Carl did How Britain has changed, where he went and looked at old pictures of Britain, particularly London, and he compared them to the modern day.
	And you can really see in very stark detail how things have degenerated, how the removal of British people and their culture has led to people not taking pride in their environment.
	And you can physically see it manifest in the world around you.
	I know that being based in Swindon, we get a front row seat to this thing going on in action, and where I grew up in rural Devon, this didn't happen.
	We had a very proud local community of people who all knew each other and said hello to each other.
	If I said hello to someone on the streets of Swindon, I'd probably have a hole in my liver by the end of the day.
	Anyway, let's move on to this next one, and that is that of John Cleese in 2011.
	He said London is no longer an English city, and he got a lot of flack for it, even though it is a statistical fact.
	It's not incorrect, and I think it's a very curious thing.
	Being a very old geezer, some of those black and white clips I can remember because it was, you know, my London when I grew up in the 1950s and 60s.
	And I think we need to just remember, again it's something that we're not seem to allowed to say, there was almost no knife crime in London in the 1950s and 60s.
	There was almost none.
	Englishmen didn't use knives in fights.
	I'm not suggesting they were all saints, they just didn't use knives.
	Murder rates were much less.
	Don't forget we've got plea bargaining and all sorts of things that don't go into the statistics.
	Murder was very unusual.
	A murder was front page.
	Now it's behind the crossword now.
	Old age pensioners were never attacked for their pension book or cash.
	That didn't happen and the local community would have fettled it up, I can tell you if it did happen.
	And you would never have seen, and I saw that disgusting clip that I'm sure you saw, of an immigrant defecating on the underground, on the steps going down to the underground.
	And they've actually now, I gather, there's Sort of defiance to defecate signs going up on the underground to stop people doing it.
	You don't need a sign to tell you not to do it.
	I mean, really, what kind of people are they that we've let in?
	It's positively dreadful.
	No, you're right in what you say, because no, it didn't represent London, it doesn't represent London, and you're quite right to say Well, it bloody well should.
	It should be.
	We all had, in the 50s and 60s, you would have the corner shop.
	Probably Hindu, or maybe Muslim, and welcomed, known in the community, respected in the community, and he was integrated.
	Wasn't a Christian, that's okay, didn't matter, nobody really cared too much.
	Very liberal, in the right sense of the word, England was in those days.
	No, welcome, and he stayed open when you ran out of your horseradish sauce and your mint sauce and stuff, and there was only one place open.
	So, yeah, very welcome.
	I'm not anti-immigration.
	I spoke to the Oxford Union a few years ago, so I'm not anti-immigration.
	But I am very picky!
	I do discriminate.
	We mustn't use the word discriminate.
	We discriminate.
	If you get married, you've done a lot of discrimination, haven't you?
	And your wife has done some discrimination, one would imagine as well.
	If you employ somebody at your organization, you discriminate, don't you?
	Of course you do.
	Our whole life is about discriminating.
	It's when you stop discriminating that you have a problem.
	I very much agree.
	Yes.
	So, um, one question here, because it seems to me to be weird.
	What seems to me to be tragic is that right now, a lot of people throughout Western countries, they're supposed to claim that they are, let's say, sorry for their past.
	And they are not proud to be member, to be born into the society that they were born.
	But, and I think that's pernicious.
	Well, it's also making yourself guilty for the so-called sins of your forefathers, and I suppose it depends what country you're in.
	If you're German or Austrian, it might be a bit more of a pertinent force than, say, British.
	But the issue is that when you get the entirety of a native population and you try to induce guilt to them and try to tell them that you should be sorry and you should feel guilty for your heritage, That's when there is a problem with assimilation, because we have the exact same problem in Greece.
	We have the exact same problem in Greece.
	We have huge flows and they're difficult to stop, but things are being done.
	But the issue is that when you have a sort of picky, as you said, control flow, there can be assimilation, but when there is mass, My immigration.
	And there is a creation of a ghetto.
	There are pressures that are against assimilation, let alone when we have a whole rhetoric, the diversity, inclusivity, and equity rhetoric that tells that you are supposed to celebrate this.
	And if you disagree with it on any level, you are, let's say, someone who should be Treated as an enemy of society, as a cancerous growth that should be removed.
	And I find that completely authoritarian.
	That's the problem with our traditional education.
	So, for example, if you look at the British Empire, it's fascinating insofar as that that's been denigrated now throughout all our institutions.
	And if you read Professor Neil Ferguson, the real Neil Ferguson of Jesus College Oxford's book on empire, broadly speaking, and I don't care where I say this, and I said it many occasions, broadly speaking, the British Empire was a force for good.
	And that's the long and short of it.
	All empires are flawed in some way, and the British Empire was no exception.
	But if you look at the globe now, and if you've travelled to the places I've travelled, which is, you know, an awful lot.
	That's not because I'm clever, it's because I'm old.
	I have been to so many Commonwealth countries.
	If you are British, or English, you know, whether you're in a hotel in Delhi, or wherever it happens to be, or Johannesburg, or Wherever it happens to be across the globe, which is Commonwealth, as soon as they hear you're British, they will come up to you and have a drink and talk to you.
	And you'll be made very welcome.
	Particularly in the Indian subcontinent.
	It's particularly in the Indian subcontinent, and they'll want a photograph with you as well.
	And they're beautifully dressed in their saris if you're going around wherever you happen to be.
	So not in the big places like, you know, Delhi or Bombay and places like that where there's a big commercial community.
	But if you go into smaller cities or you go into smaller towns or villages, you know, I've been paraded around a village in the Indian subcontinent just to show the head dude there.
	He wasn't I wasn't his guest.
	I was somebody down the pecking order.
	And we had my wife and I had to march around the village so he could show everybody he had some English friends.
	And people say, oh, that's because you've got money and all the rest of it.
	No, no, no, no.
	Don't ever make that mistake.
	We are welcome because we're British and that goes right across the globe, let me tell you.
	It goes right across the globe.
	It's got nothing to do with money.
	And if you get, and I've seen them sometimes, the German tourists doing this, you know, they don't like him.
	It's not because he's got money or hasn't got money or what colour he is.
	They just, they're not really, they don't treat people.
	You don't do that, as we all know.
	So it's all about the interaction with people.
	And I shared history.
	Our history within Indian subcontinent is shared.
	A lot of the same values are shared.
	And of course, it has a massive Christian population as well, which people tend to forget, and traditional values.
	And if you go around a museum, for example, in the Indian subcontinent, I can tell you a whole tribe of schoolchildren can come back without you looking.
	And suddenly you can find 30 schoolchildren behind you.
	And you don't know that because they are so well behaved.
	It's unbelievable.
	So they share some of our old fashioned values, which are worth hanging on to.
	Not just the old Royal Enfield and the Morris Oxford that they hang on to as well.
	I mean, I've had similar experiences, particularly with Indians, as you say, and people from the subcontinent, as well as people from West Africa as well.
	They've said that actually your country did a lot of good for us, which is refreshing because they're the people most sort of free to say so.
	And it's nice to actually hear nice things said about Britain.
	Exactly.
	East Africa, tea, coffee, the Indian server, the subcontinent, the railways, the sanitary systems.
	We did a lot of good, and which country woke up, okay, bad past when it came to slavery, who woke up the first and did something about it?
	The British Empire!
	30 years before the Americans, who always denigrate our empire, because mainly speaking, American scholarship, I'm sorry about this, to say this, American historical scholarship, when it comes to Europe, is woefully poor.
	Woefully poor.
	I try and keep my reading of European history to a minimum, to be fair, so I haven't exposed myself to it very much.
	Quickly, a quick aside, I was just curious, what kind of things can people in Greece feel guilty about?
	The Peloponnesian War?
	The Eastern Roman Empire?
	The left wants people to feel guilty about everything.
	It doesn't matter what it is.
	Open a history book, you should be guilty about it.
	That's their formula.
	The Greeks aren't known for their atrocities, really, are they?
	They're known for their philosophy and good food, as far as I'm concerned.
	So, where were we?
	So, ah yes, John Cleese also didn't back down from what he said, which I thought was great.
	If you move on, Jack, to his tweet.
	Some years ago I opined that London was not really an English city anymore, and since then virtually all my friends from abroad have confirmed my observations, so there must be some truth to it.
	I also note that London was the UK city that voted most strongly to remain in the EU, and this is from 2019, so this is, what, eight years on from his original claim.
	So well done to him for sticking by it, but it has been in the public consciousness for quite some time.
	But let's move back to Sadiq Khan, because I'm not done raking him over the coals quite yet.
	Of course, in 2016, he was, if you move on to the, oh yeah, Sadiq Khan did hit back and said, it sounds like Basil Fawlty, but moving on to the next one, here we have Sadiq Khan saying, there are too many white men on transport for London.
	This was in 2016.
	So yes, he does have a track record, this is him personally saying it as well, it's not just his team, saying that there's a problem with too many white people in an institution in our nation's capital, which is really insidious and gross to me.
	He's like that, who's that lady, Ali Khan, Ali Brown, Ali Barbara Brown I call her, I can't remember that woman.
	The more I look at this, the more I realize I'm looking at a man who is absolutely heartbroken he wasn't born white, and there's no reason for it.
	Don't feel like that, Sadiq.
	Don't feel like that.
	We don't mind.
	You know, don't beat yourself up every day with this kind of behavior.
	And also, there is some interesting hypocrisy here in this next one, this next story, where Farage rightfully Had a go at Sadiq Khan, I suppose is a way of putting it, after he outlined plans for a black culture event in Trafalgar Square.
	Could you imagine if there was some sort of white culture event in the centre of London?
	How bad it would be?
	This is the actual formal name of it, it's not You know, being pejorative, referring to it as a black culture event.
	That's actually how they were referring to it.
	And of course, in Trafalgar Square, very uniquely British thing.
	And I'm fine with people, freedom of association and all of that, but you can't claim to be against discrimination and then actively push it yourself.
	When it's seemingly a minority group, you have to be consistent in how you treat people.
	Can I just say that one of the saddest things of all, and being an old geezer born in 1949, up until maybe a decade and a half ago, I think racism in this country was virtually dead.
	Kids didn't care whether you were brown, black, yellow.
	Nobody cared.
	Nobody should ever care what color skin you've got.
	You shouldn't talk about it.
	It's like Morgan Freeman said.
	You're a human being.
	Nobody cares what color you are.
	And the fact that he's actually looking at people based on skin color And I can't understand with the legislation that we have in place that the police haven't been to see him.
	Because if it had been the boot on the other foot, and I was the mayor, and I would say there are too many black people on the Transport Committee, the police would have been knocking on my door.
	What is the Crown Prosecution Service doing?
	Is there one rule for him and one rule for the rest of us?
	Because I rather think there is.
	There certainly is, and I think that within the police, I've actually spoke to quite a few both retired and current police officers, to kind of get a measure for this, that enforcement is very selective.
	And I think because of the political interference in policing, a lot of the senior people in the police, the bureaucrats, if you will, are very politically savvy and they know, how do I put this politely?
	They know who's backs to scratch.
	Oh.
	You say that there's a lot of political cost with enforcing the law when the perpetrators come from particular groups.
	Well, I can tell you that it's certainly true.
	The police force is politicized.
	And let me tell you something else you may or may not know.
	You cannot be promoted above the rank of full colonel unless it's a political appointment.
	If you don't buy into LBGTPTO and all the rest of the nonsense, all that nonsense, if you don't buy into it, you finish at colonel.
	You don't get Medjugorje, you don't get a divisional commander, you don't get it.
	And you've seen the pictures of the recruitment adverts.
	That's because the senior officers are there.
	Instead of clamping down and saying, no, we don't want to do that, we're a meritocracy, the British Army is a meritocracy and always has been, always should be.
	No, I'm sorry, it's now politicised and it's the same with all our institutions.
	So I think we're slowly running out of time.
	Are we okay, Jack, to overrun a little bit for comments?
	Like 10 minutes?
	Is that right?
	Okay, cheers.
	Excellent.
	So yeah, we've got a little bit of time.
	We're almost at half past.
	I'm aware.
	It's been a good chat, so I've carried it on.
	I've really enjoyed it.
	Really enjoyable.
	So yes, there's also this, which is, I believe, a bit more recent.
	This is Sadiq Khan imposing inclusivity guidelines for the language used by his employees.
	And so you describe an illegal immigrant or migrant as undocumented or with an insecure immigration status.
	The phrase asylum seeker has been altered to people seeking asylum, which means almost exactly the same thing.
	It's just more euphemistic.
	It's like the change between coloured people and people of colour is exactly the same semantically, but it's just more euphemistic.
	It's just an unnecessary hoop to jump through.
	So, non-English speaker is no longer allowed as it supposedly implies they are flawed and defective.
	No, it doesn't.
	I can describe myself as a non-German speaker.
	Doesn't necessarily mean I'm defective, unless you're asking a German, maybe.
	Nationals from the European Union in the capital will be known as European Londoners and their families EEA citizens.
	Gendered terms ladies and gentlemen and male and female have both been dropped.
	The City Hall warns neither accommodates for non-binary people.
	What about schizophrenics who are multiple people, multi-gendered?
	Bed blockers and kids have also been dropped.
	I presume I had to look up the term bed blocker and it's supposedly like a pejorative term for people who come over like NHS tourism, but I hadn't actually encountered that.
	And kids, I don't understand that unless it's just the sort of childless bureaucratic types taking offense at the whole notion of children altogether.
	I don't know.
	There's no rationale for that one.
	But I don't understand what's wrong with kids.
	Maybe they don't like, maybe, I can't say that.
	I was going to say a joke about goats and Pakistani's propensity to enjoy them.
	I shouldn't say that, though.
	But yes, the final thing I wanted to touch on is perhaps one of the most frustrating of all, is that Khan is trying to silence scientists who questioned his claims about the ULES, which is the low emission zones within London, where is that Khan is trying to silence scientists who questioned his claims about the ULES, which is Something like that.
	To enter in there and how it's going to be, you know, the concerns are that it's very punitive for very little payoff, which many researchers came out and said that this isn't worth doing.
	We've looked at the emissions, even if we accept your premises and work with them, we've ran the numbers and they don't add up.
	And Sadiq Khan's office has basically been trying to push people to keep silent about this.
	And it's got to the point where the academics who originally published the research have admitted that the political pressure that's been applied to them means that they can't do another study like that.
	And financial pressure because he actually subsides into the tune of 300,000 a year, of course.
	He who pays the piper always calls the tune.
	And so, yes, I think that Sadiq Khan is not only clearly a racist person and numerically illiterate, he seems to be willfully and enjoying destroying London.
	And yeah, I know we're never particularly positive about Sadiq Khan, but I think that this is quite a damning look at what he's been up to.
	I honestly believe he's mentally unwell.
	I think it's as simple as that.
	I think you really have to, again, take the gloves off.
	He's not a well man, is he?
	If you look at the things he's said and where he is, he has very, very serious psychological problems in my view.
	He can't, he can't cope with his life in this country.
	Right, so on to some comments.
	We do comments from the written authors.
	That's our thing on screen, Jack, that you need to take off.
	So here are the comments.
	Brian Tomlinson, Godfrey is an overflowing pool of political knowledge.
	Sometimes you have to jump in and pull the plug.
	I'm not sure that latter phrase is particularly difficult to interpret, but I think it's a compliment.
	Oliver Thorpe says, great to see Godfrey on.
	I'll never forget the way he dealt with Michael Cripp.
	Absolute legend.
	Really like Godfrey Bloom.
	Speaks very well.
	That was JC.
	Presumably not Jesus Christ.
	Could have been.
	You never know.
	If you are a subscriber to us, Jesus, thank you very much.
	Andrew Narog.
	Wonderful having Godfrey Bloom on, it would be splendid to have him return and I very much join that sentiment.
	So on the segment, Is Communism a Threat Anymore?
	Alex Ogle, if you read this out by the time you do it won't be on YouTube so you can say Nazism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, all aspects of Socialism.
	And they all work by dictatorship and all require totalitarianism, sorry, to force, to borrow from Arendt, the banality of evil.
	This is summed up in the book Ordinary Men, where unthinking, uncritical men volunteer to join police battalions and committed the most horrid crimes.
	Ultimately, whether the politicians can see it or not, this is where we are headed if we don't encourage people to think for themselves.
	Although one could, I would say rather than they're all aspects of socialism I might say, although there are certainly elements of that, collectivism more generally is quite often a rationale for totalitarianism and I feel like that fits more neatly, although one could Certainly argue, till the cows come home, that there are elements of socialism in all of the movements you've said, but I'm probably not as well versed in history to tackle that kind of question.
	So, Shaker Silver, it goes beyond just state and business in coordination, but there are in coordination for a particular ethical agenda, which is what our states have with, sorry, It's a really small text.
	Thank you Stelios.
	Cheers for zooming in.
	We're living under a liberal faced fascism or comprehensive liberalism as Karl would put it.
	I don't disagree.
	I think it's more that we live in a sort of neoliberal state whereby it swallows up any competing ideology.
	That's why the actual structure of government and institutions over the past 20 or so years hasn't really changed that much, and yet they've been able to adopt this new form of progressivism and intersectionalism relatively easily.
	I really like the next comment by Andrew Narrow.
	He says, also an interesting point about the Black Ribbon's deo alternative name.
	Why just Stalinism?
	Lenin was every bit a monster as Stalin.
	It is interesting how much apologetics there are for Lenin.
	I know, yeah, well.
	I think Lenin was an appalling person, having actually read his writings firsthand.
	You get a feel for a person when you do that, when they talk about their innermost beliefs.
	And you can just tell that he was interpersonally a monster.
	And, you know, many accounts from within the Bolshevik party talk about him exploding at people for the most minor of disagreements.
	And when you have someone like that, you can tell that they are a control freak, a very Maladjusted person, much like Sadiq Khan, actually.
	So, should we move on to the middle segment?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So, Captain of Gravy Train, here's the question I have never heard addressed.
	In the absence of a fiat inflation welfare scam to uphold, why would we actually need replacement birth rates in the first place?
	Would a normally functioning society not be able to sustain itself through a period of decreased population growth, especially with modern technological advancement?
	I agree with the sentiment that you're expressing here, but I also think that there are lots of policies that make starting a family very difficult and also supporting multiple children for normal working people is too much of a financial strain.
	And you'll come across many people in this day and age who will say, I wanted more children, but I couldn't afford it.
	Even though both parties in the relationship are working, sometimes in quite professional jobs, and yet they can't afford to live as a family unit.
	And I think that's a catastrophic failure of policy, that it's got in the way of people doing what they've done since there have been people on planet Earth.
	Sophie Liv, I do love living in a country that pays loads of money into the EU, but because of our size, it is not enough to have a say.
	Denmark, so as to... She's just qualifying that it's Denmark.
	Yeah.
	Demand we take migrants and openly call us racist.
	Again by Sophie Liv, I do hate the we lack labor argument because there are so many useless jobs currently.
	It seems like they made jobs up just to give low IQ gender study majors.
	So just slash those jobs, free up the labor and you're good.
	They actually get to do something useful with their lives.
	To be fair, diversity and equity and inclusion is a very lucrative scam, isn't it?
	Some of them, I think the ones employed by the NHS, are on 150,000 a year, which I very much wish I was on.
	That'd be nice.
	You'd make a good diversity officer.
	Well, yeah, I'd just enforce the old values of, yeah, we're going to go on merit and nothing else.
	Right.
	The Sadiq Khan segment.
	If a Tory had done something similar, Labour would be screeching for them to resign, of course.
	Bjorn Fehrenbach.
	John Cleese was right, London is no longer British.
	I wouldn't say he's anti-white, more anti-indigenous British.
	To call us white, you'd have to lump us in with the French and Germans.
	Ewan Baker.
	I live in Kent and I've seen signs going up about defecating due to all the illegals we've been getting.
	I'm sorry to hear that.
	Yeah, you're right on the front lines there.
	And the final one, Anon Imi, why is the census map not like the weather map?
	Why is it not on fire red?
	Yeah, that would be interesting.
	What would the red signify as well?
	Would it be the red is bad because it's native Brits and the green is good because it's Diversity and our strength and all that stuff.
	I don't know how it'd be, but I suppose that's, um, what we should end on.
	We've, um, run about 10 minutes over time, but that's fine.
	Um, hopefully you've enjoyed and you've got an extra eight minutes out of us.
	So that's something I suppose.
	And it has been an immense pleasure to have you by the way, and I've really enjoyed it.
	Pleasure to be here.
	Thank you.
	And, um, thank you very much for watching and make sure to tune in tomorrow.

▲