Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 28, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:08

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #751

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello!
	I think Charlie was going a bit enthusiastically there.
	We were talking about something a moment ago.
	Welcome to podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 751.
	I am your host today, Harry, joined by special guests Charlie and Nick returning.
	How are you, Nick?
	I'm very glad to hear that.
	And today we're going to be talking about the endless Conservative platitudes and the lack of any will to actually do anything useful for the Conservatives.
	We're going to be talking about Greater Manchester's Ulez Copycat scheme, by the sounds of it, which is We did it boys!
	affecting me because sometimes I find myself at that neck of the woods and I hate you, Les, with a passion wherever it turns up.
	So that'll be interesting.
	And then I'm going to talk about how corporate America finally solves racism.
	We did it, boys.
	It turns out, just be racist to white people and racism is solved.
	That's always the solution, as far as I can tell.
	And after this podcast is done at three o'clock our time, so about half an hour afterwards, we're going to be having Lads Hour episode four, where I'll be joined by these two gentlemen.
	And then also by, I think it's going to be Connor and Rory joining again, like last week.
	And we're going to be talking about the Reddit question, and I'm sure you all know what that question is.
	And is there anything else we need to announce?
	Oh yes, and tomorrow as well we've got the Gold Tier Zoom call coming up where it's going to be Me and Connor, possibly somebody else, but if you've got a gold tier membership, make sure to tune in for that.
	That, instead of being half three like it normally is, we've pushed it back half an hour, so it'll be, well, sorry, moved it forward half an hour, so it'll be three o'clock instead.
	So, please tune in for that so that you can get a chance to talk to me and a few of the others.
	And with that, let's get into it.
	Okay.
	So, based Suella Braverman has come out and destroyed the progressives.
	She has come out and she has said that multiculturalism has failed.
	Patriots are in control, a new conservative age is rising, nothing can stop what is coming.
	Should we listen to what Miss Braverman had to say?
	Yeah, let's go for it.
	Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades.
	I'm not the first to point this out.
	In 2010, Angela Merkel gave a speech in which she acknowledged that multiculturalism had utterly failed.
	And then, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron echoed similar sentiments shortly thereafter.
	Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate.
	It has failed because it allowed people to come to our society and live parallel lives in it.
	They could be in the society, but not of the society.
	And in extreme cases, they could pursue lives aimed at undermining the stability and threatening the security of our society.
	Oh, so based.
	Thank you, Suella.
	I can't wait until the party that Suella Brotham is part of gets into power and she can start enacting these policies and reversing the mess that is modern British politics.
	And what party is she part of again?
	I forget.
	They're not in power, right?
	They're in opposition.
	Was it BNP?
	No, it certainly was not.
	No, in fact, it was the Tories.
	Do you love the fact that one of the first things that she does there is list all of these incredibly progressive politicians, Angela Merkel, David Cameron, some of her own predecessors, who've all said the same thing for 10 plus years at this point.
	Turns out, If you invite hordes and hordes and hordes of people in who do not share your same values and culture, and they are under no pressure to integrate whatsoever, it causes problems as people grind up against one another and don't learn to get along with one another.
	And yeah, that's great.
	And they didn't do anything about it.
	They've only made the problem worse.
	Why would I expect any different from you?
	Well, as Carl quite rightly points out, If only she were in government and could do something about it.
	If only she had a high-ranking position in the Home Office or something.
	So Suella Brugman is the Home Secretary.
	If anybody has the power to actually do something about this, it's her.
	On paper, at least.
	I worry when I see things like this because they say that multiculturalism has failed and they always go on about the lack of integration.
	Between communities and my solution would be well we in that case we need some kind I've seen somebody post an excellent thread about it on Twitter recently that I shared so if you go on my Twitter account you'll be able to find it because I can't remember the name of the person off the top of my head who said we can solve this problem very very easily and very peacefully if we put some kind of memorandum on immigration and then begin to
	Scale down the welfare state, add stipulations onto the welfare state that make it more difficult for people not of native British background to be able to claim on it, and then start to regulate in a way that's actually fair.
	Because a lot of these businesses that we've spoken about, Turkish barbers, the Asian nail salons, they get a lot of benefits of lack of regulation that native businesses do not.
	This would create an incentive for a lot of people who don't have any ties here anyway, don't integrate and basically use it as an economic zone, to leave.
	And then the people that do stay, because there'll be more pressure on it, they will integrate and possibly intermarry and other things that can slowly but effectively solve the problem.
	I worry that Suella Braverman is basically just going to, and the Tories, it's their last-ditch effort, in the same way that they'll probably get kicked out next year.
	And one of their last hurrahs was to pass the online safety bill and restrict speech even further.
	Thanks, conservatives.
	That will be what ends up happening with it.
	Will be to implement some ridiculous illiberal policy about forcing people into neighborhoods where the people who already live there have had no say on the matter, no awareness that this is what was going to happen.
	And basically break up communities to force people together, to force them to integrate in a way that's unnatural and probably going to lead to conflict.
	That's what I worry that this will lead to, because that's what the Tories do.
	They say, here's this problem, let's make it worse.
	That's what they do best.
	I'm a bit pessimistic on all of this, sorry.
	As you rightly pointed out, though, and as Miss Braverman herself said, she is not the first high-profile politician to say that multiculturalism has failed.
	So, in 2010, Angela Merkel came out and said...
	2010?!
	It's been 13 years.
	13 years!
	This was five years before we can take it.
	Yes.
	Yeah, we can do it, whatever it was that she said.
	David Cameron, 2011.
	Just a few months after.
	Yep.
	Nicolas Sarkozy, also in 2011.
	And as recently as 2019, the Dark Lord himself said that migrants should be forced to integrate.
	Of course, the reason given is to combat the far right and the rise of bigotry and the rest of it.
	We don't want to treat them right, do we?
	But he said that the failure of multiculturalism has led to a rise in bigotry.
	So, does it not strike you as strange that all of these very high-profile, presumably quite high-powered, well-connected individuals in the highest echelons of the ruling class can come out and say that this policy has failed, by which they essentially mean uncontrolled mass immigration with no presumption that the people who come here will integrate.
	They can come out and say that it's failed, yet it shows no signs of abating.
	Pretty weird, isn't it?
	One wonders why, one wonders why they come out and say that.
	Easy.
	The reason why they say it's because A, they know it's true.
	B, they know it's popular.
	And C, they never say they're going to do anything about it because they know they can't for many reasons, such as incompetence, such as the backlash, such as this was broken when I turned up.
	Why should I be the one to fix it?
	I can point out it's broken, but why should I take the flak to fix this system that was broken when I turned up?
	Because they're all career politicians.
	Yeah, and the interesting thing that you say about that, like you say, the career politicians, like you say, the positions that they spout are popular.
	That's why they say them in the first place.
	But it's the backlash from their peers, the sorts of people who man the front lines of The Guardian and the BBC, the people that they interact with on a day-to-day basis.
	They might have to get a few sneers from them if they were to do anything about it.
	And their precious personal reputation interpersonally with these people is far more important than their actual political goals or aims or, you know, the things that they say that they're going to do.
	I'm not sure that's the case.
	I really believe that the people who say these things believe it and want to change it.
	Just like I want to be a millionaire, but I don't know how to do it.
	And it's just because, and that's what they're doing.
	They see what they want and they know they should change it, but they have no idea how to change it with the tools, resources that they know they can control because they can't control the civil service.
	They can't control many of these NGOs and they know they can do nothing.
	So all they can do is platitudes, hoping to get some votes, hoping to be elected again.
	We need to clear them out.
	Clear them out.
	Yes.
	But we'll get on to some more of the platitudes that the Toys have given in a moment but I did just want to give, I thought we would give our two cents on multiculturalism as if you know, as if you won't know what we think about it.
	I think that it's basically inverted colonialism where you know you invite in people from other lands to set up enclaves in your country because that is in multiculturalism literally the basis of it is that there won't be integration and that there will be this this kind of patchwork where there's sort of there's the there's the Pakistani bit here and there's the You know, uh, Nigerian bit here and there's the Polish bit here and the English bit here.
	Well, you are right.
	The term itself is quite a spectacular misnomer because you assume that the multi-culture blends together to create a larger culture that incorporates elements of all different forms of them.
	Perhaps in some places it could, but generally if you want to do that, once again, you need some kind of overwhelming state power that I wouldn't be happy with to force people to do that.
	You would need something like the Southern American conquistadors enforcing a law of miscegenation to force people to basically create a new race that will share a monoculture that's mixed up between different cultures.
	That's not anything that I want to do.
	That's not anything I want to be forced to do either.
	And so what you end up with is just separate cultures that don't form anything else other than...
	depending on the cultures that you're forcing to live in coexistence with one another, can create massive conflict.
	If we were being inundated with Japanese people, we probably wouldn't have as much conflict because they seemed overall to be a very peaceful people.
	I was going to say, apart from that moment in the mid 20th century... These days I'm talking about, but it would still cause problems, it would still cause this lack of cohesion that would leave people feeling as though they don't live in a society that reflects them or caters to them.
	That brings us quite nicely onto an excellent book written on this topic which is Paul Gottfried's Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt.
	I think his analysis in this book is very useful for us on this topic because he basically talks about how A multicultural society necessitates a kind of what he calls a therapeutic state, which sort of engineers the citizens that live beneath it into being these kind of perfectly atomized consumer units instead of countrymen, basically.
	Because the multicultural condition, i.e.
	people from very disparate, random places being placed in a locale and expected to live together peacefully, is a pretty ahistorical and unnatural state of affairs so it does require this kind of top-down imposition on you to change you into the type of person that is capable of living in such a society but another thing he highlights is that multiculturalism kind of tend towards what i'm going to call uniculturalism which is it's not that it goes towards one
	It does kind of become a single culture, but it's a single culture that's defined by a lack of culture.
	It's the flattening down of all of these different cultures into just being basically pure consumerism.
	Because the people living in the area, the only things they have in common really is that they need to eat, they need to sleep, they need to breathe, right?
	You can have your union flags while at the same time having your other cultural platitudes from other countries, as long as you can all sell it as a knick-knack in a corner shop.
	Yeah, and so it just tends towards this kind of, again, this atomized consumeristic society in which the promise of multiculturalism sort of collapses into the erasure of all culture.
	Anyway, on to some other platitudes that the Tories have given over the years, because this is the latest in a line of many conservative politicians coming out and making kind of right-wing statements, you know, red meat for the voter base, and then never actually doing anything about it.
	So quite recently, well actually on Monday...
	Connor, Dan and I covered the sort of conservative containment or the containment the Conservative Party represents.
	Looking at some of the openly left-wing things that the conservative politicians have said.
	Like, for example, Theresa May coming out and saying, I'm a proud woke woman recently.
	Which was quite shocking.
	Congratulations.
	But I think there is... No one is surprised.
	Indeed.
	There is more to say on this issue because it's, I think the more interesting phenomenon is when, and the kind of the actual, the actual vexer of containment is when conservative politicians come out and say things like the thing that Suella Brothman has said recently.
	So, for example, there's this Guardian article that nicely compiles all of the occasions on which Tories have flirted with far-right rhetoric, as they put it, by which they mean just saying things that most people agree with.
	Not being a complete leftist is what they mean when they say such things.
	It's bullying slurs, essentially, to throw at people to try and bully them into doing what you want.
	So there was Suella Brafman again coming out and speaking about cultural Marxism.
	Goodness, that's spicy.
	The Guardian call it anti-semitic for some weird reason.
	But this, you know, again, this is good rhetoric.
	This is the type of things that people in our circles talk about.
	Cultural Marxism is not a term that's used as much these days, I would say.
	But in terms of the... It's lost a bit of its prevalence.
	Yeah, it's become quite mainstream, but it's... Whatever they meant by cultural Marxism, they just mean when they say woke these days, I would say, probably.
	Yeah, but again, this is good rhetoric coming from Suella Brafman.
	I mean, does she believe it?
	I think it's entirely possible that she does.
	Nick, you sort of, I think you were making the case that she probably does believe this stuff.
	I think she does.
	Yeah.
	I just, I think she knows she can't do anything about it.
	Yeah, so there was this, again, pretty solid rhetoric.
	There was a former Tory Justice Secretary condemning, well, it was actually Priti Patel and Boris Johnson saying about lefty lawyers and do-gooders, preventing them from getting things done, like for example the boats crossing and that sort of thing.
	Apparently this was dangerous rhetoric and may provoke violence according to this chap.
	But again, it's fairly good rhetoric coming out of the Tories, them saying about lefty lawyers and do-gooders and all the rest of it.
	And there was this occasion where a Conservative MP was part of a Tommy Robinson group on Facebook.
	My goodness, how very controversial.
	And there was also Nadine Dorries, who quote-tweeted a Tommy Robinson tweet.
	So again, flirting with genuinely right-wing ideas.
	I mean, wasn't Tommy Robinson, didn't he post his political compass test and prove to be a pure centrist?
	Man, he's literally just a centrist.
	Directly in the middle.
	Shockingly, some centrists don't like the idea of foreigners coming over and sexually abusing little girls, but... Wild.
	I don't know, terrible.
	And then there was Jacob Rees-Mogg promoting an AFD video.
	And the AFD obviously being the second incarnation of the National Socialists.
	The greatest threat to democracy that Germany has seen since whatever party is in power right now.
	Threatened to take away their ability to run.
	Hence you have to ban them.
	Because that's how you protect democracy, is by banning politics.
	All this is the Guardian.
	Yes.
	Oh yeah, yeah.
	It is all the Guardian.
	But it was just useful because they have very kindly compiled all the occasions on which conservative politicians have settled on things that are signaling in our direction, let's say, but they're never actually done anything.
	Very hawkish with this stuff, the Guardian.
	It's the same with the independents.
	Yes.
	And then you have some other instances like, for example, Lee Anderson recently telling asylum seekers who don't like the conditions in which they're being held to F off back to France.
	Again, another bit of red meat for the voter base.
	You had, obviously recently, the Conservatives coming out supposedly against net zero, saying expensive insulation upgrades, we're not going to do that, no taxes on eating meat, no sorting rubbish into seven bins, no compulsory car sharing, and no new taxes to discourage flying.
	We're on your side guys, we don't believe in this globalist agenda.
	We're actually going to add five years on to the end of the goal, however much it was.
	So again, signalling to the right, signalling to actually conservative people, and obviously the stop the boats rhetoric.
	So the point is, the point that I'm making, is that the conservatives do have a track record of saying right wing things, saying actually conservative things.
	But then you look at their actual, you look at what is happening under their rule, what has happened over the last 13 years, and it's been some of the most radical change this country has ever seen, literally over the course of thousands of years.
	Is purely the rhetoric and the empty statements that platforms like The Guardian and The Independent and those like them and those who read them, will always recite religiously to say that the Tories are the most fascistic far-right party this country has ever had.
	Because they've read a Guardian article, and they've gone on Twitter, and they'll repost the headline of the Guardian article, because they've only read the headline of it.
	And then maybe they do.
	Maybe they do know, realistically, that they're taking part in a large dialectic, and that they know that the conservatives don't actually do anything.
	And it's basically just a bit of fun so that they can annoy people on Twitter.
	Similar to, but at the same time, I don't know, maybe I'm giving the left a bit too much credit when I imply that they might be able to effectively troll people online.
	They've not been good at it in the past.
	But they don't ever seem to interrogate what they see written in the Guardian with what they see in reality.
	That like you say, that nothing ever changes, that things continue to get worse, the policies that people vote against stay in place or get strengthened.
	That's not their job.
	Their job is to support their team.
	So they're shouting for their team, even if they read the Guardian headline and they know it's rubbish.
	It's my team.
	I'm reporting it.
	I'm talking about it.
	I'm going to shout it.
	It's their team.
	But two points there.
	I mean, one, it is wild to think that the people who, you know, the average Guardian consumer, it's amazing to me that they can't recognize that the Conservative Party is their party.
	They're doing all the things that your average Guardian reader would want.
	I would wager the Conservatives are doing most of it.
	What has the Guardian said about Excel bullies recently?
	That whole news story felt like such a distraction.
	Such an attempt at a big, high-profile thing to take people's eyes off of the issues that matter.
	Yeah.
	But as you said, there is always in waiting a mob of screeching regime foot soldiers to come and give these incidents the stamp... Or bots.
	Or bots.
	It might just be bots a lot of the time.
	Yeah.
	Giving these incidents the stamp of approval saying that this is truly bona fide Nazi rhetoric and all the rest of it.
	So for example, you had this piece in the eye saying that Fox News style rhetoric has overtaken the Conservative Party.
	You know, where they are talking about anti-net zero and stop the boats and all this sort of thing.
	So according to this chap, Mr. Andrew Naughty.
	Interesting name.
	Just imagining him being named in registration at the beginning of class every morning.
	Mr. Naughty!
	Are you in Mr. Naughty?
	So there's articles like this, there's also this one, European Conservative Parties are out of ideas but absorbing the far right isn't the answer.
	And he does talk about the Conservative Party in this article.
	I'm being plagiarised, that image is stealing my style right now.
	Tired, miserable, windswept.
	But there we go, you know, again in this instance it's the Guardian giving the kind of rhetoric the Conservatives use, the kind of stamp of approval, by which I mean they are saying that it is far-right rhetoric and all the rest of it.
	There is this as well, so this was in response to a Yom Kippur celebration by the Tory Twitter account.
	This chap says, the irony of this gaslighting fascism.
	So I'm not going to take anything from that Twitter account.
	We've found shoe on heads alt, guys.
	So, yep.
	There was this diatribe by this chap, which I'm going to read out because it's pretty wild stuff.
	This guy says the highly... just by the way, so this is in response to Breitman saying about how multiculturalism has failed.
	I see a blue heart and an EU flag.
	Well, I was going to say there's a handle, so let's carry on.
	German flag, EU flag, tick.
	So the highly right-wing rhetoric in this statement forgets that even she can now be stripped of her citizenship if she is found to have become a disgrace by her Tory party.
	I think she's married to an Englishman, isn't she?
	I think so, yeah.
	Don't aim too high and take it too far, Braverman, because once nationalism is fully inflamed, you'll be the first target of the right.
	Surprised?
	I know what I'm talking about coming originally from a country that caused suffering across the globe just 85 years ago, and believe me, Braverman, those who think they can save themselves by siding with the Nazi perpetrators and spill out their toxic right-wing propaganda while actually being part of the minority they were elected and paid for to protect will be the first to go to prison once 1984 is completely executed.
	You'll be surprised, Braverman, what your right-wing Tory Lords are capable of.
	They are laughing at the fact someone like you is acting that way.
	Get out of politics, Braverman.
	You don't deserve to be near this high UK office you hold.
	You are undignified to the core.
	Shame, shame, shame on you.
	That's a chat GPT, I feel like that.
	If you just said, write me a rambling leftist diatribe about Zoella Braverman, this is what chat GPT would spit out for me.
	But the point I'm making by showing these tweets is that there are, I mean, I think this guy genuinely believes what he's saying.
	Right, this is not like an act.
	He thinks that Suella Braverman genuinely is like a Nazi, and that the Tory party are genuinely a far-right party.
	And it's to the regime's advantage that people like this exist, because they can then kind of push this kind of messaging, saying that the Tories are in fact this really far-right party, when actually if you look at what they're doing, e.g.
	1 million immigrants last year.
	I think it was 1.2 gross.
	Making my point for me.
	You can tell that the Tory party are anything but.
	They are a far left party, if anything.
	I'm just going to leave that on the screen.
	What is there even to say about this?
	I think I'm belabouring the point a little bit now that there are these people out there who genuinely believe this.
	Yeah, again, EU flag in the name.
	Not so long ago this would have been a speech from a far-right fringe party.
	These are the toxic values now at the heart of the Tory party and the UK government.
	And finally, oh, that's my Twitter.
	Never mind, that must be the last one I had.
	Oh, okay.
	So anyway.
	The point that I'm making with all of this is to say that the Conservative Party have a habit of coming out and saying things and signaling to the right, signaling to actually what is probably the majority of the country, the things that they're saying, like, for example, multiculturalism has failed.
	Yet what they do in practice is literally the complete opposite of these things.
	You know, if they believe that multiculturalism had failed, they would act on that, but they don't act on that.
	They act in the opposite direction, which suggests that they think multiculturalism is working.
	And whether that means it's working towards a genuinely multicultural society or towards something else, like, you know, the kind of agenda that they might have, by which I mean the flattening of all cultures and turning all of the citizens of this country into kind of atomized anywhere people, perfect consumer sort of economic units.
	Who's to say?
	But the point is I think you should always look at politicians actions and not listen to their speech because their speech is rarely trustworthy and that has been the case certainly since Tony Blair in this country because he was the master of that signaling to the right and then actually acting you know in his behavior as a radical leftist.
	It's been like that for thousands of years.
	If you read what the Romans wrote about their politicians in the Senate, nothing changes.
	Politicians lie.
	Politicians are untrustworthy.
	Politicians are incompetent or corrupt or inadequate.
	We have the same problem all the time with our politicians.
	Absolutely.
	So the actual function of the Conservative Party in British politics is to contain and dissolve any genuinely right-wing energy and they are the ultimate and final barrier To any meaningful change happening.
	So, um, it's quite a great man.
	Clear them out.
	Next section.
	Would you like me to control this for you?
	Yes, please.
	I can't do two things at once.
	Um, so I'm going to talk about Manchester, Greater Manchester's Clean Air Zone.
	So for people who don't know what it is, it's basically Greater Manchester's version of the ULEZ.
	Except in Greater Manchester, it's being targeted at commercial vehicles only to begin with.
	Okay, so what the category of commercial vehicles, what would that include?
	So we're looking at £10 a day for a van, £7.50 a day for a taxi, and up to £60 a day for a lorry.
	So this sounds like a charge on working men then?
	It's a charge on businesses.
	And who's going to pay for that?
	Will pay for it because they're going to have to put their prices up.
	Now, a bit more complicated than that.
	So at the moment we've got clean air zones in many places across the country.
	Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield.
	Bath, I just went to over the weekend and was this close, this far away from the sign where it said it starts now.
	So I had to turn around because no chance I'm paying for a ULES zone.
	Yep.
	Well, Birmingham, it's the city centre of Birmingham.
	So a very small place, which is congested.
	Most city centres are.
	I can not agree with that but I can understand it.
	In Greater Manchester we went, oh no, we're going to cover all 10 councils.
	The whole of Greater Manchester.
	And part of that is countryside.
	Fields and sheep and cows.
	It's not even just the city.
	It's the whole of the region.
	The whole of Greater Manchester.
	I spend quite a bit of time in Manchester and if you drive into the centre of the city, like anywhere, it's going to be massively congested because the streets just weren't built for that kind of traffic.
	But will this include the Ring Road going around it as well, which is normally actually very easy to travel around?
	No, the Ring Road is classed as a motorway and doesn't come under the ULES.
	Oh, okay.
	The Ring Road itself, but before the Ring Road and after the Ring Road.
	I was going to say, but the roads leading to it.
	Okay, alright, that's a distinction without a difference there, isn't it?
	Exactly, exactly.
	Now, we've been asked this question before about did we want a congestion charge in Greater Manchester.
	If you click the next link.
	And it was a decade ago and we said no.
	The whole of Greater Manchester was asked and 79% of people voted we didn't want congestion charge in Greater Manchester.
	Nobody wants a congestion.
	So what did the government do?
	What did our politicians do?
	They did what they always do.
	They went away.
	Think right, got the wrong result.
	We're not going to ask him again.
	We're going to rebrand it.
	So we're not going to call it a congestion charge.
	We're going to call it a clean air zone.
	That sounds nice.
	Because who's, who's against clean air?
	We'll bring it back and we won't do a referendum.
	So that's how we've got this now.
	Um, so it was also the government So it was a Tory government again.
	Let's go back to Tory governments.
	Let's not just blame the Labour Mayor for this in Greater Manchester.
	This was a directive from the Tory government who said to Greater Manchester, you need to clean up your air, Greater Manchester.
	And Greater Manchester said, well, okay, show us the data.
	So they showed him the data.
	So Greater Manchester is made up of 10 councils.
	Manchester, Salford, Wigan, Rochdale, there's 10 of them.
	Out of the 10, the data said eight of them has, at some parts, have unclean air.
	Two of them are perfectly fine.
	So if you live in Wigan or Rochdale, your council's joined this scheme Voluntarily, because they wanted to.
	They weren't asked to join.
	They didn't need to join.
	They said, we'll come in this, you can charge our businesses as well.
	So they joined.
	And the reason why we had the scheme imposed upon us was because of a charity called Client Earth.
	Client Earth took the government to court over an EU directive and said, this airs dirty.
	You're failing the EU directive.
	When was this?
	This 2017.
	After the referendum, but we'd not left the EU at that point, so directives were still had to be followed.
	But it's just funny how we've left the EU and we're still trying to implement EU directives that we have full control over now.
	Then the signs went up, the signs went up in beginning of the year 2022.
	All over Greater Manchester, ULEZ on the 1st of, I think it was the 1st of May, charges will apply and everybody went, Clean Air Zone?
	What's that?
	What am I charging for?
	So people locked into it and within two months a Facebook group called Rethink the Clean Air Zone Greater Manchester got somewhat like 60, 70,000 members in a couple of weeks, all angry about it.
	Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, lost his bottle, it's his plan, and he went suspend this, suspend this, I can see this ruining my career, this, and the whole thing, the way the Project One's unlocked is his idea.
	If we have the next step, so that's what the signs look like in Manchester.
	And now every sign in Manchester has another sign on top of it saying currently suspended.
	That's the thing that I've found quite pleasant when I have been going to Manchester recently is that I drive in and I realise that oh I don't actually have to pay this.
	Unlike some of the cities like Bath and Bristol and other places I can avoid having to pay anything if I go to Manchester.
	So if we have the next one.
	So this was Andy Burnham who spent years trying not to talk about it, who had to admit in a debate that charging was his idea.
	So he got directed by the government who gave him choices.
	The very last choice was if you do all these things and your air doesn't get clean and you do these things your air doesn't get clean, eventually you can charge people.
	So he just went Let's charge people.
	I'll do that one then.
	Because I want that money in my coffers because I've got loads of pet projects that are going to make me look like King of the North.
	I'm going to look amazing with this extra two, three hundred million a year.
	I want the money.
	So it was his idea.
	He's admitted it.
	His idea.
	So it got suspended.
	So where are we now?
	We're in limbo.
	We've been in limbo now for like 18 months.
	And he's been very quiet apart from today.
	I can't believe.
	Oh, really?
	As you're about to come on and talk about this?
	Because he's scared of me now because I'm running against him next year for mayor.
	So he's heard I was coming on and he went, I need to phone the BBC, get the BBC here.
	I need to do an interview with the BBC and he's done one this morning.
	Really?
	So what's he said today?
	So today he said, I'm not going to implement any projects that will charge motorists.
	No congestion charges and no clean air zones.
	Right.
	What is he going to do if the government's given him a mandate?
	I've only seen clips at the moment.
	So, um, that's what he said today.
	So he's only got three choices.
	If you really think about it, he could either lock, don't forget the project's been paid for.
	They reckon he's spent a hundred million so far on cameras, contracts, signage.
	You can imagine setting up for the whole, how expensive that is.
	Yeah.
	Greater Manchester, once again, is an enormous area that takes in a lot of the Northwest Zone.
	Exactly.
	So, the infrastructure's there.
	It's all been built.
	It's been there a year and a half, doing nothing.
	So, he either goes live with it, which he's now said he's not going live.
	So, that one's gone.
	He can scrap it.
	Completely.
	That's what he's hinted at today or what I think is well again what he said today means this one won't go on either.
	There was a chance he could make the scheme smaller and just say I'm only going to concentrate on the city centre which I'm against but would make sense.
	I can sort of get that one.
	To be honest it sounds like the guy can't be trusted because it seems like he's just going like by moving with the political wind whenever it's convenient.
	It goes back to your point your segment It's all to do with career politicians.
	What do I want as a career politician?
	I forget, what do I want?
	Get re-elected.
	That's it.
	That is my job.
	So if my job is stacking shelves at Asda, all I care about is stacking shelves when I'm at work because that's my job.
	He's a career politician and to have the word career in front means I just want to get elected every three, four years.
	So he'll do anything to stay in post or Or maybe it's come an MP and Prime Minister.
	The whole idea of the career politician is basically you're going to be the figurehead of a large PR campaign at all times.
	That's really what you're doing.
	So, I've got to change this a little bit now because he's just come on air and said it.
	He's ruined you.
	He has.
	So, if he's going to scrap it, which he says he's going to, he's going to follow my plan, which this is how I would scrap it if I was elected Mayor next year.
	The first thing we'd do is we'd look at the data.
	The data they've used for the CAS, the Clean Air Zone, came from 2018.
	So data's five years old to begin with.
	So, Can we go back and look at that?
	Well, they did.
	They looked at it last year, 2022.
	Out of the 10 air vias in Greater Manchester, four of them now have completely clean air.
	So that's 40% of the air via that doesn't need a clean air zone, according to their own data.
	One of the air vias One of the testings, there's a dozen stations in each area to see how dirty it is.
	In one area, in one council area, one of the tests came back that only one of them was 1% over the limit.
	So really that's fine.
	So there's half of the cars now gone, we don't need it.
	The others had certain pockets, mainly along the trunk roads going into main commercial areas like city centres.
	So we can challenge the data, And we could actually say, well, we're going to clean up the air on that trunk road and we're going to get rid of the diesel buses and we're going to use some of our electric buses.
	Problem gone.
	You don't need to charge people.
	That's how I would do it.
	And then you could also look at the EU Directive and take the government to court saying, why are we following the EU Directive?
	We left the EU anyway.
	When we left.
	So that's what I think he's going to do now.
	Just very quickly then Nick, you said he's already spent about £100 million on setting this thing up, so is that just £100 million down the toilet then?
	Down the toilet?
	Oh yeah, that's what these always do.
	It must also scare them when they see that, oh we've already implemented this huge infrastructure, we've spent all of this money, what's going on in the boroughs of London where they've already implemented EULAs, where you've got the Blade Runners who are basically doing a campaign of civil disobedience to try to vandalise all of these.
	Whatever your thoughts on that, the people in charge now are probably thinking, well, if we do it here, there will probably be similar cells of people pop up and do the same thing over here.
	So no matter what they do, it's basically a hundred million pounds down the toilet.
	Exactly.
	And that's what we, that's the next fight now for next year is to hold them accountable for the waste of public money.
	A hundred million down the drain.
	He didn't really ask the people about the Clean Air Zone was snuck in.
	Yeah.
	They did a consultation.
	They know it's an unpopular policy.
	Yeah.
	They did a consultation during COVID and spoke to less than 5,000 people.
	In all of Greater Manchester?
	The whole of Greater Manchester.
	When you look at the people they spoke to, they were people from the Cycling Association, There's Green Earth.
	They were from the lot, the people you'd imagine they actively went to and spoke to.
	They formed a council of the most insufferable people in the country, headed by Jeremy Vine, presumably, and then they asked their opinion on it.
	Yeah.
	And then got the result they wanted.
	I used to work for the council.
	We never ever did a consultation that we didn't know the answer to.
	Because to do a consultation for a project that starts in a couple of months time, you have to- It has to be, yes.
	You have to have made that decision two years ago!
	And when he made that decision, he signed contracts.
	We don't know the get out clauses of these contracts, but you know, they'll be stiff, you know, cause you're a CCTV company and well, I'm not going to sign a contract with you for on a monthly basis.
	I'm investing this.
	I want a five year contract off Greater Manchester.
	So there'll be get out clauses there, which is going to cost us even more than a hundred million.
	Now, what he may say.
	He never talks about crime.
	He's like risk averse for crime.
	And what you don't know is the Mayor of Greater Manchester is also the Police Crime Commissioner of Greater Manchester.
	He's got two roles there.
	So he never talks about crime.
	He could say I'm turning over all the CCTV cameras to the police because they're all obviously equipped with ANPR.
	So you could say that could be crime reduction, anti-terrorism.
	Some people won't like that because why are we being spied on even more now with our cars?
	Pretty dystopian.
	Yeah.
	I'm not sure where I sat on that because I do see the crime reduction advantages of that, but that's not what the cameras were paid for.
	So he needs to be held accountable for the hundred million it looks like he's going to waste.
	He will say it wasn't my fault.
	It was government made me do it.
	No, no, no, no.
	The government told you to clean up the air.
	Everything after that was your choice, your project, your cameras, your charging.
	That was all you.
	We asked you to clean up the air in certain pockets.
	That's all we did as a government.
	So it'd be interesting to see what he does.
	But what I'm saying running for mayor is get scrap day one.
	So we'll not be implementing it.
	We'll be challenging the data.
	We'll be getting rid of it.
	And as you two gents know, this isn't the war.
	This is one battle in the war.
	The green, eco-green lunatic war will still rage.
	And what I'm going to do for Greater Manchester, to make sure we don't get in this position again, I'm going to appoint a Motoring Czar.
	If you want to appoint somebody, you'll attend all the meetings, all the mayor meetings, council meetings, look at all policies, all new policies will be submitted to them as well, and they're going to vet how hard this is going to hit motorists.
	Because I'm tired of motorists always being the Antichrist.
	Something goes wrong, motorists!
	We need some more money.
	Let's tap up the motorists again.
	The motorists need to get a fair deal.
	They need to pay their way, which they're doing more than that at the moment.
	But they need to pay their way, they need to be treated with some respect, and they need a better deal off government.
	Hence a motoring's ad.
	It's not an infinite, unending spring either, because for people, for younger people especially, it's getting more and more expensive to even get a car in the first place, to be able to save up and afford all of the insurance, and then all of these added charges.
	Charges on top.
	Not to mention the cost of petrol and diesel.
	Yeah.
	I mean, this is all part of what I assume is the plan, which is to ensure that people, it's restrictive to be able to start owning a car and maintain owning a car to try and reduce people's ability to move around as well as to hit clean air goals and such.
	But that just means that, okay, as time moves on, this tap that they keep going to will run dry.
	Yeah.
	And part of this is to force you on public transport.
	The mayor of Greater Manchester just launched a B network.
	We've now taken back into public control all our buses in Greater Manchester.
	That ain't going to work out well, I'll tell you that for nothing.
	But he's plowing millions, hundreds of millions into that on the assumption that his finances only work if bus passengers increase over the next six years by 30%.
	I can't see that happening.
	So they need that amount of people going onto this public transport just so that they can make up the money?
	Yes, yeah.
	Hence why we need to penalise car drivers to get you on the yellow bus in Greater Manchester.
	All these plans are sort of interlinked and we need to be speaking to the public.
	I want to say to the public, we're not going to have this if you don't want this.
	Do you vote for this?
	Well, you can have it.
	I disagree with it, but you can have it.
	We don't vote on it anymore now.
	It's all through the back door because they're tired of asking us our opinion because why?
	We always give the wrong answer.
	So this next mayoral election that you're standing in essentially is a referendum on all of these bad decisions that people like Andy have been making for years at this point.
	Exactly and I go one step further.
	I'm going to give the people of Greater Manchester a referendum on if they actually want the role of Mayor.
	Well that was a thing, it was a Blair, it was a new Labour position that was created wasn't it?
	No, it was George Orbon.
	Oh sure.
	Tories again.
	What a surprise.
	Still Blairites.
	Never asked, it was imposed upon us and people in Greater Manchester Quite negative towards it, as in, we were never asked.
	And we've got this guy ruling us now.
	We're never asked.
	I'm going to give them a referendum.
	If you don't want the role, we'll scrap it.
	And we'll give Westminster a headache about how they scrap it, what happens to their powers.
	But if the people say you don't want it, well, scrap my job.
	I'm not in it to be mayor.
	I'm not in it to be a politician.
	I'm in it for change.
	So if you don't want a mayor, Then let's get rid of the position.
	It's very noble.
	Yeah.
	It's the words of a man who actually cares about Manchester and greater Manchester and wants it to be a wonderful place for people to live.
	Yep.
	And back to your, your section.
	It's about incompetence and cowardice.
	I'm just tired of it.
	I am.
	I'm just tired.
	It doesn't take much to make change.
	It just takes some great determination and not being a coward and not putting your career first and your feelings first.
	I want to put the region first.
	I'll do the heavy lifting and the people who come after me then will have an easier job and can do some good changes.
	But the heavy lifting needs to be done first.
	And I don't mind doing that.
	So that's me.
	So if you live in Greater Manchester, vote for me next year.
	And where can people find you?
	Find me all over social media.
	Nick Buckley MBE and my web page is being developed at the moment.
	And if you've got some money to throw at me, go on Democracy 3.0 and you can make some, you can make financial donations there.
	Anyway, we've got, yeah, we've got the Twitter account here.
	YouTube channel.
	Yeah, I'm on everything.
	You're on TikTok, my goodness, reaching out for the youth.
	Well, yeah, I joined three weeks ago and actually it's doing really well.
	I don't go on it until what anyone else puts on it, but I put my stuff on it and And that one got 23,000.
	The other one's got 60,000.
	Piccadilly Gardens.
	I've spent a lot of time at Piccadilly Gardens over the years and there's some worrying videos that I've seen coming out of it recently where there have been very, very young girls hanging around with people.
	Drug dealers.
	Yeah, drug dealers.
	Drug dealers and obviously these girls are below age and then the police are standing around just watching it happen and then people who go up and confront say, what are you doing?
	They're the ones that get taken over by the police.
	It's absolutely absurd.
	What I tried to get the police to do when I was based in police stations was, it's called prevention.
	Don't wait until those suspected criminals do something with these girls.
	Intervene now.
	Speak to them.
	What are you doing?
	Why are you here?
	You girls need to get on.
	In fact, girls, I'm taking your names, address, I'm speaking to your parents.
	Yeah, that's a more responsible way of dealing.
	That's how you police an area.
	You don't police an area And wait until someone commits a crime.
	It's too late then.
	Get in early.
	Get your presence known.
	That's how we police Piccadilly Gardens.
	It just makes sense.
	I've been reading Peter Hitchens' Abolition of Liberty where he's speaking about the changes in the police force and seen a few of his clips where he's very, very hard on the fact that the way the police operate these days is that, like you say, they wait for things to happen and then they respond.
	But it's not like you can be You can be un-robbed.
	You can't have your house un-burgled.
	I've known people where these things have all happened, but if there had been something preventative in place in the first place, then you wouldn't have to have worried about being in that situation anyway.
	You've got your Facebook page moving on, and also Instagram, so yes.
	Yeah, I'm on everything.
	Please, please follow Nick so that you can give him support in his run for role of Mayor of Greater Manchester.
	Yep, thank you.
	All right, let's move on to the next one.
	John's just going to get it up here.
	Alright, so are we all excited that racism has ended?
	It's finally been done!
	People have been trying to deal with this for a hundred plus years, possibly even longer than that.
	Who knows how long people have been trying to deal with racial conflict?
	As long, well they've been dealing with it as long as there's been white people.
	Yeah, as long as there has been conflict between people of different backgrounds in the first place, then there's been people trying to solve it.
	And it seems that corporate America is finally doing it.
	It comes from the most unlikely of places.
	Corporate America, BT, and the Bank of England have solved racism.
	That's a crack squad right there.
	It really is.
	And wouldn't you know, all it meant was to solve racism.
	It was to stop hiring white people.
	There you go!
	Stop hiring white people for jobs and racism goes away.
	And I'll get into the details of it just in a moment, but first I'd like to promote that Connor and I have our newest episode of Comics Corner out.
	This is one that I'm particularly fond of.
	Connor's fond of it as well now.
	I've finally got him into the series, which is we've done part two of Berserk where we've covered the conviction arc.
	So far, Berserk is the only Japanese property that we've covered on this, but it's been a real hit with the viewers who've been very excited to see us talk about this.
	And it's an excellent series, excellent comic, so please give that a watch.
	£5 a month for the premium videos that we put out there.
	And if I do say so myself, we have such an archive at this point of top-tier, quality videos and articles on the website that if you just buy a bronze membership for £5 a month, we've had a bit of an influx of people coming onto the website recently, and we've been inundated with people saying, best £5 I ever spent, best £15 I ever spent, however much they spent, they have not regretted it.
	Because not to pick us up too much, we're pretty great.
	And you've got a discount code at the moment.
	Yes, I think.
	Is that one sec?
	Let me just double check.
	John, is the discount...
	It's still going.
	It's still going.
	We've got the 50% off code going at the moment.
	I think John might be getting the image for it up right now, just so it really sticks in your mind, which is the Sargon promo code.
	While Carl is away, we have put the price down by 50%.
	It's Sargon, spelt with an E at the end.
	And if you use that, you will get your first three months of membership For 50% off.
	And you can only apply it through, I think it's Stripe as well.
	So if you try and use it through Subscribestar, it doesn't work.
	If you go through Stripes and enter your payment details, it'll be able to be implemented there.
	And now we can see Happy Chappy himself.
	Carl with some fruity drink and a sombrero.
	Real image, I swear.
	Sargon.
	So please do that.
	Anyway.
	So, in America, there's lots of racial tensions, there's lots of racial problems, and people have known this basically since the country was founded.
	The founding fathers thought that the slavery problem was a problem.
	Obviously, it ended up erupting into a civil war, and then since then you had segregation, you had civil rights in the 1960s, before that Jim Crow.
	There's been lots and lots of racial problems going on in that country for as long as it's been around, and people have always been trying to solve it.
	And people like Totally not grifter Ibram X. Kendi, who yesterday Stelios and Lewis Brackle spoke about.
	Excuse me.
	It turned out that a man whose job was entirely dependent on trying to come up with non-resolvable ways to fix racism, his job depended on there being racism, turned out didn't want to solve racism and wanted to, in fact, create more racism where there may not have been any in the past because he just wanted to get paid money.
	Weird how that happens.
	And in fact, his institute has basically collapsed because it turned out he was given, in 2020, Millions and millions and millions of dollars by large interests, corporate interests, governmental interests, and didn't really do anything with it.
	He just went on a few speaking tours, made a lot of money, and I think Stelios pointed out the Institute Made no research paper, did nothing of use.
	If you're going to have a large educational or academic Institute, generally what you're there to do is come up with research, write papers and publish papers.
	They did none of that.
	People I assume milled about for a bit, got paid.
	Kendi went on a few speaking tours and then the whole thing collapsed and it had a really bad turnover.
	So it's a business idea.
	It's a great business idea.
	The grift is really good if you can get a hold of it, but didn't solve racism, and it seemed for a brief moment there that our one hope, Ibram, had not solved racism, so I guess racism was just going to carry on.
	But then, Bloomberg, from the back with the steel chair, surprise babyface turn, says...
	It says, Corporate America promised to hire a lot more people of color.
	It actually did.
	The year after Black Lives Matter protests, the S&P 100 added more than 300,000 jobs and 94% went to people of color.
	100 added more than 300,000 jobs and 94% went to people of color.
	Now, this is adding over 300,000 jobs.
	And as we'll go through in the article, a lot of the jobs that were added and filled by these people, these people of color, were mostly in the lower levels.
	They were labourer jobs, baseline office jobs, those sorts.
	So what it seems to me This is just my speculation going out there.
	They might have just created a load of do-nothing busy work jobs so that they could hit some quotas.
	And articles like this could be published.
	And articles like this could be published.
	And I just want to congratulate whoever did the graphic work on this article.
	Oh, is it not working?
	Here we go.
	Yeah.
	And look at this.
	As you scroll through, so here's the big mass of people, just a load of atomized individuals all grouped together.
	But then we can see this rather worrying turn.
	This doesn't help me with dread.
	Racial sorting.
	I know, racial sorting.
	And then if we scroll down a little bit further, we can see that actually people of color aren't just one big homogenous blob.
	And it breaks it down into all of these others.
	I was rather surprised to find that Hispanic people are the ones who've made up the vast majority of these jobs allocated to, sorry, earned by people of color.
	Because we've got 23% of these new jobs went to black people, 22% Asian.
	Other races, which I'd assume means some kind of... I don't know what that means.
	Perhaps mixed race, perhaps South Asian, because Asian is such a broad category.
	Maybe, you know, Pakistani and Indian people, although I suppose they're probably the ones going to the head jobs these days, if you look at the tech business.
	6% went to white people and Hispanic people got 40% of it, so quite impressive.
	If you go down if you just keep it like once again it's one honestly it's quite impressive this uh this level of uh visual design that they've done for it but as you can see at the bottom there these less senior role sales laborers service workers and others is where the vast majority of these people have gone into we've got professionals roles that typically require degrees all of a sudden You start to see the ratios change.
	So in these less senior roles, that's where most of the Hispanics went to.
	Professionals, that seems to be where most of the Asians have gone into.
	Managers, if we see here once again, Asians.
	But at the executive level, it's still majority white people going into these.
	And I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
	I'm not saying that's a good thing.
	I'm saying it's a perfectly neutral thing that people should be allocated in whatever role is best for them in a merit-based system.
	But this entire article, the thing that I find interesting, although not at all surprising, is that the entire thing is a celebration essentially of we hired less white people.
	It's not a celebration of record profits.
	It's not a celebration of new ways to do things.
	It's not a celebration of new business techniques that allow people to be more productive.
	It is a celebration purely of, look, we got less white people primarily in the lower roles.
	In these less senior roles where we've got not a plus, we've got a minus 18.8 thousand people.
	The screen might be a bit blocked.
	There's a camera in the way.
	Which basically means at the roles where people are most disadvantaged financially, We have made it more difficult for white people to get the job, more difficult for them to be able to earn a living wage for their family.
	We've increased the competition for them, presumably suppressing wages as always happens when you open up these markets to more competition.
	It's very, very interesting.
	Can I just say very quickly, on this screen here right now, it's almost like the people who were designing this graphic kind of realized that we're sorting people into racial categories and that looks kind of bad.
	So we're going to make the whites blue and we're going to make the Hispanics turquoise and we're going to make the blacks yellow and the Asians pink and the other races blue instead of just doing them the colors that they actually are because then it would have been far too explicit.
	Do you reckon that they were like, well, we want to use yellow, but...
	You can't use that for the Asians.
	Yeah, we'll have to put it on black instead.
	Maybe they're going by race of person that people in that group are most attracted to, generally speaking.
	Perhaps that's what the information they're going off.
	I think plenty of fish and other websites have released that kind of information.
	White's most attracted to blue people.
	Sorry, I've been replaying massively.
	Yeah, who was the main audience for the Avatar films?
	Almost certainly guilty white liberals, presumably.
	So yeah, we've just got multiple ways of breaking all of this down.
	And then it goes to the normal article.
	So I just wanted to highlight, before I get into the nitty gritty details, just the excellent graphic design that went into all of this.
	And just how ominous... It really is!
	It really is quite ominous when you get this.
	It's quite funny.
	And then, boom!
	Segregate!
	It's like, yeah, you're right, it's like they've got a big red button that says segregated.
	It's very amusing to me.
	But can I just say, this graphic right here is so telling, because this I think is actually how progressives see the world.
	This is the distinction that's meaningful to them.
	It's white and it's people of colour, which essentially just means non-white.
	They regard non-whites as being a homogenous block, which is in itself, not to be cliched, that is a racist view of the world.
	There's also, once again, it's another case where you can just, they'll just say, great replacement, racist conspiracy theory, how dare you even bring it up, you're an anti-Semite if you say that.
	They will use every insult under the book, but then they will proudly highlight in large articles like this, how actually, we've disadvantaged whites at the lowest rung of the corporate.
	And here's why that's a good thing.
	Here's why that is a good thing.
	There is no information whatsoever on any of the companies mentioned in this article of talking about how it's actually improved profits, improved motivation, improved productivity.
	It is just, look at us, we've hired more people who aren't white than we have white people.
	I've got one step further.
	I think this is This whole thing, I would imagine, is a con.
	The playing with figures.
	Possibly.
	I believe the figures, but I think the playing with figures.
	I think they've gone, like, we need to look at what we've done.
	How can we put ourselves in the best interest?
	Look what's happened naturally, right?
	We'll pretend that's by design to a certain extent.
	We'll pretend that's what we've done as the American business world.
	No, I think there has definitely been a concentrated effort in trying to organise this.
	I'm sure they have, but you can explain that.
	You can explain a lot of this.
	So let's look at the less senior roles, less senior roles, Hispanics, Asians.
	You can say the vast majority of them may be immigrants.
	Yep.
	And all got a great education, all got a great work ethic.
	You might look at the decline in the whites and say, do you know what?
	Schooling is poor.
	Their aspirations are poor.
	They're losing those jobs now to people that work harder.
	Being active and targeted.
	And the ones who are doing well, Well, they're now in a professional level.
	They've been promoted.
	There's ways of spinning this no matter whatever your agenda is.
	There is certainly something to be said for the fact that the figures that this is all taken from come from 2021, which they used fudged figures from 2021 after the COVID lockdowns of 2020.
	Try and fudge the number of new jobs Joe Biden had created because of the fact that lots of people lost their jobs or went on extended breaks and hiatus from work as a result of the lockdowns.
	When these jobs got refilled again, no new productivity, no new jobs were actually created.
	They were refilled.
	And they use those figures to pump up the numbers of, these are all the new jobs that Joe Biden has created.
	He has created a striving and thriving economy.
	That's what they do.
	And this is certainly part of it.
	I can agree with what you're saying there.
	But they all say, this article just goes straight back to, mass protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd led to a flurry of company promises, both specific and vague, to hire and promote more black people than others from underrepresented groups.
	And one of the reasons they wanted to do that was to address stark racial imbalances in their workplaces.
	But when you look at the underlying reasons why, It brings up this, the U.S.
	Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which requires companies with 100 or more employees to report their workforce demographics every single year.
	Bloomberg obtained the 2020 and 2021 data for these companies which have been submitted to them, and that's how they got all of these figures.
	Now, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is very similar to how, say, the Human Rights Equality Commission, whatever it's called, over in the UK works, which is that if they decide to look into your company and decide on an arbitrary basis that you don't fit the same, that if you don't fit the remit of, in this case, the Civil Rights Act, I believe it's Title VII, which is disparate impact,
	And over here it's the Equalities Act of 2010.
	Then they can bring legal charges against you, they can throw a lawsuit against you.
	So a lot of these companies have a major legal and financial incentive to make sure, whether they're fudging the numbers or not, that they are hitting these very arbitrary quotas.
	What is the quota?
	If you go on the Wikipedia on disparate impact, I don't have it here but I've got the information down on my document.
	They talk about the uniform guidelines provided a simple rule of 80% for determining a company's selection system was having an adverse impact on a minority group.
	So once again, there's no data being taken in to say actually this is how it's objectively and concretely hurting people.
	It's just that we've come up with an arbitrary number of you need to be hiring 80% of the most hired people in a particular group, mainly white people.
	And if you aren't, then somehow that's causing harm to people.
	And once again, merit, the ability and competence of the people that you're hiring doesn't ever come into this.
	It just comes into equity.
	Yeah, it comes into equity.
	Get the colour fob out.
	How brown are you?
	How affected are you?
	That's the only rule to go.
	It does mention, just to be clear with it, that since the 1980s, supposedly the courts in the US have questioned the arbitrary nature of the 80% rule and made the rule less important than it was when the uniform guidelines were first published.
	But it's still very much, I can imagine the people who are actually administering this within these commissions are still thinking in that kind of arbitrary manner.
	It doesn't pass the sniff test for me, so I'm sorry, we're going to have to throw a lawsuit at you.
	And that's what all of these departments are, all of the HR departments, all of the compliance departments, purely there to make sure that you don't get a gigantic lawsuit thrown at you from the federal government.
	And that's the crucial detail here.
	It's said, like AA, for example, says about how culture is downstream from law.
	And I think instances like this are a perfect example of that.
	Because this stuff is, I mean, sure, there is a cultural pressure to conform to the narrative.
	But there is also, there is this legislation behind it, which actually, you know, it's an imposition of force on companies and businesses to, you know, sort of move towards this pre-specified end goal.
	Yeah, it is interesting.
	But most of the article, the actual details of it, go through a lot of the information that I've already covered.
	But I just want to go down to where is it?
	Here we go.
	They say that it's interesting when, if you're a leftist publication or share the leftist values, you're allowed to say things that you or I would never be able to say without being accused of being some form of fauble or ism.
	So they point out that the country's shifting demographics were at play in the broader trend, said Elise Goud, a labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that studies policies for low- and middle-income workers.
	Many people just starting out in their career are from growing Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations who are entering the workforce just as more tenured white employees retire.
	So, what they're only not just saying there is that, once again, like we can see at the bottom rung, that we're actually losing white employees, which may be moving up into professional roles.
	They may not.
	It doesn't break down the information in any more detail than that.
	But they're also, once again, bragging about shifting demographics within the country itself.
	But if you or I were to say there is a replacement going on that's being targeted, they would say, no, no, no, no.
	There's no reason that the southern border against Mexico is basically open.
	It's just purely pure paranoid conspiracy that you would even think that.
	And they carry on in here.
	I've just got some, there's some interesting information that goes onto.
	Corporate reckoning on institutionalized racism in the immediate aftermath of George Floyd's murder by a white police officer was a factor too.
	And now, once again, I'm not going to go against anything that was proven, supposedly, in a court of law.
	But I will say, it looked a lot like a fentanyl overdose to me.
	The work was exploding and organizations were just trying to figure out what to do in that very moment, said Stephanie Lejoy-Lubin, who worked in the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging department at CarGurus.
	Another buzzword.
	I know, we've got another one to add to the pile now.
	Belonging as well.
	Would you like a hug blanket?
	Would you like the hug box?
	We can go in the corner and we can all hug it out, so make sure you feel like you belong.
	Just another way to waste people's time and money, I'd imagine.
	They're a car online review website at the time, and consulted on the site.
	Why does a car online review website need this?
	Just host a website where you can review cars online!
	That's all you need to do, but no, apparently the federal government says if you don't have this arbitrary quota of people who aren't white, then We're going to sue you for some reason.
	That summer, some companies rebanded products that had been long marketed with racist stereotypes.
	So you can think of all of those ones.
	Uncle Ben's.
	Yeah, Uncle Ben's.
	Jemimas.
	Yeah, Jemimas.
	All of those ones where it's a very friendly looking black person and they went, that's racist!
	That was so weird.
	That was funny.
	It was just like, it felt like a flex of arbitrary power.
	Yeah.
	That's what it felt like.
	And a signal of allegiance in the companies who did it as well.
	Moore pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in their shelf space to racial equity efforts.
	And this is where the grift, the budging, and the money comes into it.
	Separately, about half of the firms in the S&P 100, including Amazon, Pepsi, Meta, then Facebook, and Microsoft set ambitious targets for increasing their share of people of color and leadership.
	Amazon set out to double black vice presidents and directors.
	Microsoft pledged to double black managers and senior leaders in the US by 2025.
	After Floyd's murder, companies adopted several practices to help hire or retrain underrepresented workers, including establishing leadership development programs and training managers in inclusive practices.
	All of this requires a vast network of patronage from massive companies Like this information, the most recent information I could find on greenhouse software was from 2021.
	identifying broader job pools of job candidates, said Donald Knight, chief people officer at Greenhouse Software, which helps companies with equitable hiring practices.
	Like this information, the most recent information I could find on Greenhouse Software was from 2021.
	Can anyone guess what they were valued at in that year?
	No idea.
	I've just read it, sir, and I'm astounded.
	$820 million.
	That one business that's just to help companies with equitable hiring practices.
	There is hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollar industries at this point to be able to manufacture and facilitate these kinds of hiring practices.
	So if you want another reason why people do it, There you go.
	Good money if you can get it.
	Yeah, but they mention that they don't have the information since 2021 and since all of the fervor died down, well, things might have shifted.
	They say here, mentions of diversity, equity and inclusion on earnings calls at conferences among Russell 3000 index companies fell by 54% In third quarter of the most recent year, they could find the information on, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, none of the half dozen companies with the most notable diversity gains wanted to discuss them in detail.
	So this is off of the back of a lot of governors and politicians in America starting to make note of what's going on in these discriminatory hiring practices and saying, we don't want this.
	We want you to be hiring people based on merit, their competency, rather than just going off of arbitrary factors.
	So things might have shifted by there.
	Once again, when we're talking about a billion dollar industry, we can't be certain.
	Bloomberg doesn't give the information, but we could be happy to know that US, you're not alone in having finally solved racism.
	The UK did it as well.
	Because a top executive at BT declared plans to cut more than 1,000 jobs in rural areas while hiring new staff in major cities, and they say that will boost workforce diversity.
	This was something that really got people annoyed, especially because of, once again, the financial incentives involved in it.
	I was just going to say, again, you've said this already, but sacking people and hiring different ones, not to boost productivity, not to boost efficiency, not to boost output, but to boost diversity.
	I disagree.
	I would say they're doing it for the business.
	They're cutting a thousand jobs in mobile areas and need more people in inner cities.
	The fact that's going to benefit diverse communities more is immaterial to BT, but they've seen it and went, Oh, We can get some woke PR out of this.
	We're doing it anyway.
	There is definitely a material factor to this as well because the executive who announced it, let me find her name, Alison Kirkby I believe her name is, if she can, yeah.
	If she can hit the diversity target set for BT, she personally will pocket an extra £220,000.
	So that's a big factor.
	That can be a factor.
	Who cares about the fact that we're potentially making people destitute and ripping their jobs from them, and maybe even in some cases going to force them to move to a large city that they don't want to live in when they previously lived in a nice, peaceful, rural area.
	I can make 200 grand off of this.
	So hey, good on me.
	Perverse incentive.
	I know.
	In comments leaked to the Mail on Sunday, Howard Watson, BT's Chief Networks Officer, suggested that a significant factor in choosing where to locate major offices was the ethnic diversity of So the area that was set up previously was Martlesham, which is 95.8% white, and the areas that they're going to be setting it up in, where they're going to set strategic hubs in, are London, Birmingham, Manchester, and in contrast the mail points out that Birmingham is 48.7% white.
	So just by virtue of the population demographics of these larger cities, I think Manchester is very similar What's London now?
	It's like 34% white, something like that.
	By virtue of the areas they're putting them in, they're just going, well, we'll naturally be hiring less white people, hitting my diversity targets.
	In March, the proportion of ethnic minority staff at BT was 13.4%, with bosses aiming for it to jump to 16% by 2025.
	So we'll see how that goes.
	People I saw posting some extra information on it, one thing that was interesting because you could say and go, well surely even the Equalities Act under the protected characteristics it lays out of one of them being racial categories would be able to say that this is a disparate impact that is negatively affecting white people.
	MavenPolitik, I found this tweet from this Information Liberation article that has happily compiled a few useful ones, pointed out that BT have been careful to skirt around the law here.
	They'll be hiring less than the original 1,100 fired workers and consolidating the office locations so it gets classed as a normal redundancy offering.
	But the new hiring locations are chosen explicitly because of diversity.
	So they've managed to skirt around any potential legal troubles with the different classifications.
	And then just to end it off, Bank of England, once again, in the rear guard and the charge to finally defeat racism, says that they are launching a hunt for unconscious bias in the finance industry, where the bank's Prudential Regulation Authority and the city watchdog have proposed a raft of new rules that will require large banks and insurers to report diversity and inclusion data to regulators and set new targets to address underrepresentation. where the bank's Prudential Regulation Authority and the city watchdog Honestly, I would be shocked if they weren't already compiling that information.
	Because either they, like you say, these people, they never make a change without having agreed to it two years in advance.
	So they probably already knew this.
	They've probably already been compiling it and probably already making changes in the lead up to it already.
	Under the plans, companies in the city will be mandated to develop a diversity inclusion strategy and collect, report, and disclose data on characteristics such as disability and ethnicity on staff.
	All of which, just, we need to really hammer the home the point that every single one of these big changes will all require new departments, new jobs full of pointless people who don't get work anywhere else because they went and did a sociology degree.
	We need to put them somewhere.
	We need to pay them for something.
	And guess what?
	They'll get paid a hell of a lot more than you or I get paid in a year.
	To do this.
	To do this.
	Great.
	Thanks for the white bill, Harry.
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	It's true.
	It's just true.
	Companies can also choose to go further by reporting data on gender identity and socio-economic background of staff.
	Socio-economic factors being taken into account here as well, which is very interesting because in the Equalities Act, the first The first clause of it talks about a duty by the government to mandate and regulate socio-economic conditions with people, and that's the one bit of it that's never been practically implemented since the Tories got in charge.
	So, I'm still very worried if Labour get in, if they'll just move on that immediately.
	And uh, yeah, there's just more platitudes, more things thrown out.
	But yes, I think that's, that's all I really need to go into in detail there.
	Let me give you two life experience examples here.
	So I've got a friend of mine, uh, white woman, um, 30 ish.
	And every job she applies for, which she's successful at all the time, she ticks disabled, LGBTQ, and black, or mixed race.
	And she's neither of any of them.
	And she gets every job she goes for.
	Yeah.
	Well, that is, I mean, that is a good strategy.
	It's just gaming the system.
	Cause A, it doesn't hurt.
	And the off chance it might go, we're down on some of these.
	This is three for one.
	Yeah.
	So you don't know how it works.
	It does no harm.
	So she does that all the time.
	What white Americans doing?
	We don't know.
	That could be impacting that.
	The next one is something when we're looking at stats and how you can twist figures.
	Here's something I did once.
	Oh, all right.
	Okay.
	Working in Manchester City Centre.
	I was based in police stations, but I wasn't a police officer.
	And we had reports of prostitution.
	In the prostitution area, people complaining.
	Get it all the time.
	But some new flats have been built so now they're complaining they're looking out at sex acts in the entry.
	Now 20 years this problem has been there people who live there a long time don't complain anymore now and basically we do nothing about it anyway.
	But some new residents moved in started complaining and it was like we need to we need to do something about this not solve the problem but to shut them up.
	Yeah.
	So um I was asked right look at this What are we going to say to them?
	So I looked at last year's figures.
	So last year's figures, we had six complaints.
	This year's figures, we've got four complaints.
	So I wrote to the complainant saying, we take on board your complaints and we're doing so much in the air view and we're doing it.
	But just let you know, over the last year, we have reduced the problem by 50%.
	Amazing.
	True!
	Lies, damn lies, and statistics, as they say.
	That is impressively sneaky.
	I wouldn't have expected that of you to be honest, Nick.
	Oh my goodness.
	That's what you can do with stats and that's what you can do.
	So every time the government tells you something or gives you stats on those stats, if it's backing up what they want to say, you need to go, what have they done to the figures?
	How have they twisted it?
	How have they presented it to tell you what they wanted to tell you?
	I take the Thomas Carlyle position on statistics and they just don't, literally don't listen.
	Well, in that case, taking Nick's advice, if you're applying for a job that says it's only open to candidates who are people of colour, remember that apparently Cheddar Man was basically African anyway.
	If you're descended anything from the line of Western hunter-gatherers, which, if you're English, you definitely are, go ahead and tick that people of colour.
	Congratulations.
	Job starts Monday.
	And it's risk-free.
	Because let's say you're as white as us three, and you tick black, mixed race.
	Do you think someone at an interview is going to go, What exactly are you?
	And if they did, how dare you?
	Ching Ching!
	I'm having you in court, mate!
	So, it's risk-free.
	In fact, you may get a payment if they challenge you.
	Are you LGBT?
	Well, you don't look gay.
	Ching Ching!
	See you in court!
	You've ticked disabled?
	I didn't say wheelchair.
	Oh!
	Ching-ching again?
	To be honest... Disabilities aren't always visible, you bigot.
	Yes!
	There you go.
	And if they did ask you to, uh... Okay, I need you to prove that you're LGBT.
	Yeah?
	Oh, sexual salation.
	Oh, that's very salacious.
	What are you doing?
	Solicitation.
	No, no, no.
	There you go.
	Well, never say you never learn anything practical from our podcast, because I think we've just got everyone watching their dream job that they've always been looking for.
	With that, on that pleasant white pill, let's go to the video comments.
	Hello.
	I think Lewis and Stelios did a great job yesterday of highlighting the true enemy of leftist ideology.
	It is not we rightists with our logical, sensible, commonsensical counterpoints.
	No, their greatest adversary is the follow-up question.
	Never pass up an opportunity to let them hang themselves out to dry.
	Cheers, fellas.
	Good point, actually.
	It's always frustrating.
	I got very annoyed watching a Fox News segment where they'd gone around Seattle and asked people, how do you feel about all of the decay that's going on around you?
	And they just aired these people being smug bellends, if I'm perfectly honest, to the reporter.
	And it's annoying that either they asked a follow-up question and didn't air it, Or they didn't ask the follow-up question at all, because there was one person who was saying, oh well, you were driving past all the smackheads doing drugs, so you were fine.
	You're a really, really smug, insufferable woman.
	Then the follow-up question is, how do you think normal people who can't afford a car feel walking past that?
	Or just asking the question, why do you not think it's bad that other people are killing themselves and suffering?
	Because they always play this game like, oh, I care harder.
	care more about things.
	No, you don't, because you're happy to stand aside as homeless people indulging dangerous drugs like fentanyl, like heroin, that are incredibly addictive and can lead to them overdosing very easily and killing themselves over it.
	So where's your sense of compassion for them?
	Most people don't care about anybody else apart from themselves.
	Hence why the answer to the question like that, because if they're told the truth, well, they've still got to live in that area.
	And now I sound like a far right bigot.
	No, no, I'm going to go along with this nightmare because I have to live here.
	I'll say the same platitudes.
	I'll say the same things as you're going to say, because it makes my life slightly easier.
	I don't care about them dying.
	I never did.
	Yeah, you are right.
	I think what they're probably thinking is they see like a Fox News presenter and they think, Fox News is my enemy.
	So if they're going to interview me, I don't care if I have to lie through my teeth.
	I will say whatever I can to make Fox News look stupid.
	And it works because You know, the original post that I saw had over 200,000 likes, had reams of people commenting and quote tweeting it, 10,000 likes, 30,000 likes, all just going, OMG she's literally me, what a bae, slave queen, those kinds of...
	And that's all it is, like you say.
	It's just because they see this woman is saying the thing that makes my enemy look stupid, or just annoys him very momentarily.
	So therefore, it was a win, boys!
	We did it!
	Supporting homeless drug addiction to own the cons.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But let's go on to the written comments down here.
	Yes.
	So Richard Monikendam says, Bravo man, bit too late to the party, love.
	Just hot air again.
	The party that has been in power and in a position to do anything has her as home secretary.
	Election BS or prepare for them to make a dire situation completely unbearable.
	Colin P.
	I wonder what those people who espouse multiculturalism feel about white people moving to non-white countries and keeping their own cultures.
	I'm sure they would call it colonialism.
	What do they, isn't there, what is it?
	It's not, obviously it's not Liberia, but I know that within South Africa, there's basically that town that's a colony of white people who just want to.
	Yeah, they just want to keep to themselves.
	I forget what the town is called.
	I bet they hate that.
	I bet they hate that it exists.
	I know there's, um, there is a small community emerging in Paraguay.
	I was just going to say.
	Yeah, we learnt about it at the Witan, uh, where you can be absolutely certain.
	I mean, there's already been reports on it.
	The far right Oh, all these people who just want to live a peaceful life in a nice little community where they can own their property and be safe.
	They just hate that.
	They hate anybody being able to live in peace away from them.
	Omar Awad says, Tories are the pressure relief valve wing of the Blair Party.
	That's correct.
	Yeah, they are the containment.
	Kevin Fox, I love all the wallies saying how if multiculturalism hasn't worked, how is she where she is?
	I now have a template I send them pointing out that when her parents arrived they came legally and integrated, but that was 40 years ago when immigration was one-tenth of what it is now, even excluding the illegal immigration.
	Back then, a small number of migrants were coming into established communities and they had to integrate.
	Now the numbers arriving are so large that they no longer need to integrate and they just create ghettos and have no need to integrate.
	Quite right.
	Even when there still was that greater level of integration and greater pressure for them to integrate back then, you still had people complaining that these ghettos were beginning to emerge.
	the ethnic enclaves were starting to form in lower numbers wasn't as big but it's still even even when the numbers were one-tenth of what they were it was still relatively unsustainable for an island as small and densely populated as that already was yeah yeah it's been happening since the 60s 70s and i grew up in the 70s we had ghettos then yeah full of different ethnic minorities.
	So this isn't a new thing, it's just the rate of immigration has increased.
	And going back to his point about Brabhaman, there's a difference between multiracial and multicultural.
	Yes.
	That she got to where she is because she lives in a multiracial country, nothing to do with her culture.
	The other hilarious thing about this whole Brafman ordeal is there's been a very vocal section of progressives on Twitter saying, I mean I've got one here from Mehdi Hassan saying, you could argue that she's worse than Enoch Powell because at least he wasn't the brown child of immigrants.
	Like people saying that because she is not let's say her heritage is not in this country, she has no right to make any comments about how multiculturalism or immigration might be a damaging thing.
	And they become massively race essentialists when they start to make these comments.
	It's quite amusing to see it happen.
	Yeah, indeed.
	So Kevin, oh, sorry, we'll just have that one.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, I find it interesting that the left is always crying that the far right is becoming more popular, but never ask why the far right is becoming popular.
	It's almost like their policies have failed and the public literally wants anybody else.
	And that's the thing, far right is just a smear.
	Doesn't exist in the It's not far right.
	No, you weren't on when we talked about this on Monday.
	But the meaningful political distinction today, I think, is not left or right, it's not Tory or Conservative, it's just regime or anti-regime.
	And so far right is just a synonym.
	It's the term used by the regime to describe non- or anti-regime people.
	This is probably how even people like in America, Jimmy Dore can be smeared as far right adjacent just because of the fact that he's not a fan of the war that's going on in Ukraine.
	Yeah.
	Because the war in Ukraine is very much a regime thing and he's against it.
	Well, that just means Jimmy Dore is not anywhere on anybody's planet.
	Jimmy Dore is not a right winger.
	Or indeed, Anna Kasparian coming out and saying that I'm a woman.
	Don't call me a birthing body or whatever.
	All right.
	Nazi, fascist, you get called one or all of those and they're all meaningless now.
	It's absurd.
	SH Services, when you think about it, the Tories really are closer to Nazi than Conservative.
	Tyrannical and practically socialist in policy with a thin veneer of appealing to tradition.
	We could get into a long debate about whether the Nazis were left on the right wing.
	Let's carry on.
	Not the time, not the time.
	Derek Power says, another byproduct of multiculturalism is making living areas quite uniform.
	Every place feels the same.
	Same convenience stores, same takeaways, same petrol stations.
	The only difference is the map coordinates.
	And I couldn't agree more with that.
	Again, on Monday, we talked about the, is it the factory in Swin?
	the shopping center.
	Oh, yes.
	Rory wrote a wonderful article on it.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Yeah.
	It's what used to be the center of the Great Western Railway over here.
	Well, you go there.
	I haven't been there myself, but I'm told that it's...
	It's quite nice.
	Well, I'm sure it is quite nice.
	But if you look at the brands there, now I'm thinking of my own town and the similar kind of place.
	It's just, I mean, it's all American brands, frankly.
	It's outposts of the global American empire, you know, various KFC brands.
	There's a KFC and a Five Guys and Subway.
	And all the rest of it, like H&M and so on.
	And that's right, because that is what multiculturalism ultimately, that's the end point of multiculturalism, is this, as I said, this kind of uniculturalism where everything is flattened.
	McWorld.
	Exactly, McWorld.
	Let's go on to your comments, Nick.
	You would have to read them.
	I would need glasses.
	Okay, that's alright.
	Didn't want to assume.
	So, Russian Garbage Human says, Hey Nick, good to see you back.
	Fellow Manc here.
	But it says Russian in your name.
	Very confused as to what's going on.
	We're diverse people.
	How much money did they bloody spend on putting these cameras on every road in and out of the city as well as throughout the city?
	I'm curious.
	Right now they tell us they're used for crime prevention.
	How much crime is this prevented or how many crimes did these cameras help solve?
	Please ask these questions.
	This is a huge money laundering scheme as well as attacks on the poor and an intended byproduct is to monitor and to finally to control the movement of all citizens.
	Well they've spent 100 million up to now.
	The crime thing I've got no idea because they won't release those figures or even talk about it.
	Will they not release them?
	Bloody hell.
	That's insane.
	Well if you do ever manage to get a hold of that information that's definitely something to hold his feet to the fire for.
	Omar Awad says the only green tax I would ever approve of is gaslighting.
	Parliament would go bankrupt in a day.
	We're being taxed so hard every which way that we're going to plummet through the bottom of the Laffer curve.
	Yep.
	I like that.
	Andy Burnham could recoup some of those losses by selling the cameras to Sadiq Khan.
	This will then spur sales of spray paint and wire cutters, helping the economy.
	Hashtag line go up.
	I mean, this is a pretty foolproof economy.
	I like that.
	I've been joking for a few days now that political economy, I don't know why, you know, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, David Ricardo, Murray Rothbard, why it means any of these people put so much effort into trying to figure out how political economy why it means any of these people put so much effort into trying to figure out how political economy works, That's, I mean, if that's what makes the line go up, then what were they doing?
	I mean, capital could have just been a single page.
	Yeah, single sentence.
	Yeah, single sentence.
	It's a Ponzi scheme though.
	We know it can't go on forever and you know the day's coming fast where it all collapses and falls down.
	Derek Power says the prevention approach from the police works best when the police force is all local and from the community.
	It's a good point Matt.
	Not necessarily, but there's benefits to that.
	Yeah, there's benefits to it, but even if it wasn't all local and from the community, changing the system that we've got now would still be beneficial, I would imagine.
	The first change is we need to get our police force more professional, because they're not professional.
	I think re-implementing height requirements.
	Height requirements, physical fitness.
	When you're arresting me, you should be calling me sir.
	If you're rolling around the floor with me and I'm resisting arrest, you still call me sir as you're trying to pin me to the floor.
	You don't call me a muppet.
	That's the professionalism I want.
	When they're dealing with members of the public, it's sir and madam.
	It's not, you alright love?
	Yeah.
	Or mate.
	That's the basics we need to get down to.
	Here's a nice one from California Refugee.
	He says, Nick makes me want to take notes and do good in my community.
	And so you should.
	And so you should.
	Part of the problem we have in our country is people not doing that.
	Relying on the state, relying on others to do the heavy lifting, relying on others to improve the community, to create projects.
	Do it yourself.
	Get off your backside and start improving your own family, your own neighborhood.
	And if everyone did that, we'd live in a better country and world.
	Absolutely, and we've just got a minute left, so I'll read some from mine.
	So, Transportation Wombat says, Black Americans only constitute 12.9% of the population.
	This is absolutely ridiculous.
	Once again, the actual targets are completely arbitrary.
	It's basically just to make sure that On paper, we're not hiring as many white people.
	That's the only real target.
	Because like Charlie said, they just see people of colour as this large mass, this large grey blob.
	Sophie Liv says, yeah and Russia is laughing because they've been there.
	Affirmative at hiring rather than merit hiring is legit how they ended up with an exploding nuclear power plant.
	This is very true.
	So it's not just a bad idea on racial grounds.
	Hiring people only based on class gives you the exact same problems.
	We know, because this is what happened in the Soviet Union.
	Yeah, and this is something I've been complaining about.
	It's just nothing seems to work anywhere near as well as it should.
	In this country, and I see a lot of people complaining about it in America as well, nothing runs as smoothly as it should.
	The trains aren't on time.
	The public services aren't on time.
	You constantly see roadworks going on that they pop up, they go away, and they pop back up again because whatever changes they made, whatever improvements they made.
	Just break immediately.
	So, if you're hiring people not based on how well they do the job, but certainly the management on how well they can manage people doing the jobs, then, yeah, things just don't work.
	ShakerSilver, it's honestly disgusting seeing our corporate overlords celebrating that they made their graphs and figures look good at the cost of social- destroying social cohesion and standards for work.
	However, the biggest point of the discussion is that lowering of standards furthers divides the top and bottom of the corporate hierarchy.
	We will all be their diverse serfs.
	Potentially, but honestly, I think that the serfs were probably better treated.
	Yeah.
	At least they got land, right?
	Most people can't afford houses these days.
	Oh, sorry.
	I was going to say, but all this is ending.
	Yes.
	All this will be ending out in the next decade.
	All this diversity, if not sooner, because we will go back to merit because these businesses need to make a profit and that dollar will drive people to do what needs to be done.
	We've just been living through an experiment.
	Well, the only thing that could prevent them from collapsing is just an increase in the money printing and the debt of the federal government in the US and the national government over here, which would basically just lead to hyperinflation.
	So, one way or another, something will happen that will force the hand because things just won't work anymore.
	And then we need the right leader ready to step into the void.
	All right.
	I will step up.
	You can all look forward to that.
	And with that, I think that's all we've got time for.
	Thank you very much for tuning in.
	And if you are a premium member on the website, then you can tune in in about half hour's time for Lads Hour.
	We'll be discussing the Reddit question.
	It'll be good.
	So please look forward to that.
	Thank you very much for watching.

▲