Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 8, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:35:57

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #780

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Seaters, episode 780 for today, the 2nd of November 2023.
	I am joined by my co-hosts, Harry and Bo.
	Hello!
	And we'll be discussing why we should re-migrate, re-migrate them all.
	Not my words, hope not hate, don't worry.
	They know that we're going extinct and how Mr. Beast has destroyed Africa with aid and charity.
	Just adding an S onto one of those words would change things really badly.
	I made sure not to slip on my typing hand when I was writing that.
	Fantastic.
	Just a couple of announcements before we go.
	Tomorrow afternoon, Thursday, three o'clock kick-off time, we've got Lads Hour number 10.
	It's our third birthday, third anniversary of the company.
	We're doing a Q&A.
	We've got at least five hosts on there.
	So you can come and ask us bits as we reminisce about our time at Lotuses.
	So that should be good fun.
	And I do know that on Saturday, Epochs is out.
	I believe it's a freemium Gov Rebloom.
	It's about the Great War.
	So go and watch that in honor of Armistice Day.
	Probably the most productive thing that's going to happen on that day if the pro-Palestine protests are anything to go by.
	But anyway, without pouring too much scorn on what's going to happen this weekend, let's jump into the topics.
	OK, well, Callum touched on a topic yesterday and I thought I'd do a little bit of a different take on it.
	The topic of immigration and mass re-migration, repatriation, deportations.
	I mean, let's cut to the quick, shall we, gentlemen.
	Our country is full of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of, at best, fifth columnists, if not outright enemies of the people and the state.
	Got no disagreements from me so far.
	A diabolical state of affairs.
	And recently, the Overton window seems to have moved a tad on that.
	Douglas Murray appeared on Trigonometry, didn't really mince his words.
	I know some people, certainly in the so-called distant right, have got a few questions about his timing, perhaps some of his paymasters.
	But nonetheless, I'm happy to see it.
	I don't care about that necessarily.
	I'm happy to see it.
	Anything that moves the Overton window.
	I wrote an article back in June last year where I said about The mass re-migration should be inevitable.
	The point of the article there is saying that we should really, one tactic is just to talk as though it is inevitable.
	That's one of the things Tony Blair, he's not the first person to have done it, it's a tried and tested tactic.
	Just talk as though something is in fact inevitable.
	It's quite a powerful gambit to use.
	He spoke about globalisation at Labour Party conference as inevitable as the changing of the seasons and I think that's very useful framing.
	It's also very useful framing to look at the way that Douglas has been talking about this, which I think is far more helpful than some of the people on the dissident right that are jumping in front of the bullet shot at Multiculturalism and excesses saying, but it's just about Israel.
	No.
	Okay.
	Right.
	No, no.
	Douglas Murray is not mincing his words and he's using moral depth charge at this, which is very useful when he says, I do not want to share my country with Hamas supporters.
	They should leave.
	If you are offended by the missing posters of Jewish children, you should leave.
	And that is not tribal.
	That is conditional on whether or not you support the ethos of Britain.
	That is conditional on whether or not you support our terrorist enemies.
	And so that is saying, okay, if you are not willing to participate in our civilization and you are declaring your intent to form a Muslim army to annex it to a caliphate, not only should you not be allowed to stage a protest in favor of that, you should not be here because you constitute a threat to our way of life.
	You don't get to come to a country and fundamentally want to change it.
	And that's very powerful framing, and I think that's why it's become a very sensible thing to say.
	Actually, no, we shouldn't have to have houseguests that want to trash our furniture and track mud in our rug.
	I think that's a very sensible thing to do.
	To be a bit of a steel man for some members of the DR, I would imagine, and I can't speak for them because I can't read their minds, but I would imagine that the animus is coming from the fact that with the change in rhetoric coming almost entirely on the basis of we need to save Israel, We need to protect Israel.
	We need to protect those who are aligned with Israel.
	Given that that is the condition that this rhetoric has arrived on, the worry would most probably be that if the only time we can ever have control over our borders is for the safety of Israel, then the second all of a sudden something not in our interest but in Israel's interest comes along, that the winds would change again and go straight back to screwing us over.
	For the sake of a foreign nation in the middle of the... in the... you know, thousands of miles away.
	Okay, here's why I think they're wrong about that.
	Please, your segment, so feel free to correct me.
	Two reasons.
	One, you can disaggregate Israel and British Jews.
	That's fine.
	Yes, at the protest they're waving Israeli flags, of course, because it's in response to the massacre on October the 7th.
	But when they're also being shouted at because they're singing God Save the King, there is clear animus against the English, at whose behest these people are here, being displayed.
	And we know that because of the cenotaph protests.
	The cenotaph has absolutely nothing to do with Israel, but they have stated their intent to disrespect the ceremony anyway.
	And so I tweeted this.
	That's just a result of, as Boaz stated at the beginning, importing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of fifth columnists who, unlike us, like people of our generation, who weren't properly taught history and weren't taught about the historical conflicts that this country has been involved who weren't properly taught history and weren't taught about the historical conflicts that this country has been involved in, except for World War II and possibly the Great They get...
	They know their history, they know their historic conflicts, and they know that they're coming over to a place that they have had historic conflict with, and that they can still see us, recognizably, as their own enemies.
	They're leeching off of our welfare state for the sake of their own, you know, material convenience.
	But they still don't like us, they don't see us as anything resembling a friend in the mass.
	Obviously you'll get exceptions here and there of individuals who genuinely want to assimilate.
	Most of them don't.
	Well, one thing I'd say is that I didn't want to really dwell too long on Douglas Murray, particularly, other than that it's just an example of getting the Overton window moved.
	I would, in fact, go further than him.
	It's not just Hamas supporters or apologists or Islamists.
	There's all sorts of people with all sorts of thinking in this country that really shouldn't be here, should be repatriated back to the countries of their forefathers.
	All sorts of people.
	For example, I mean, anyone that's a foreign, any foreign national that commits any crime I think that's a very sensible take there.
	That's just a reasonable standard.
	Right, yeah.
	Again, why should we have house guests that dress for furniture?
	Anyone with any criminal record in their home country should never be allowed to set foot on these islands.
	It used to be the case, I remember being told back in the 60s it would have been, that John Lennon himself, one of the most famous men in the world, had extraordinary trouble even being allowed to visit the US because he had a criminal record.
	I think he did some, I'm not sure what criminal record he had, but it was a minor, a very minor thing I believe.
	Lots of those rock and pop stars in the 60s got put in prison.
	But he had to, he had real trouble, and anyway that's not a bad standard.
	I mean, my line would be that we essentially have a We're a type of open borders, don't we?
	So all those people that turn up in small boats without correct documentation, or even if they've got a passport, you don't come across illegally on a small boat like that.
	All of those people repatriated back to where they come from.
	Now, it is a little bit difficult, legally speaking, because we're in a bind.
	We've allowed ourselves, legally, to get into a bit of a bind.
	Of course, there's the ECHR, the European Convention on Human Rights, which quite often gets brought up.
	Word on the inside is that Rishi's got no intention of repealing that, or you don't even repeal it, you just leave it.
	Well, the Tory Party are very split, even among the New Conservatives group, who are pushing for lower legal immigration and the complete elimination of illegal immigration.
	Folks like Danny Kruger actually just want to tear it up because of its contradictions.
	There are others in there that think, oh, we can just reform it.
	And I think that's painfully naive.
	Right, yeah.
	The inner party of the Tories are too focused on building a holocaust memorial right next to Parliament right now to worry about protecting borders.
	Of course that was awful.
	Yeah, the rot goes very, very deep though.
	That reform Richard Tyerson knows not everyone's cup of tea, but he has at least said openly and explicitly the Home Office is not fit for purpose.
	Border Force, even the CPS, seem to be unfit for purpose.
	It would require probably a whole new government department staffed by quote-unquote true believers who are prepared to actually get people deported.
	There's a few examples, aren't there, when we've tried to deport people here or there and citizens get involved.
	There was that woman on a plane, remember that?
	There was I think an actual, was he a Jamaican rapist?
	I can't remember, being deported and she kicked up a stink and got the plane... This was the thing that Diane Abbott supported happening as well.
	Yeah, just one example.
	There was another example in Scotland when they were trying to take the migrants out of the house and the entire street rallied around them.
	Some sort of quite bizarre flash mob suddenly appeared.
	At Eid.
	Even though, by the way, those illegal criminals were Sikhs.
	So, how could you do this at Eid?
	Nicola Sturgeon says to a bunch of Sikhs.
	I think that is a crime that should be severely punished.
	Severely punished for doing that.
	Or you could classify it as traitorous behavior.
	Or obstruction of justice.
	I mean that's not enough for me because I think the punishment is usually quite small for that.
	I think it should be quite a long custodial sentence to deter people from ever really dreaming of doing that.
	There's the idea of chain migration.
	I think all new citizenships Should be entirely halted, at least for a while.
	Just in a blanket way, at least for a while.
	Student visas.
	So a few of the lesser polytechnics lose a whole bunch of money because they can't charge foreign people lots of money to study at the university.
	How will Oxford survive without all of those Chinese students?
	All sorts of things.
	It needs a root-and-branch reform, in my opinion.
	I mean, most people agree with that.
	There was a poll recently.
	It was mentioned in the Trigonometry episode.
	90% of Conservatives and 70% of Labour voters just agree that the whole system is entirely broken.
	You know, when Alderforce and the police and, well, just the Home Office.
	When you look at some of the senior civil servants at the Home Office, it's just obvious that They're not working in the public interest, in the interest of the public will.
	W-E-A-L.
	And that's the first charge of any government, isn't it?
	Surely, to be working in the interest of the nation and the people.
	They're simply not doing that.
	It's a first-class dereliction of duty.
	Well, we know from SAGE there were lifelong members of the Communist Party setting pandemic policy, as if there weren't ulterior motives at work there.
	From what you're talking about, the European Convention on Human Rights, I think another one that makes it difficult to re-migrate, specifically the people that come over on the small boats.
	People in the comments can correct me if I get a few of the details wrong, but I think one of the other major ones, ironically enough, is the Modern Slavery Act.
	They have because it means that I think that you get automatic refugee status and legal protections if you can be classified as having been human trafficked.
	And of course, the people who are bringing them over on the small boats oftentimes are human traffickers outside of just this being their business.
	And you can always claim when you get onto the shores that, oh, I was human trafficked over here, which immediately puts legal barriers in place of being able to deport them.
	The other one as well is what Rishi Sunak said he was going to turn around and join if they did leave the ECHR, which is the 1951-52 UN Refugee Convention.
	And the definition of a refugee encoded in there is anyone unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin.
	It's kind of like AOC's definition in the Green New Deal of why you should receive universal basic income.
	Anyone unable or unwilling to go to work.
	Yeah, we should just pay you if you just don't want to be where you were born.
	I just feel like having a lie-in this morning.
	Yeah, give me money!
	It seems very clear at this point that the very concept of human rights has been weaponised against us.
	There's no way to really avoid that conclusion, at least in my mind.
	There's... It's more than... Again, I say the rock goes deeper than that as well.
	For example, there's... It was in the news a while ago.
	Just one tiny example.
	Have you ever heard of Dr Halima Begum?
	Yes, I have.
	She's alternately the First Secretary for the Department of International Development and the CEO of Runnymede Trust.
	Involved in all sorts of things.
	So a revolving door with these types of people.
	And that's just one tiny example.
	There seems to be Lots and lots, a surprising number of organisations whose entire raison d'etre, entire reason for being, is to shift the Overton window in their favour, keep it there and demonise anyone that is against that.
	This is what Doug Stokes coined the Grievance Industrial Complex.
	Right.
	And there's all sorts of organisations.
	I've made a small list here just to give some people an idea.
	Many of these names, people out there may have heard of, a lot of them you probably wouldn't have heard of.
	And they do across the whole spectrum, from just trying to demonize people to actively doing things through the courts and all sorts of stuff and it's, you know, it's the idea of human rights.
	being weaponised against us.
	Organisations like Hope Not Hate, the Runnymede Trust, the Institute for Race Relations, Unite Against Fascism, Stand Up to Racism, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the Tony Blair Institute, Human Rights Watch, Centre for Countering Digital Hate, the Defamation League, Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right, Searchlight, Stand Up to Racism, the Refugee Council, Civil Rights Defenders, Human Rights Without Frontiers, European Centre for Minority Issues,
	Human Rights Foundation, Frontline Defenders, Human Rights House Foundation, The Open Society, all sorts of things under that, British Future, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, International Service for Human Rights, International Society for Human Rights, Commonwealth, Human Rights Initiative, Centre for Economic and Social Rights, Minority Rights Group International, The Advocates for Human Rights, it goes on and on and on.
	Humanity in Action, Protection International, Amnesty International, KFLA, it goes on and on and on.
	There's a surprising number of these things.
	A whole industry, if you like, dedicated, designed to make sure that we can never deport criminals in our midst.
	You can also throw the Socialist Workers' Party in there.
	They're always available whenever there is a spontaneous protest with all sorts of outfits and signs and slogans ready-made.
	Stand up to racism as well, but the Socialist Workers' Party is a bit of an outlier because I just think they're honest.
	The rest of them, and this is the semantic shift that is engaged in here is what makes normal people who want to be seen as non-racist cave and act in a cowardly manner that is complicit with the destruction of the country.
	Because most of those names are non-objectionable names.
	to uninitiated ears.
	And so this is the level of subversion.
	As you said, they've weaponized the concept of human rights, because particularly the post-war doctrine, this is why the Holocaust memorial is being knocked up in the country that fought against the country that perpetrated it.
	The whole concept of human rights is being weaponized against the consciences of the people that they are seeking to destroy the country of.
	So, in any other country, this wouldn't fly.
	These organizations don't exist.
	But it's just because our nation is compassionate and cares about those things, that those non-objectionable names can be used for organizations that want to destroy the place.
	You're right, it's very deliberately subversive, the names they choose.
	It's like weaponising the concept of social justice.
	On the face of it, if you're not politically aware, you could be forgiven for thinking, what's wrong with social justice?
	What's wrong with human rights?
	Who in their right mind would be against human rights?
	Well, you know, obviously the whole thing has been subverted and weaponised.
	One of the things I'll just quickly say is that I'm happy to take Douglas Murray's help here, despite some objections.
	Because we need, I think, in my mind, it's my view, we need any help we can get.
	There's a vast array of enemies aligned against us here.
	And if there's a mainstream voice, for whatever reason almost, I'll take it.
	So that's mainly what I wanted to say.
	So I think that's nearly my time up here.
	Well, I wanted to say, having briefly spoken to Douglas, I can assure you that he's a friend and a fellow traveller on this issue.
	Sure, sure.
	To add my own point on the human rights issues.
	So with a lot of these organisations, a lot of the time you'll find that they are explicitly globalist and internationalist and oftentimes not staffed or headed by people who are native to the countries that they're exerting influence over.
	For instance, although I believe Searchlight is also, was that Nick Lowles along with Hope Not Hate?
	He's run both of those or set up both of those I think.
	For instance, British Future is run by, I think, a half-Indian, half-English man.
	And of course, as with all mixed-race people who are leftist activists, you find that there is basically no association or no pride in the British side of the heritage.
	It's all to do with the Indian.
	Position yourself entirely as an outsider of the culture who needs to change the culture.
	And the UN Convention of Human Rights that came about in the post-World War II period, I would say, was the first example of when they really start to weaponize the concept of human rights against national sovereignty.
	Because really, what was that?
	It was a bunch of, let's be perfectly honest, Leftist activists within the UN deciding arbitrarily what constitutes a human right and what doesn't in an internationalist sense.
	So you as a nation can no longer maintain your own sovereignty, you have to submit to this, and also it just happens that this means that you're unable to do things like properly protect your own borders.
	There was still a period where you were able to do so, but really we're just reaching the inertia of the logic that that set off.
	It was a domino effect where it just tumbles down and now we're living in the result of the enshrining of those types of human rights.
	That's an important point as well, because something Callum's covered a few times before, is when the UN formulated its definition of human rights, they actually caved to the Soviet delegation who said, well, we don't want total free speech because we want the ability to suppress Nazis, which actually meant to smack down their political opposition for anyone who is an anti-communist and intern which actually meant to smack down their political opposition for anyone who is an So the UN is more than happy to cave to
	terrorist dictatorial regimes when it suits them, and then weaponise the own good consciences of countries like Britain and many members of America against them to just flood them with foreign criminals.
	It's interesting you mentioned the Socialist Workers Party.
	I think at least one or two of those I listed were born out of them.
	But we've had the age of mass migration, had the attempt at multiculturalism and globalisation, and if their goal was public interest, which it obviously isn't, if it were, it's been terrible.
	If their goal was, in fact, always to sort of destroy the very fabric of our society, then it's been spectacularly successful.
	I think we need now to move into the age of re-migration.
	I would suggest to anyone out there, if you're on our side, so to speak, just start speaking as though it's an inevitability.
	That is quite a powerful tool, I think.
	It has to happen.
	It will happen.
	And it sort of becomes a self-perpetuating prophecy, hopefully.
	We've not really got much to lose by doing that.
	If you'd rather Britain look like elsewhere, I'm more than happy to help you live elsewhere.
	Because I haven't got anywhere else to go.
	I've just got Britain.
	And I'd like Britain to stay the way it is, actually.
	No, you've got Ireland!
	I would like to see a whole new government department staffed by people that want to see things reversed.
	In charge of repatriation, re-migration and making sure our borders actually function.
	Because without borders you don't really have a country.
	The very rule of law itself is undermined to the point of becoming absurd.
	We're in a difficult situation, it really is.
	But, you know, never give up hope.
	anything could anything could happen fantastic can I nick your mouse we're rationed on tech here at the Lotus ears how do I close oh shite oh Barger are you okay yep I'm alright I don't know what happened there You might want to grab some tissue.
	Just get someone to bring me some tissue, please.
	Thank you.
	Run for the blooper reel there.
	Yeah, there we go.
	Hello, Legacy is out of context.
	That's fantastic.
	I think what happened there was that a ghost got me.
	Right.
	That's the only explanation.
	Somebody stepped on my grave and I had a... Just as Peter Hitchens has been haunted by the ghost of Enoch Powell all week, you've been haunted by the ghost of what?
	Members of the Fabian Society?
	Let's not talk about Peter Hitchens and Enoch Powell.
	We are live.
	These things happen when you're live.
	Yeah, it's okay.
	Thank you very much.
	I'll kick off once Harry's not in immense discomfort.
	Are you sure you're alright with your hand?
	Yeah, no, it's absolutely fine.
	It wasn't scalding hot or anything.
	My hand's perfectly fine.
	Okay, no, no... And it's been calloused enough from guitar and gym, so it's perfectly fine.
	No, at least they're manly activities.
	There you go.
	It's going to look really confusing for the YouTube audience when it cuts to this segment, isn't it?
	Oh, well, that's all right.
	Harry had a boo-boo.
	Yep.
	Okay, fantastic.
	On to my bit then, I suppose.
	Well, on Monday night, there was a Center for Social Justice event.
	Now, for anyone whose eyebrows are raised, The think tank was set up by Ian Duncan Smith.
	So, former head of the Conservative Party.
	Yeah.
	So, they don't mean social justice in the way that it's been captured, but obviously the name is now radioactive.
	But point being, the intention... Well, they didn't at the time.
	You're telling me to trust the social intentions of a former Tory member?
	I'm saying that he's a well-intentioned boomer that doesn't understand what's happening.
	This does not fill me with hope.
	The quiet man of politics.
	Do you remember that, Winnie?
	Gave himself that moniker.
	Not great.
	Very fringe word.
	Anyway, look, the point is the event that was on was actually pretty good.
	And the reason I say that is because some friends of the show were participating in it.
	So Miriam Cates was spearheading it.
	Fantastic MP, about one of the only good ones left in the Tory party at this point.
	Rosie Duffield was meant to be on it, who is not a friend.
	She was former MP at Canterbury who decided to dogpile on our student society for inviting coal back in 2018 and has since been devoured by the crocodile of her own party over gender ideology to the point of where she couldn't show up to the event.
	She was afraid for her safety.
	Now, I would say she shouldn't be hounded off of this.
	Not very nice thing to do, but also don't feed the beast if that's the if that's the case for it.
	Then there was also Philip Pilkington, who has worked for ARC and has done a paper on demographics.
	He'll be coming in to be interviewed.
	And the wonderful Stephen Shaw who I've spoken to on our website in the following interview on the pandemic of unplanned childlessness because of his film Birth Gap.
	And the whole point of the event was to discuss demographic decline in various countries.
	This is specific to England though.
	Stephen Shaw went around the world and said pretty much every country except for Israel at this point is having declining birth rates.
	Israel has about 2.5 because it has Religious and ethnic-specific migration policies and a stable economy, so it's actually encouraging religious minorities globally to have children in its country.
	But the rest of the world is below sub-replacement, which is 2.1 babies per woman.
	India's just dipped below that.
	Sub-Saharan Africa is above replacement birth rate, but every single decade they're losing at least one child.
	So, trying to import the whole third world to make up for your falling birth rates not only has problems with the economy and problems with culture and ethnic tensions, but it also isn't going to work long term.
	All of these things are very sensible policies and discussion topics.
	For some reason, we haven't been able to talk about that for the last how many years because, oh my god, you're racist if you notice that your, essentially, native population is going extinct because you're not having babies.
	Very frustrating.
	But it's good that it's being had as a discussion now in the building adjacent to Parliament, which is Portcullis House.
	Now, Shaw wrote a piece about this a little while ago for The Spectator.
	I'm just going to put some numbers in context here because the situation's pretty dire.
	He's worked out that by 2050, 800 million people are going to suffer from unplanned childlessness.
	That basically means that it's people who had wanted to have families but didn't find the time, the economic circumstances went against them, they didn't have a partner, And various factors had pushed them away from meeting someone.
	And about 80% of those people, who don't have children by that time, wanted them.
	Only 10% had suffered from fertility issues, 10% didn't want them because of climate change or whatever, right?
	And so we'd worked out the numbers for each country.
	The UK last year had 900,000 adults celebrate their 50th birthday and only 700,000 births.
	That's a 23% birth gap.
	That's the first time that's happened, I believe, where the number of pensioners has eclipsed the number of newborns.
	Obviously driven in part by the pandemic and lockdowns, but economic instances often have a knock-on effect.
	The US has a 15% gap, France 24%, Germany 35%, Spain and Japan both 55%.
	I think Japan's one of the worst birth rates in the world.
	I think it's 115th out of 127?
	It's like 1.2 children per woman at this point.
	That's very interesting, isn't it?
	Because that suggests to me that it's something to do with development rather than necessarily Western culture.
	Yes, seemingly so.
	It's not just Western culture.
	It's something about having a high standard of living and or developed society or something?
	Yeah, well lower infant mortality means that if your children are alive for longer you're trying for less children because you have to support them.
	There's also the implication that the birth control pill has done this to the West.
	Now that's not the case in Japan because Japan didn't adopt the pill until 1990.
	And in the moment in Japan only 3% of women are on the pill at all.
	But around the same time in the 70s there was an oil shock that hit South Korea, Italy, Germany and Japan and all their birth rates went off cliff and they've never recovered since.
	So adverse economic circumstances are also part of it.
	Does Japan also have a surplus of men in comparison to the amount of women it has?
	As far as I'm aware.
	I'm not sure about the exact population of that, but I do know that the Hikakomori are a growing constituency of men.
	So there are many men taking themselves out of the dating pool entirely.
	So also cultural phenomenons at work here.
	South Korea's got 71% birth gap.
	I think that's the worst in the world at this point.
	I think there are more dog owners than there are parents in South Korea.
	Bloody hell.
	Yeah, so that's really bad.
	Interestingly enough, the reason isn't fewer children.
	As in, per family.
	It's fewer people having children overall.
	So if you have a child, your likelihood of having more children is much higher.
	But it's just people are never having any children in the first place that's going up.
	Could you argue that there is a, um, given the selective pressures right now for the sorts of people who would choose to have families as opposed to those who would choose not to have families, by choice, not necessarily because they've been put into circumstances where they can't financially or can't because they can't find a part- Could you argue that there is a soft eugenics process going on?
	Not to, you know, qualify that positively or negatively, just to state that it appears, because I know that Ed Dutton, who was at the ARC conference that you were at last week, has written a book about the potential conservative future purely because of the fact that it's more conservative-minded people who are having more children as opposed to liberally-minded people.
	Eric Kaufman's done two books about this.
	I'm talking to him tomorrow, actually, and he's done The Religious Will Inherit the Earth, as we've already seen with Israel.
	Orthodox Jews are having children at rates higher than other sectors of Jews, but all religious Jews in that country have a higher birth rate than pretty much everywhere else.
	Same with the Amish in America, same with Catholics in the general diaspora.
	So, yes, it is trending towards conservative birth rates as well, because for some reason Liberal and woke-minded people have, for many reasons, made abortion and cosmetic sterilization, YouTube, a sacrament for themselves.
	I was about to mention there is also the ideological demographics of abortion.
	The issue is, though, is that of the people that aren't having these children, the overwhelming majority of them are reporting that they want them or would have liked them.
	It's only about 10% of the people that don't end up having kids have no kids for ideological reasons.
	So what's happening here is a vast majority of people are just not having the families that they've always wanted to have due to various life circumstances and reasons.
	It might be the cultural narrative, it might be economic circumstances, it might be their inability to find a partner, it might be delaying their fertile years because of education, but a sort of conflagration of issues are converging on this generation and stopping them having kids.
	And it's not just in Britain, it's around the world, but obviously This event was mainly focused on Britain.
	There's a little passage here about Britain.
	The number of childless people in the UK has grown to 1 in 4 over the past 5 decades, yet the number of children that mothers are having has increased slightly from 2.3 in the 70s to 2.4 today.
	In Japan, the figure for childlessness is 1 in 3, yet 6% of mothers are having 4 or more children, exactly the same as in 1973.
	In Italy, 2 in 5 women are childless, while the average mother is having 2.2.
	In the US, childless women is trending towards 1 in 3, but the average mother is having 2.6 children, up from 2.4 in the 70s.
	This confirms the idea that we're moving towards smaller families is a myth.
	Childlessness alone has driven our overall birth rates to ultra-low levels.
	And this isn't something that people are discussing.
	And so Miriam Cates, the head of the event, decided to do a bit of polling on what women actually want.
	Do they want these children or not?
	Are they all sacrificing their families for the climate, as Greta Thunberg keeps telling them?
	And she says, exclusive polling commission for the event shows that 92% of young women want children and that the average number of children desired is 2.4, so above birth rate.
	In other words, if women were able to have the number of children they actually wanted, we wouldn't have a problem.
	A problem which the establishment seems to think mass migration is the only solution to.
	So, various factors are converging on this generation to not have the families that they want, In order to manufacture consent for battery farming Africans into affinity.
	And that's not particularly desirable for multiple reasons, as we've mentioned time and time again on this podcast.
	If you want to look at the rest of the stats, they have been published in full on the new Social Covenant unit.
	Thanks very much to Imogen for that.
	It says 92.4% of young women hope to become mothers.
	When asked how many children they'd like to have once barriers are removed, 18 to 24 year olds wanting 2.25 and 25 to 35 year olds want 2.41.
	Of those not wanting or unsure about having children in the future, 44% cited needing to feel as though they could afford enough childcare, 41% wanting to move into a first or larger home, and 41% said they want to become less economically vulnerable.
	So even of the people who are saying, I don't want kids yet, Those factors are all conditional on I don't feel like I'd have them.
	So again, lots of people want them, various reasons as to why they're not having them.
	And so what's this leading to?
	Bit of a scary statistic that came out of an ARC report from Philip Pilkington who sat on this panel, and we'll get to Philip in a moment, because noticing demographic trends is apparently enough to be shouted at, Many such cases.
	He discovered in this paper that we'll be discussing on the channel soon, that if current demographic and birth rate trends continue, the UK in 2083 will be 54% first generation immigrant.
	First generation.
	Not just the children, who may not feel connected to the area, first generation.
	So people that have come over as economic chances have been invited over because we haven't been able to fill, apparently, all these job vacancies that keep cropping up, as you've covered before, many oftentimes ghost jobs as well.
	Oh, yeah.
	A lot of them are managers trying to put out the feelers to their own staff members saying, don't worry, I know you're overworked, but we've got jobs coming in.
	We'll have new people started and they never actually take anyone on.
	Or they're mandated from their own upper departments to put them out there.
	Or to just have, say, like call centers, a lot of call centers will have perpetual job offers, even if all of the positions are filled because they have such a high rate of turnover.
	But every single one of these will be classified in ONS data as a job vacancy that needs to be filled, which is why you can just, one of the reasons why you can justify mass migration, even though these jobs don't exist or will never be filled or were never meant to be And it's total false assumption that suddenly by arriving on British soil they're going to be transplanted into fully patriotic and integrated British citizens because people hold cultural prejudices.
	Soil's magic, bro!
	Oh yeah, if you just give someone a passport, they're instantly going to be waving the Union Jack, I'm sure.
	It's genuinely a cultural extinction event to say that the majority of your population only arrived here yesterday.
	And that is not a prejudicial or racist statement, and I'm tired of people saying that it is.
	The problem is that people within the Conservative camp say it is.
	Now this should surprise no one, because of course there have always been Tory wets acting as containment.
	There were even a few that tried to infiltrate ARC, which was frustrating.
	But it seems at least with stuff like this, it's going to be trending in this direction in future.
	And so I wanted to reference the event.
	Now, it's in full and it's live streamed on the Center for Social Justice's Twitter accounts.
	You can go and watch it back if you'd like.
	I apologize that the volume is not great.
	We've done our best to clean some of it up.
	But there was a Q&A session and the event was chaired by Fraser Nelson.
	If anyone doesn't know him, he is one of the lead editors over at The Spectator.
	Now, Fraser is often invited to these sorts of panel events.
	He chaired Miriam's event talking about the online harms bill at a Conservative Party conference, so he's quite a high-profile journalist.
	When Philip was talking about the findings of his report, in a very I've got a good question for you.
	I don't think there were really any value judgments laden in what he said.
	Just noticing the fact that Britain would be majority immigrant was enough to warrant shouting him down.
	I'm going to play a couple of clips.
	One of them is quite long, so I can pause at any point if requested.
	Just because I thought I'd raise your blood pressure, boys.
	So let's see if we can listen to this.
	I've got a question from what we've asked before.
	And I feel it's a very striking presentation.
	I've gone from this for-- normally at CSJA events, I'm going to agree with most of the panelists.
	Tonight, not particularly.
	So I'll get my questions out of the way.
	But Philip, you're presenting that immigrants as a shared population, almost like some kind of threat.
	Now this is why I can't understand.
	I mean, we are living, take this wonderful city of London.
	You've got 60% of the children in the city are born to an immigrant mother.
	As far as I can work out, that means one of the most successful mountain blocks in the world.
	What's to worry about?
	Where's the danger?
	Well, you just said 60% are born to a democratic parliament, not with 60%.
	Well, a third of them are.
	They're probably a bit more than that.
	They're immigrant mothers.
	I mean, what's the mindset?
	Is it a pretty well-functioning city?
	London seems to be fairly well-functioning.
	So what's to worry about?
	Well, I mean, it's up to people.
	Look, we're sharing a title.
	If the country is comfortable with 50% of the population being foreign-born, Potentially speaking different languages and so on.
	Oh, sorry, sorry.
	We don't speak English when we come here.
	Well, wherever the...
	It's coming from.
	I mean...
	Well, we do have it coming from.
	This is a little weird, but we're right now in Nigeria.
	That's the number one source of English.
	They speak particularly English.
	They integrate them very, very well.
	The second language actually reaches Polish.
	As far as I can work out, is we're actually talking from Sergis.
	I don't think so.
	I mean, one of the biggest political issues right now is immigration across Europe.
	Various political forces are rising up complaining about immigration rates.
	The one thing I'm saying is, from an immigration point, there's only really been one expound, long-term expoundment in immigration, right?
	Not the kind of frontier economy of West Australia or something like that.
	It's the United States.
	It's the United States in the 1870s, 1920s, right?
	And they had a big wave of Irish, Italian, Polish migration and they integrated successfully.
	was the largest share of the population that they took on.
	It was about 15%.
	That's the current rate in overall if we say okay, we're going to triple that.
	Which is basically what we're saying.
	We're saying we're going to triple that.
	Wait a minute, are we saying that?
	Well, if we want to achieve the economic rate of growth and stability.
	Well, that's two completely different things, right?
	And I'd love to know the error margin on that graph of yours.
	Because let's face it, we don't know about economic models.
	You've got so many factors that you're imagining there.
	So you're sharing this graph saying, and you're saying, "50% of it in your words, "half the people born in your city, "part of the society on that basis." What's the difference is that?
	Because it's experimental. - But where is your graph?
	So what are the ecosystem differences?
	We have an increasingly, steadily increased portion of Hindus in this country.
	So what are the ecosystem differences?
	Well, we have an increasingly increased portion of news in this country.
	We have come from Croatia as a result, we've got a Hindu Prime Minister, a 30-7 Secretary, a Muslim very long-term minister, Soviet.
	As far as I can work out, this makes us a protein damage, right?
	No, I can work out.
	I'm going to go.
	You don't know 50% of Democrats' votes.
	You don't know this political system.
	It will, if you take a simple assumption.
	You're not in the time social determinants.
	Yes, because you know it's a kin to do worse.
	You don't know 50% of the difference.
	You don't know the political system.
	And nor is you, everybody can get that level from.
	It will, if you take a simple assumption, and by the way, they aren't complex assumptions.
	Even all the models require complex assumptions.
	Demographic models are the depth.
	It's just the number of people.
	It's the number of births.
	It's the actual rate versus the number of immigrants.
	It's a very simple model.
	I'm going to be perfectly honest.
	I could barely tell a word of what they were saying.
	So please explain that.
	Apologies if the audio is, for some reason, not excellent.
	Is him in the middle Fraser Nelson, and him on the left is Philip Pilkington?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, the summary was... From body language I got a bad vibe from...
	Philip was genuinely uncomfortable, and he actually said to me after the event, I felt kind of bad having to pull the, well, I'm actually an immigrant card because I shouldn't have been put in that position.
	And so Fraser was turning around and saying, well, if you look outside at London, we seem to be functioning rather well.
	We have a Hindu prime minister.
	We have a Buddhist home secretary.
	We have a Muslim mayor of London, a Muslim first minister of Scotland.
	The United Kingdom seems to be operating perfectly well, doesn't it?
	I would suggest that Fraser maybe not get cabs everywhere and step outside on the actual streets or some of the areas of London which are nearly entirely or are entirely super diverse minorities and see how well they're functioning socially.
	His name was David Amis.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Her name was Emily Jones.
	Yeah, what an obscene wretch.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, from what I could tell, just from the body language, there was obviously some power dynamics going on there and it seems that Fraser was almost entirely trying to format his questions into, well one, he was positioning himself in a rather smug
	a sense with a unearned sense of moral superiority because it seemed that what he was trying to do was fish out an answer to the why have you got a problem with that bro what's the problem everybody's the same bro what's the problem and get the well actually group behavior affects a lot of things and different groups behave in different ways which is the honest truth of it and i don't think there should be any shame in admitting it
	But he was trying to fish that answer from Philip because then he has a blanket to just say, oh you're racist then.
	Oh you think that group behavior has effects on outcomes and has an effect of people, individuals behavior?
	What do you mean?
	We're all individuals because what you say about the idea that even pointing out that there is demographic change going on means you can be labeled a racist.
	From what I can tell from my own analysis, the
	Overriding assumption seems to be that if you as a British person, if you as a person with European ancestry who can be broadly classified as white, recognize yourself as a member of a group rather than just an unsituated individual out in a globalized world, well then you are racist because if you are white recognizing yourself as part of a group, these people conceptualize as the first step to fascism, which they see as the first step to genocide.
	Realistically speaking it all leads back and this is why they want a holocaust memorial outside of the parliaments of the UK is because they see any sort of white group identity even if that doesn't affect your individual actions even if it just means that you recognize that I am part of a group
	And it's more and more difficult not to see yourself as part of a group when we have other groups imported into the country who see themselves as group and situate themselves directly oppositional to our interests because they're pushing for more welfare, pushing for more open borders, pushing for all sorts of things that cause us detriment.
	They say, well, if you see yourself as a group, you're a Nazi.
	That's what it all comes down to.
	And Eric Kaufman has done work on this saying, okay, do you know what really makes things volatile and escalate to violence?
	Is if you gaslight people into saying some people's psychological proclivity to see themselves as part of an ethnic group doesn't exist only for white people when it does exist for other ethnicities.
	Because you are clearly being dishonest and using it as an instrument to destroy the country.
	Now, me personally, I don't have a white identity.
	I'm just an Englishman, right?
	I love my culture.
	I love the place that I come from.
	My skin color is subordinate to the place and time and beliefs that I have grown up with.
	And I don't want to see those go extinct.
	Because, funnily enough, if you flood the country full of people that don't have the same culture as me, premised on the idea of multiculturalism, and they do not assimilate, not nearly as successfully as Fraser Nelson seems to somehow believe that they are, then yeah, my culture will be driven to extinction.
	And I don't want that.
	I wasn't asked if I wanted that.
	It's not... This is something that actually... He's a man who fundamentally is out for his own interests and not the interests of our nation.
	That's what it comes across as.
	He's a traitor.
	And so he turns around and says, okay, well, well, why can't you just adapt to the fact that your culture is going to be liquidated?
	Why can't we have, right?
	Couldn't our national story just be Britain becoming this new multicultural thing?
	He's asking Britons to accept changing of their national story.
	It's not Britain.
	Try telling him that.
	I'm just going to play this and I'll summarize if the audio is not great again.
	Okay.
	And one final question, if you're in front of the floor.
	This whole discussion, whether anything you answer, Immigration is basically being a function of the depletion of the number of working age.
	I understand that.
	And right now we've got, I forget the figure for immigration to Britain, it's about 1.1 million a year or something like that.
	And that is obviously a pretty big figure by our standards.
	But, and this is broadly speaking twice as many as the world rate is, so that's quite a big, perhaps unexpected consequence of the EU.
	This is happening as far as I can work out, not because the hardest amount of British people, some British born people in the country.
	This is happening because right now we have a welfare system paying 5.3 million people not to work.
	As far as I can work out, the gap, the vacuum, sucking in mind the workers, the reason they don't work your short-term crisis is because right now the welfare system is going back to the people you tried to solve 14 years ago, where you've got like 20% sometimes more of a great system, find out if you're a benefit, then there were more of a where you've got like 20% sometimes more of a great system, find And that, rather than the Nicholas issue, is why the influence comes.
	Well, I'm sure that's part of the difference that we have to do now.
	But if you just look at the birth gap in that, what's the 10-5% in this subject, there literally are 35% fewer babies being born than there are 50-year-olds at the moment.
	So there is unarguably a mathematical shortage of people.
	people are mentally related.
	You can plug that gap with immigration or you can design yourself that you want to serve major.
	That's what you want.
	And I think on the immigration point, you know, we don't import immigrants as babies.
	We import them as adults and they're given to go on to.
	And then we need more immigrants to be in the workforce in order to provide.
	And I think, you know, I'd probably say that if we do too on immigration, I do think it's more than that immigration.
	It's very, very important for an economy.
	But there's no democratic country.
	It's not the kind of immigration we have right now.
	That's very clear to the fault.
	So the idea that we've increased that massively to the point where half of the people aren't ruling this country, nothing to do with being anti-immigrant or racist.
	It's not It's about saying, where does our national cohesion come from?
	Where does our national story come from, if one in two people wasn't born here?
	And I just don't think there's democratic consent for that.
	and therefore we're not going to go down that model, the government's talking about a different model, which is how to get more children, how to enable parents to be more fulfilled in the kind of family size they want.
	It's plausible that our national story becomes one serious as the United States in Australia, that we are in Britain who are rich in the multi-ethnic state, that we are a country who successfully combines various races and cultures better than anywhere else in Europe.
	But even in America, as Philip said, the maximum number of the percentage of first-generation humans have had is 500%.
	So you're still talking more than three times that level, which, as Philip said, is an experiment.
	Thank you.
	Why are we commanded to pretend that if we triple the most amount of immigration that America has ever seen, and a land mass smaller than one of its states, that there's going to be no problems?
	That's just my deep and abiding frustration.
	Why are we commanded to pretend that there aren't going to be any cultural abrasions?
	I mean, why does he pretend, why does this Fraser gentleman, which I think is possibly an unknown term I've given him there, but why does he pretend that there isn't a tipping point?
	That there isn't clearly a tipping point when demographics hit a certain point And reasonably, it seems to be when you have about 40% of an area becoming an out-group and 60% the in-group, when all of a sudden they have a certain numbers advantage, especially when the in-group sees themselves as an unsituated, completely atomized group of individuals rather than a cohesive unit.
	These people see themselves as more of a cohesive unit.
	Why does he not see that that will inevitably lead to negative consequences?
	The culture of an area is always, always determined by the culture of the majority of the people who live there.
	They don't have to assimilate.
	He pretends that they're assimilating.
	Most of them aren't.
	Are we going to pretend that London is the same city it was 40 years ago?
	I suspect he does see and doesn't care.
	I think he probably just doesn't interact with these people at all.
	I suspect he's just exactly what he seems to be.
	A traitor scumbag who doesn't, hasn't got the interests of us at heart at all.
	Like, I heard him say, so who's paying him to say something like that?
	Surely it can't be his actual genuine opinion.
	What if Britain just becomes a melting pot of nothing?
	Well, actually... Wait, sorry, what are you talking about?
	The last of the three clips, which is short, I think it does actually prove that he is Painfully naive.
	Like, he's staggeringly unintelligent on this issue.
	The reason is, he genuinely says, well who's saying that we need to fix this birth gap with migration?
	Who's suggesting this?
	What's your whole argument based on?
	But the bloody Treasury Green Book says we need to set migration at this exact amount of people in order to keep economics at the same level.
	So it's premised on the idea that if we want to continue the line to go up we've got to pull in this many people from around the world, particularly the third world after Brexit.
	But this is what all the NGOs decide to cite and he's saying that Anyway, last time I'll let him speak.
	I just loathe to let these people off the hook by saying it's naivete or something.
	These people are actually, you know, quite clever in a sense, well-read, intelligent people.
	Right?
	Sometimes.
	And is he the chief editor?
	I believe he's the lead editor.
	Yeah, he's the lead editor of a very important newspaper.
	So is Andrew Neil.
	Andrew Neil's not that bright.
	You're going to be savvy, you're not going to be just completely ignorant of the argument.
	You've got to be smart enough to be conniving to get to the sort of position he's in.
	The question he asks right here is basically, if you were trying to be conniving and do optics to do containment, you wouldn't ask this question?
	Because you look bloody stupid by a 19 year old in the audience that turns around and gives you... Selective ignorance is more effective.
	some people give it credit.
	Well, I'll play this because I think this is probably just sums up how insulated he is and how disastrous that is.
	One more point.
	You say you've been wrong at the immigration system is there anybody who genuinely says immigration is a solution for declining birthdays?
	No, wait, wait.
	There was one thing that, for example, I've missed this.
	I've missed this person making this stupid piece of this.
	Lots of people have better.
	Is there?
	Oh, okay.
	I'm going to go to the wrong and I'm going to go to the wrong review of my philosophy tomorrow.
	people reviewed the file It's very much so in the business class' interest to get imprints in because it's a short-term fix.
	Adam Smith, lots of people make it.
	Can I just ask for this?
	Very much so in the business class's interest to get into the incentive because it's a short-term fix.
	All they care about is the next year, two years, three years later, for some reason they don't care about it.
	They want to understand the line because they're in business.
	I'm going to try and give my perspective on what he was trying to do.
	He was trying to do what Morgoth calls playing the hatchling, which is the selective ignorance.
	I have only just emerged into the world.
	You're going to have to explain everything to me.
	It's a very effective debate tactic if you assume two things.
	One, the audience is on your side.
	And two, that the person that you're debating with doesn't actually know what they're talking about because it puts all of the impetus on them to explain their position.
	Oh, I don't know a thing that you're talking about, even though you do, but it means that you have to explain it all.
	And if I catch that you aren't as well read on the subject as you say that you are, then I can immediately claim to have won the debate because, ha, you're an idiot.
	It means you don't have to be in the position where you explain a single thing about your own position or why you believe what you believe.
	He was unfortunate enough in this position to be caught out by an audience who did know what they were talking about and weren't entirely on his side.
	So what does Morgoth call it?
	Playing the hatchling.
	That's very good.
	I like that.
	It's quite a good turn of phrase.
	So, I'll just finish on some new numbers that have come out from Migration Watch.
	They were under embargo until today, which is quite fortunate that we get this.
	If we keep these migration numbers up, not only, as they released before, will we by 2046 need 18 new cities the size of Birmingham to accommodate the housing, we would need 6,675 new schools, 165 further education colleges, 75 universities, and that's assuming that the migrants have the same number of children they do, even though that keeps dropping off, so you'd need more migrants, 2,640 GP surgeries, 135 hospitals, 7,785 new roads.
	Way up.
	2,235 bus lanes.
	And that's on migration alone, because as the ONS has said, our population would not be increasing unless it were for migration.
	How the hell are we going to facilitate all that?
	And why should we?
	Why are we entitled to roll out the infrastructure red carpet for a bunch of people who are chancers who hate us?
	Can anyone answer me this?
	Perhaps Fraser has an answer for this.
	But not only that, and I thought I'd finish on something maybe a bit bitterly funny.
	Go back to Miriam's point and Stephen's point.
	It's not just a case of national demographics.
	It's a case of actually, there are people that really want families.
	There are people that after 40 say that I feel really bereaved because I wanted kids and I've never had them yet.
	Lots of women who've been let down by freezing their eggs and it's been unsuccessful or failed IVF treatments, lots of them end up with heart failure.
	Yeah, and that was discussed in this.
	So we actually need early interventions to ensure that we don't have an entire generation of people that are heartbroken because they never had the children they wanted.
	So you're doing a disservice to them by not being honest about that.
	And journalists, in case you didn't hate them enough, Miriam My friend originally tweeted this out and I think Miriam nicked it, so I'll call you out on that.
	A journalist by the name of Alice Thompson in the Times, in 2017, she wrote the article, Women of Britain, you must have more babies.
	A falling birth rate is bad news for the economy, but serious financial and career incentives are required to correct it.
	Perfectly reasonable take.
	As of last week, no thanks, we women won't breed for Britain.
	Miriam Cates wants us to have more babies, it's not so easy, says Alice Thompson.
	I wonder what changed.
	I wonder if personal circumstances might have increased the vitriol from this woman's article.
	And that seems to be the thing.
	It seems that personal circumstances, Fraser Nelson saying, what makes me uncomfortable about this conversation.
	This woman, I don't know her personal life choices, but I would assume things didn't maybe work out how she wanted, saying within six years, no, having babies is bad and I shouldn't feel culturally pressured to do so.
	The insecurities and bad consciences of some people are stifling a necessary debate and making it so that we are entering a demographic disaster and bereaving an entire generation of the families they actually want.
	It's fundamentally cruel and you should stop being cowards and we should have this conversation.
	Alright.
	And I've not spilt coffee this time.
	Smooth.
	Do you want the Elgato?
	Yeah, yeah, go on, cheers.
	There you go, mate.
	Alright, on to my last segment, and this one should be a bit more light-hearted, probably, for the most part, because you gentlemen have heard of Mr. Beast, correct?
	He's like a philanthropic YouTuber, isn't he?
	Yes, isn't he?
	I don't know how he made his massive fortune that he uses to fund all of the ridiculous things that he does.
	I'm aware of him because he's one of the biggest YouTubers, right?
	But I don't think I've ever watched a single second of his content, ever.
	I have watched one or two, and one... What does he actually do?
	Sorry, real quick.
	He tends to do big gimmick videos where he'll say like, I've got five people on a desert island and the one to last until the end of this designated amount of time, I'm going to give a Bugatti Veyron to, or I'm going to give you £500,000.
	If you do this, I'll give you loads of money.
	If you do that, I'll give you loads of money.
	Oftentimes he'll go off and do something that is, as you mentioned, very philanthropic.
	And overall, he seems to be, he's a bit of a normie.
	One of the people who's part of his production team came out as I was going to ask if one of his producers is a woman now, and has always been.
	Yes, has always been, and in pursuit of that thing that she always was, it always was, abandoned the family, of course.
	Right, stunning and brave, yep.
	Yeah, stunning and brave.
	So he's got very normie proclivities.
	It's fairly inoffensive, right?
	I don't know how he made all of his money because he's about 25 years old and he's got a net worth of somewhere between a hundred and five hundred million dollars but that's why he's able to fund everything that he does and he's in trouble again because he keeps getting in trouble because he keeps doing nice things like this from a few months ago like almost a year ago at this point where he decided that I'm going to go out and And try and cure the blind.
	I'm going to pay for blind people's treatment for some kind of specialist experimental surgery that's going to give them their sight back.
	And loads of people, lots of commies got angry about it saying that it was ableist.
	And then I think a week or two after he came out with a video where he said, I did the same thing for deaf people.
	I gave them all cochlear implants.
	And I don't know, I think that also got him labelled as ableist at the same time.
	Very strange that he's doing very nice things for people.
	What possible angle is there to criticise that?
	I am a nihilistic worm with nothing going on in my own life and I have to gin up some kind of meaning in my life somehow and I've taken on other people's misfortune as my own so that I can have some feeling in my life.
	There must be some reason, logic or something.
	There must be some argument.
	There is a bit of an insulting aspect of it to communists, which is that this is a philanthropic individual using his own money to do this, whereas they believe that he should give it all to the state so that they can inefficiently allocate it to various sources that they prefer, where nothing can get done but they can say, Big Daddy State is doing this, therefore I'm a good person.
	That's part of the logic.
	And don't... I say logic.
	There is no logic to it.
	These people are spiteful mutants.
	Just pure praxis.
	All they care about is their ideological commitment to the state and nothing else.
	They think that the state will do nice things, so when they see an individual do nice things, it fries their brain.
	It short wires them.
	Short circuits them.
	That's a hard argument to make, isn't it?
	Someone wants to cure blind people out of the goodness of his heart with his own money, and you make it about capitalism or something.
	But Hassan will make it.
	I think they also go, oh well he only did it for his YouTube video.
	Okay.
	Well even if he did.
	So what?
	Who cares?
	He did something good.
	He's making back- He only cured cancer for YouTube.
	He's making back the cost on ad revenue to then go and do it again.
	Yeah, I know.
	It's an incredible argument.
	And before I go into the most recent controversy, the website has lots of excellent videos on it.
	So this is your philanthropy to us, to support us for all of the good things that we do for you, including making incredibly informative and entertaining videos.
	Like this recent Contemplations that I was part of with Connor when we had a special guest on Proper Horror Show talking about the psychology of horror films and particular horror films that we would recommend.
	Well, we've got you here, Beau.
	Any horror that you'd like to recommend the audience?
	Specifically horror films?
	Yeah, while we're on the subject.
	I don't know, it's not really my favourite thing particularly.
	Nosferatu.
	Yeah, good impression.
	Actually, you joke, the original Nosferatu film is actually remaking it.
	Robert Eggers is remaking it.
	I was not looking forward to the remake until I saw it was Robert Eggers and now I've got hope for it.
	But the original has a very creepy atmosphere that you can't really capture anymore from those early silent films.
	One thing I will say though, while we're on the topic of the website and things, just to reiterate what you said right at the top of the show, is that usually Contemplation comes out on Saturday and Epochs is Sunday.
	This week, we're flipping it around.
	So if you're a massive Epochs fan, and I know- As you should be.
	And I know there's legions of you out there, it'll be Saturday this week for a one-time only because of...
	It's the 11th of the 11th, and I've got an Armistice Day thing with Godfrey Blooms.
	And it's free, so go and watch it.
	Oh, and the whole thing's free this week as well.
	That one's free, but if you'd like to access these kinds of videos, like Josh's Contemplation series, it is premium, so you do have to chip in.
	It's £5 a month, or we have the single purchase option now, where you can buy a single video if you don't feel like subscribing to the website as a full entity.
	So, there you go.
	Back onto the news, so Mr. Beast did something really nice, again!
	He keeps doing this, where he went to Africa and built 100 wells.
	Right.
	Do either of you have any concerns with this or anything negative to say about this?
	No, it's what Akon was doing for ages and he got loads of praise for it, so... I have no idea who Akon is.
	The singer, the guy that did Lonely, you know, the black dude.
	Who did what?
	The song Lonely, you know, the auto-tuned one.
	Lonely, I'm still alone.
	No?
	Oh, no, I've not heard it.
	Okay, right, early 2000s singer anyway.
	He went and did, he put up pylons in Africa and because he was like, oh, okay, well, my ancestors are black, so I may as well go and spend the money that I've earned helping out a country that's left behind.
	And he got loads of praise for it.
	So I'm going to assume that because Mr. Beast is white, It might have a little bit to do with it.
	It's a charity called WaterAid, isn't it?
	It's difficult to have any sort of moral objection against it, isn't it really?
	But are you a mad communist?
	You'll be impressed at the strain some have gone to to try and object to this.
	So I'll just give a rundown of what he did.
	So he went across Kenya, Zimbabwe, otherwise known as properly Rhodesia, Uganda, Somalia, and Cameroon.
	And he didn't just do wells because he had this big machine that he was bringing along with him that drills down.
	It's a bore.
	This is the first of a hundred wells?
	We're gonna build- I don't think this John's gonna fit.
	water reserves that are deep deep deep underground so it's instantly drinkable water that was available to all of those these people it was really efficient it only took about a minute to be able to drill all the way down to where it was able to get to the water and every single village that he went to i can even play a little bit they were all really chuffed this is the first of a hundred wells we're gonna build i don't think this john's gonna fit there you go boom
	how could white supremacy How could white supremacy do this?
	Yeah, and they're all really thrilled about it.
	All of the villages that he goes to are really grateful.
	And he doesn't just do wells, he also adds in new infrastructure.
	He goes to the schools and gives them shelves, bookshelves and such.
	He installs modern whiteboards and projectors into them, because a lot of them were using chalkboards and getting dust and chalk everywhere.
	It basically does really good things for these people that other people weren't, and certainly their own governments weren't doing because as we know, listing the sorts of countries that I did there, the governments in those countries aren't exactly known for being pure-hearted.
	Well you know that UN that we pay billions towards that ends up subverting us?
	Oh yeah.
	They like to pretend that they're doing this, but instead all the African countries say, no, you're just socially terraforming us, get out of our countries.
	Mr. Beast is doing that without also terraforming.
	So again, unless you're a mad communist, you can't really object to it.
	Oh, I get it.
	So they're going to accuse him of having like an acute case of white saviour complex or something.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Roderick Kipling is going to be inferred in this.
	Oh, there was just a, finish it off.
	There was also a really good thing that he did to one of the villages who was disconnected by a river from the rest of the municipal services, like the hospitals and such, and they only had a very rickety wooden bridge that got destroyed every time the river flooded the banks and they had to rebuild it and a few people had died because they were on the bridge and they only had a very rickety wooden bridge that got destroyed every time the river flooded the banks and they had to rebuild it and a few
	So he got them to build a stable bridge that was above the level where the water would get hit when it burst its banks and they were all really grateful.
	So again, he's not even just doing wells, he was also doing really nice things for the people, the locals in these small villages.
	But of course, can't do nice things these days without somebody having something to say about it, how How dare you go and give these people a better quality of life.
	How dare you go and humiliate the government of Kenya by making it seem as though they're corrupt and don't do anything to help their people.
	This is the thing that got a lot of people talking, which is, while American YouTuber MrBeast's goal was to provide clean drinking water for 500,000 people, which he did, as far as I can tell, activists say his actions shamed the Kenyan government and helped perpetuate the stereotype that Africa is dependent on handouts.
	Yeah, you should shame the Kenyan government.
	What's wrong with that?
	Yeah, the Kenyan government didn't exactly provide that clean drinking water to these places, did it?
	And also, if it takes a random YouTuber, a random YouTube philanthropist, to go and have to do this with his own money...
	then maybe parts of Africa are entirely dependent on handouts and also maybe certain areas across the world where you have what could be described as third world populations tend to be dependent on handouts as a rule.
	You don't tend to find many countries in sub-Saharan Africa that aren't massively dependent on international aid.
	And that international aid may go to good uses if it weren't for how corrupt the governments are in places like Kenya.
	If the three options are the United Nations, which go and look at my segment on the UNAIDS 21 principles.
	They've got things like children can consent to sex in there.
	So if the option is the United Nations, right?
	Chinese Belt and Road Program, which buses in Chinese people to work a slave labor and then extracts them out and then gets the entire dictatorial economy hooked on their infrastructure loans to then take over the country.
	So UN, China.
	Or Mr. Beast...
	I think I know which one I'm going to be picking, not just on efficacy grounds, but on moral grounds alone.
	So I don't care for the whining.
	Yeah, but let's see what's been said in the article itself.
	So they said some Kenyan activists and journalists said that he spotlighted the failures of the Kenyan government.
	Good.
	While Mr. Beast, ironically, he said that he anticipated as he was releasing the video that he would be cancelled.
	Following releasing the video because this keeps happening to him as we've already covered and as we've already mentioned it must be a rather strange position to find yourself in that I'm going off and basically saving children's lives by providing them clean drinking water and people will despise me for this.
	Well another bloke cured the blind and provided food and water to people and he was killed for that a couple of thousand years ago so if it's in the same vein there's kind of a track record for it.
	Heaven forbid the Kenyan government should suffer any criticism.
	They are beyond reproach.
	They're a leftist jumping in front of the bullet for the Kenyan government.
	No!
	That's so funny.
	So yeah, it says the new wells will provide clean drinking water for up to 500,000 people in Cameroon, Kenya, Somalia, Uganda, and Rhodesia, Zimbabwe.
	Donaldson said that Jimmy Donaldson's his real name, while an accompanying fundraiser to support local water aid organizations had raised more than $300,000 by Monday morning.
	So it's not that he went and set up these wells and then left it all behind.
	He has also set up fundraising and donated even more money.
	Right.
	I like him.
	His name's Jimmy.
	Yeah.
	I like the cut of Jimmy's jib.
	Good luck to him.
	It's obviously a net good, isn't it?
	Reducing human misery.
	Well, some people don't see it that way.
	So the CNN reached out to a Kenyan government spokesperson for comment, but didn't get a response.
	We're not saying a thing about this.
	Sabra Kaba Jones, founder and CEO of FaceAfrica, an organization working to improve water infrastructure and sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa, told CNN, I've been doing this for 15 years, but we've been struggling to continue the work because of funding, awareness, and advocacy all taking work.
	Uh, overnight this person comes along who happens to be a white male figure with a huge platform and all of a sudden he gets all of the attention.
	It's kind of frustrating but it's also understanding the nature of how the world is.
	I love how revelatory this is.
	This is what we were talking about in your first segment, the grievance industrial complex.
	No NGO actually wants to solve its own problems, because if they do, the gravy train dries up.
	So what happens here is you're scared that your income, revenue stream, and all of the social clout you'll get at all these nice functions, when you introduce yourself at a cocktail party saying that, I'm building wells in Africa, oh isn't that really nice old white lady, you should become friends with me, all of that's going to disappear because a bloke actually does your job for you.
	That's it.
	Like, you don't actually care about wells in Africa, you care about getting a pat on the back from high society.
	And yeah, you can argue, well, he got a 10-minute YouTube video out of it, okay?
	And all of these kids got clean drinking water out of it.
	Yeah, they're not dying.
	That's a pretty fair trade as far as I'm concerned.
	Aspiring Kenyan politician...
	I wonder if he's biased in his perception of this.
	Francis Gatto criticized Donaldson's video saying on X that it perpetuated the stereotype that Africa is dependent on handouts and philanthropic intervention, though Gatto's comments attracted criticism of their own.
	I mean, once again, a lot of Africa is.
	But if you are an aspiring politician, and the current government is very corrupt, and you yourself are not corrupt, and I of course wouldn't suggest that this gentleman's corrupt, why wouldn't you ally with Mr Beast, considering he's doing what people clearly want?
	Why wouldn't you point and say, why isn't our government doing this?
	Yeah, why wouldn't you say, you know what, I'm gonna make, when I'm your president, or prime minister, or whatever it is in Kenya, I forget, I'm going to make Mr. Beast our national ambassador for global development, and he's going to be building wells everywhere.
	If you weren't corrupt, I would suggest that might be a good strategy.
	To jump ahead, in 2022 alone in the fiscal year, the United States provided nearly $324 million in humanitarian assistance to the people of Kenya.
	That'll be all on gender studies programs.
	More than likely.
	So where is this money going to, apart from gender studies programs?
	It's going into the back pockets of Kenyan politicians.
	So...
	If it means, if the U.S.
	is wasting, essentially, this much money, when one guy with a YouTube channel can do more, then once, like Connor said, I know who I'm going to choose over it.
	But this, this was my absolute favorite one.
	This was my favorite bit of rage posting about this.
	This is some guy, Albert Nat Hyde, who managed to attract the best community notes I've ever seen.
	One million views on this, and almost 5,000 people liked this for some reason.
	Mr. Beast 100 Wells is disrespect to Africans.
	He described the entire Africa as a village with its people living in huts.
	No, he didn't.
	He visited villages which had huts in them.
	But also, if you're going to depict the African utopia in Black Panther, maybe don't depict it as an entire place with people living in huts.
	Where you build mud huts into the sides of glass skyscrapers.
	The palace!
	The palace!
	Amazing.
	He projected that all Africans lack good drinking water.
	Well, lots of them clearly do.
	Yeah, I mean, not all of them, but a lot of them.
	Enough that this was a necessary thing to do in the first place.
	Wells in 2023 is offensive.
	Why not boreholes or pipe-borne water?
	What?
	That's a ridiculous statement.
	Also, one, sure, it's rudimentary, but two, if they're used to a community-focused way of living, then actually the well creates a sort of social site that integrates into the way that these people expect to live?
	Well, some of these people that he went and built wells for, they had to take literally a trip down a mountain to get to the most local water source that was clean water, and even that clean water was infected with parasites that gave them typhoid every so often.
	So, they had to get up at 4am in the morning before they went to school, and this was the entire community.
	Including the children, including the parents, and they all had to go and carry up to 40 pounds of water up and down a mountain.
	Every single day, twice a day.
	And so what did he do?
	He shows up and he gives them a water source that is right there on your doorstep.
	Yeah, but why aren't you building giant aqueducts?
	Why aren't you a plumber?
	That's genuinely his argument.
	But, uh, Africa, Africans do not need water donation.
	We ain't that poor and thirsty.
	Once again, enough of you were.
	Africa is a continent with 54 countries.
	He must be specific where he went.
	He was.
	Yep.
	He said, I went to this country.
	I went to Kenya, Zimbabwe, Uganda.
	Okay.
	This is capitalism.
	He won a low key use these countries for profit.
	Okay.
	I too have schizophrenia.
	And, uh, he has set Africans for global ridicule by building wells we never asked him for.
	And the... The community note's hilarious.
	The community note is brilliant, where it's just, this is speculation.
	No, he has not.
	No he has not.
	Each point absolutely demolished with facts and logic.
	Sorry who is this guy Albert something?
	Who is he?
	I'll tell you who he is.
	He's a resentful moron.
	He's more than that because I don't know how many people did this but on this particular thread you can do an amazing thing called scrolling down and if you scroll down he's got clips Like, oh, can you believe how awful this is?
	He's just doing this for attention.
	Also, by the way, use my code on this promo code on this betting website.
	He is a grifter.
	He's taking sponsorships on his spike posts.
	Yes.
	Oh piss off.
	On his Wakanda posts.
	What a filthy capitalist.
	Yeah.
	Trying to make money.
	That is a good point.
	You all know that's evil.
	Attempting to not be poor.
	You've got a good point.
	So of course this led to some memes.
	Suddenly dropped.
	It's a cow.
	Doing his classics.
	Is our basic competence hurting Africa's feelings?
	Apparently.
	Apparently so.
	But then I also thought to myself, this whole idea of Africa is completely dependent on handouts and African populations and the African diaspora is completely dependent on handouts, which of course they're not, which is why so many of them come to Western countries specifically for welfare handouts.
	And I thought, what's a good example?
	What's a good example of a place that has really terrible living conditions, which is only and entirely the cause of evil Western imperialism and the legacy of slavery?
	Well, I mean, Haiti.
	Haiti is a place that apparently is only destroyed because of evil colonialism and imperialism and slavery and such.
	Is that what you're calling the Clinton Foundation now?
	Maybe.
	But I decided to point out that yes, a lot of these populations have to live on handouts because they constantly whine about how we can't do anything, our government's really corrupt because the government is really corrupt, but then they turn around and blame it on Western people.
	So in this, this is an article from NPR, the most trustworthy source, talking about the greatest heist in history.
	How Haiti was forced to pay reparations for freedom.
	And I looked into this recently and thought I'd bring it up here because I wanted somewhere to talk about this.
	It's hilarious.
	They complain about how much of this debt to France was the legacy of what the University of Virginia calls the greatest heist in history, surrounded by French gunboats.
	This is after the Haitian Revolution.
	Do you know what they don't do, Bo?
	Do you know, if you were to talk about the Haitian Revolution, what's something that you would probably mention?
	Slave revolt?
	Napoleon?
	What was a big part of the slave revolt?
	Was it the mass genocide of the white population of Haiti, including the women and innocent children?
	They don't mention that in here, shockingly enough, but they do bring up that evil French colonialists, otherwise known as white people, surrounded the island with gunboats and forced Haiti to pay reparations to the slaveholders.
	Probably due to all of their family members that they brutally butchered.
	Didn't we as well just pay a shed load of reparations to Kenya for an accused massacre in the 60s when they were still under general British control?
	So where did all that money disappear to?
	Well that's the question isn't it?
	When we're constantly being told that we need to pay reparations and then you look and see that the US is already paying Hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid.
	Other than pure semantics, what's the difference between the money that would be sent in reparations and the money that is sent in humanitarian aid?
	Uh, that money's not washed in white guilt.
	You've got a good point.
	It doesn't come with an apology note.
	Yeah, you're right.
	It doesn't smell of the tears of omission.
	That's what it is.
	Because the French economist Thomas Piketty, the most trustworthy economist, of course, resurrected the idea of reparations to Haiti, arguing that France owes Haiti at least 28 billion.
	But if we were to send that reparations over, what would happen?
	What's the connection between Haiti and Africa, the slave trade in general?
	Well it's the general white guilt that's always thrown at us over these and the fact that if any white person goes over and does anything that you're automatically assumed to be some kind of evil colonizer.
	And so I found it funny that we already give them lots of money in aid.
	13 billion over the course of about 10 to 13 years, and the country still looks like this.
	Well, it's still one of the epicenters of child trafficking in the world, so I would assume, unfortunately, quite a lot of the money gets funneled into that trade.
	And also, if France needs to give any money, well, France already gives, let me see here, 10 to 15 billion euros in foreign aid a year.
	A lot of it, I imagine, will probably be included in any funds that are going to Haiti.
	I didn't know we'd be talking about Haiti, but it's an interesting thing, the history of it.
	It used to be called, what'd they call it, San Domingo, I think, or something?
	Yeah, that was the name before the revolt.
	Because you've also got the Dominican Republic, right?
	And it's a bit like the North-South Korea thing.
	It's like they're right next to each other, they've got very, very similar resources, they're sort of the same people, and just one culture, one economy is sort of okay, and the other one's a complete car crash.
	It's like North and South Korea and the Dominican Republic and Haiti, it's just so obvious.
	Don't run your country like this.
	And if you do, the results will be disastrous.
	This is all to basically say, don't bite the hand that feeds, and black grievance never gets anybody anything.
	Maybe you should, when somebody comes over and does something kind, like build a hundred wells across many countries in Africa, maybe some gratitude.
	As the people who were in those villages who actually got the water displayed because they were all very happy to receive it.
	They were really grateful.
	Maybe be more like that and don't push your own grievance politics for your own political goals.
	Simple.
	Yeah and with that actually wholesome message on to the video comments I suppose.
	So I remember you guys talking about Friends a little while back.
	Yeah, it's about as bad as you guys are remembering it.
	Never liked it myself as a kid.
	But I've been catching up with it a lot, though, because it's always playing at my workplace because they keep playing the reruns.
	But there was one very funny episode where the Bimbo character gets obsessed with this feminist book called Be Your Own Wind Keeper, which is all New Age nonsense about how men are stealing women's wind.
	It's kind of funny though that all the actors that played in this episode probably all believe that nonsense now.
	Yeah, Friends has some very 90s socially progressive messaging in it, but they also do play it for laughs of where, what is it, Chandler's dad's an obvious tranny.
	Ross gets cucked on his first marriage because she turns out she's a lesbian.
	Oh yeah, she decides to become a new age lesbian overnight, doesn't she?
	Yeah, and then they all end up in monogamous heterosexual relationships at the end, except for Joey, who then tried to bugger off and have his own series shagging about.
	And it turns out, actually, that the storyline wasn't that interesting and got cancelled.
	I don't really know that much, but one of my friends is absolutely obsessed with Friends.
	She constantly goes on about it.
	If you need a gift for her, get her something Friends related.
	But I do know a bit about it.
	I think it was the Stealth Pilot that they did in the last series of Friends.
	Stealth Pilots is when you take an episode that's in a normal series and have it focus on one character as a Stealth Pilot for a spin-off show that's going to be focused on them.
	The Office has done it as well.
	They tried to do it with Dwight.
	But they did the stealth pilot for Joey.
	And as far as I'm aware, everybody despised that episode and said it was really bad and they never went further with it.
	So I know that much.
	Again, on things that are implicitly right-wing.
	On to the next one.
	So after listening to Symposium 43 on ideology, I think I had an epiphany why liberalism has gone wrong, actually.
	And it's because it has a progressive bent to it, which is the underlying Judeo-Christian temporal understanding of history.
	Instead of being linear and progressive, we need it to be looked at temporally, more cyclically.
	And so by doing that it will totally change things and we won't be ending up with Marxism in a utopian dream.
	Part of that, and I discussed this with AA in our book club on Prophets of Doom, the cyclical and the linear tracts of history are not incompatible within the Christian framework because the linear tract would be set by someone who isn't human, whereas human affairs can go in a cyclical pattern.
	The problem is if you de-god the linear tract of history, then that's mankind's job to then steward it towards the progressive utopia as basically heaven on earth, which ends up being hellish.
	Tony Blair's job, dammit!
	It's inevitable!
	Yeah, genuinely.
	That's the delusional Promethean belief that undergirds a lot of that, but there you go.
	Onto the comments then.
	Couple of- oh, I'm just wrestling with a mouse.
	There we go!
	Sorry, I'm a boomer.
	Couple of honorary ones.
	California Refugee, again.
	Good to see Bo.
	He's normally so powerful, he must be restrained behind the website paywall, but he breaks free sometimes and gets spicy and passionate and truthful.
	Yeah, genuinely, when we were reconfiguring the podcast layout, we did say we want to see more Bo, because the audience likes Bo.
	So here's Bo!
	That's very kind, I take the compliment.
	HectorX, Connor getting the date wrong is the best start to the book.
	Is it?
	Is it the wrong date?
	Did I?
	Bugger.
	Okay, I must have miswrote that at the top.
	I don't know why I did that then.
	I mustn't have been paying attention, I was preparing to spill my coffee.
	And the spirit of Callum has infested me.
	I'm getting the podcast intro wrong.
	Lord Nerevar, the Palestine stuff really has been a blessing in disguise for our side of politics.
	I'm sorry, this is your bit.
	All we needed was several million clowns to show their true colours and now the population is starting to fully radicalise against them.
	Remigration is now a normalised part of mainstream political discourse.
	This is what we should have been doing all along.
	It's disappointing that it took like 100,000 to now a million man march plan to make manifest the consequence of mass migration to allow us to criticise it.
	But we'll take what we can get, I suppose.
	Did you want to read your own comments, or do you want me to?
	No, go ahead.
	No, it's fine.
	Okay, no worries.
	I appreciate it.
	Eric Nickerson.
	Good morning, gents.
	Here is the question of human rights.
	Does a specific country's government actually have a fundamental obligation to protect the human rights of anyone besides its own citizens and legal residents?
	And he says, I'd personally argue the government has no obligation to protect the human rights of anyone who isn't a citizen or legal resident in that country.
	That's the conceit of things like the UN Declaration on Human Rights and other internationalist organizations, is they globalize it and make it everybody's commitment.
	They make it everybody's responsibility to have to protect the human rights of everybody.
	That's why if you get somebody showing up on your doorstep saying, I'm a refugee, you're forced by international conventions to have to accept them, or else you're going to face all sorts of financial and economic sanctions.
	Mostly from the US, who are really the the enforcers of this international system that we operate under right now.
	Whereas I agree, I do think that the government should protect the rights of its own citizens, of its own people.
	And if you're doing things that are actively against that, then you should be counted as traitors.
	I think there's a very insightful structural analysis.
	I'd also add that the moral impetus of doing that is rights are conditional on reciprocity.
	And so if you stand on the street corner and declare your intention to annex London to a global caliphate, alright, well, if you don't believe in free speech I'll hold you to your own standards.
	Bye bye.
	Sorry, you don't get it anymore.
	See you later.
	Sick of tolerating the intolerant.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that guy there has hit the nail on the head.
	It's a very pertinent question he's asked, yeah, because the logical conclusion is you're obliged to Take in and look after everyone in the world then.
	Anyone that can physically get to your island or your country.
	The logical conclusion is a crazy, absurd thing.
	Kevin Fox, you don't have to look far to see why asylum claims take so long to process and we accept 70% compared to 20% else in Europe.
	How about we fire a lot of them, I assume at the Home Office, and bring in retired military and police officers, preferably the ones who took early retirement from the police before the police began to go woke, and then see how quickly asylum claims are dealt with and watch the acceptance rate plummet.
	I was asked about this on GB News once and they said, okay, do we need a whole new, do we need to bring in the military to process asylum claims?
	And I went, yeah, what you can do is you can pay me £10 an hour, just put no on all of them, because I don't want them here.
	It's not.
	I hate the premise that we just need to get them processed faster.
	No, no, no.
	We need to send them all the way.
	I don't want to bias this here, but I just want to be as accurate as possible.
	What Kevin is asking for there is essentially March on Rome.
	We need to get the military to come in and enforce the laws as they should do.
	Obviously, we cannot endorse any kind of military coup whatsoever, but that is an accurate reading of the scale of organisation that would be needed were a replacement of the current Home Office to take place.
	I did an article recently called, I think I called it, The Death of the American Republic, where I talked about all sorts of parallels with the death of the ancient Roman Republic.
	But there's lots of parallels with any and all countries in the West, including Great Britain, that if the fabric of society falls apart to such a point, you may or may not then get mobs or paramilitaries, and then you get the actual military.
	to keep control.
	That is usually what happens in history.
	That's what the French warned Macron about.
	So, yeah, the idea that the military might need to be used at some point, get used to that possibility.
	Interesting to be on a parallel with the fall of Rome.
	I believe that there has been recent genetic research done, which has shown that towards the period that was the collapse of the Roman Republic, or at least the fall of Rome, there seemed to be an influx of foreign populations coming into the country. there seemed to be an influx of foreign populations coming That's more the fall of the Western Roman Empire, I was specifically talking about the fall of the Republic, which is obviously a fair few hundred years earlier.
	But just quickly to say, I have already seen a tweet the other day where there was some soldiers on Whitehall because the police just can't or won't do their job.
	You know, when Biden got in, there was loads of soldiers.
	Barbed wire fences around the capital.
	It's already, sort of, the very, very beginnings of that has already started, it seems.
	Curious they weren't deployed during the BLM riots that caused billions of dollars in damage and killed about 30 people, but it's almost like the elites want chaos.
	Just a couple more on this last first segment here.
	Sophie Liv, honestly these all just sound like a whole bunch of money laundering schemes, Probably part of it.
	Yep.
	And Justin B, thanks to the diversity, equity and inclusion agenda, we've elected people into the highest offices in the country.
	agree with this stuff presumably and this will never be fixed now not without major change at the top yes um major change is coming in the uk it's just not going to be not going to be the change that we like for some time at least um my segment matt pro natalist policies are always decried by feminists putting women back in the home and turning into incubators abdicating the responsibility to form families outsources births to part of the world that are brutally patriarchal don't make We all eventually have to serve someone or serve something.
	Women are treated horribly, made to cover from head to toe and under the unaccountable control of men, all to retain Western lifestyles of unsatisfying temporal comfort.
	But it's not about hypocrisy and moral consistency.
	It's obviously about hierarchy and selfishness.
	There's a question.
	We all eventually have to serve someone or serve something.
	The question is, are you going to serve your family and serve for your family, or are you going to become a mindless worker drone for your boss so you can make record profits for them?
	This is why, again, I've said, uh, uh, certain things are satanic at, What I mean by that is you're under the delusion of serving purely yourself, when in fact that was the bargain originally in the myth or truth, I mean, unlikely to be true, of Genesis, which is If you do this, you'll be like a god.
	Well, who's promising you that?
	The guy that hates truth and goodness and all those things.
	So maybe don't be so deluded as to be so utterly selfish that you destroy your civilization.
	Citizen Philosopher, Connor, your segment makes me very happy that I got married young and started having children immediately.
	By young age, I was inspired by a quote by Dennis Prager, the best way to make the world look like a better place is to make better people.
	Needless to say, I took that literally, and now my two daughters will be helping to welcome their sister into the world in February.
	Well, congratulations, mate.
	I suppose we're all just trying our best to get there as well.
	Sophie Liv, so we're experiencing a baby bust.
	Should we offer mothers support so they can stay at home and have loads of babies?
	No, we don't have the money for that.
	We can spend billions of pounds on migrant hotels, though.
	Hosting migrants that don't work, don't speak the language, but will multiply because they've got nothing else to do.
	Well, it turns out actually some of them do work, because if you go down the road to Migrant Tower, you know those brand new Procured bicycles that are right outside them.
	Are the ones with Uber Eats bags?
	Yeah!
	Weird that they've all started becoming delivery drivers despite being refugees.
	Funny that, innit?
	Don't use Uber Eats.
	I just got to say one thing that just sprung to mind.
	Both the National Socialists and the Soviets would give women literally a medal for having loads of kids.
	Yeah.
	Part of the problem with that was, particularly the Romanian orphanages, they didn't create the infrastructure that would allow them to take care of said children.
	So obviously, have the amount of children that you can give a happy life to.
	But yeah, even they understood that we didn't want to destroy our civilization, particularly because the Soviets outlawed abortion, because originally they had no requirement of abortion and divorce on demand, and then abortions clips births, and they were like, oh, we need to be able to reactually Yeah, maybe we shouldn't do that.
	Maybe we're driving ourselves to extinction for a moment.
	Thomas Howell, the childless class aren't childless.
	They're too busy paying for big kid government who just sweep up half their salary, keep taking on new projects they pay for, and really it just needs to be booted out for the laughs that it is.
	I don't really understand that comment, I'm going to be honest.
	Thanks for the attempt.
	And the last one, x, y, and z. There seems to be a cultural element at play with the demographic collapse.
	There's nothing stopping Muslims from having large families.
	Also pay attention to how many men of a certain demographic have more than one woman of roughly the close age close with him.
	That's a big driver as well.
	It's a family breakup where some men are having children with multiple women but not sticking around.
	Yes, originally the law says monogamy is the only legally recognized marital status.
	Our laws and policies have a way of being easily gamed.
	Unfortunately so.
	I'll read a few and then I think that's it.
	The Unbreakable Litany says here, very interesting comment.
	My partner is of Ghanian heritage and she told me that the corruption is morally ingrained into at least West African cultures.
	They do things like pray for wealth, so any opportunity to gain wealth, no matter the method, must be God-given.
	Thus they constantly lie, cheat, and steal, even from family.
	That actually lines up with some accounts that I've heard from people who've travelled around those parts of the world, where they'll see that anybody who comes into any sort of money or material comfort at all will immediately be inundated by their own family members begging for handouts.
	This makes sense with the Nigerian 419 scams that are so common to get in your email inbox.
	So if you get any sort of money, like you say, it must be God given.
	And if you get any sort of money, well, you owe it to me as well.
	You owe it to everybody.
	There's a real sort of negative communal aspect to it where it's so community based that no single person is allowed to become any better off than anybody else, even in a way that might down the line long term improve everybody's condition.
	So it is a flattening to the lowest common denominator in those sorts of cultures.
	Sadly.
	Gross and unforgivable.
	Kevin Fox, maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe we should send all of the overseas aid and UN payments Britain makes should be given to Mr. Beast instead, because he actually does what the money we're sending these countries to do.
	He's doing fine without our help, actually.
	I'd just rather keep my own money.
	Yeah, I don't want any of my money going to this.
	I'd rather be able to keep a hold of it so I can prove my own quality of life before anybody else's.
	And if then in the future I'm able to earn enough money to do philanthropic adventures, if I want to, I'll do them.
	I endorse that comment.
	Let's make Mr. Beast World King!
	I think he needs to put some wells in Swindon if he's heard of it.
	Baron Von Warhawk.
	Why is MrBeast so popular?
	Because he seems like a genuinely nice guy who makes videos of himself doing nice things along with entertaining content.
	His videos tend to be a bit wholesome so it appeals to children.
	Honestly, watching a Libyan guy win the MrBeast Olympics for his family is far better than watching Drag Queen Storia.
	That's a good point.
	MrBeast has my subscription and I implore you guys to subscribe as well.
	I would rather my own children be watching those kinds of videos than most of the other dross that passes for children's entertainment on YouTube these days.
	It's not the kind of thing that I would watch, but I support immunisation.
	Certainly I'd rather them be watching that than watching anything on TikTok.
	And let's go with one last one.
	Hector Rex, how dare white people, checks notes, give people clean water in Africa?
	I have been reliably informed that black lives only matter if they can make money out of them.
	Yeah, I think that's it.
	We've run a little bit over.
	No worries.
	Well, thanks for all leaving comments.
	Again, just a reminder, EPOX is out on Saturday and it's free and it respects Armistice Day, so it's well worth the time going to watch.
	And we've got Lads Hour at 3 o'clock tomorrow.
	You can join us for a Q&A because it's our third year anniversary.
	Lights are still on, thanks to you guys.
	Thank you to Harry and Bo.
	It is, in fact, the 8th of November, so I'll correct myself right before the end.
	And we are back tomorrow at 1 o'clock with The Daily Show.

▲