Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 5, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:24

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #864

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, folks.
	Welcome to the podcast, The Loadseaters, for Tuesday, the 5th of March, 2024.
	I'm joined by Peter Whittle from the Culture Forum.
	Hi there, Carl.
	Hey, thanks for coming in.
	Lovely to be back.
	It's always a pleasure.
	Today, we're going to be discussing segregationist theatre in London, which is exactly what you'd expect from the Party of Diversity, which is, of course, the Conservative Party, and then the slow death of the pro-immigration argument.
	Just sort of collapsed under its own lies.
	So, let's begin.
	Have you ever heard of something called Slave Play?
	Yes, I have.
	It's in fact the play which is at the Noel Coward Theatre in London, which is the West End, right in the middle of the West End.
	It's like not some subsidized thing.
	And they hit the headlines last week Because they were going to have two performances when they start in June, I think it is.
	And these performances were going to be effectively black only.
	So this would be via invitation.
	They're being very careful the way that they set this thing up, because of course they would fall foul of the law.
	So they're sort of actually going to what they call black groups and activists or whatever, inviting them.
	And also the reasons put forward for this Is that they say that we need an audience to feel that they are not being looked at with what they call the white gaze.
	Yes.
	That's G-A-Z-E, right?
	Not the other one.
	But basically, it is essentially this kind of concept, which you've had in the arts for a long time.
	There's something called the masculine gaze, you know.
	But anyway, that's the way they've got rounded cast.
	They couldn't say white people.
	No, basically they said the white gays.
	And this is just extraordinary that they can even come up with this, but at the same time, not extraordinary, entirely predictable.
	Yeah.
	So I thought, I've never heard of it.
	So I looked it up on Wikipedia and Wikipedia tells us it's a three-act play by Jeremy O. Harris about race, sex, power relations, trauma and interracial relationships.
	And already from hearing that I'm like, of course it is.
	It's not exactly a laugh riot.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah.
	Prepare for a good time, folks.
	But anyway, so it follows three interracial couples undergoing antebellum sexual performance therapy because the black partners no longer feel sexual attraction to their white partners.
	The title refers to both history of slavery in the United States and to sexual slavery role play.
	Right.
	So this is American fetishism.
	It's not the first time actually, because there was the Theatre Royal Stratford East, which was I think last year or maybe the year before, but there was an attempt as well to have what they call them blackout nights, which that's their name for it, blackout.
	uh where they encourage a black-only audience um and i think that what's happened with these people is that they're rowing back on it a bit now because it caused such a storm and quite rightly because it's it's racist it's pure racism it's definitionally it must be racist yes exactly in fact uh
	Even more, I'm trying to recall his words, the actual playwright you mentioned there, Jeremy O'Harris, sort of said that in fact, actually, we don't want the white gays, but also because black people need to feel secure with lots of other black people, because black people and white people look at such things differently.
	Oh, do we?
	Right, so this is what he said.
	Do you need any more proof?
	This is just outright racism.
	Sure.
	It's also very interesting how it rejects the founding premise of liberalism, which is just, we're all the same.
	These people say, no, we're not all the same.
	We're not like you and you don't understand that.
	So we don't want to be around you actually.
	And so it kind of leads into further questions.
	Okay, well then why did you come to England?
	There's a whole continent full of people who look like you.
	Would you not be more comfortable there?
	Uh, does this have applications for other races of people actually?
	You know, should the Chinese be allowed a Chinese one?
	Should Jewish people be allowed a Jewish only one?
	Should English people be allowed an English one?
	Suddenly you get into quite murky and unexplored depths that the average Westminster liberal will say, Oh God, this was just a bad idea.
	Yes.
	Well, talking about liberals and white liberals, of course, the theater is sort of their playground.
	They won't probably see anything wrong with this.
	Wow, that's true.
	They probably won't see anything wrong with it.
	I think it was discussed on the BBC, a few news programs, but on the whole, not very much.
	And it certainly wasn't on the BBC TV.
	Didn't hit their radar, did it?
	Yes, not really.
	Because you see, in a way, they would probably understand because it all stems from the idea that only white people can be racist.
	That's where it comes from.
	There's an inherent superiority in it.
	That's the issue.
	They're like, oh, yes, no, you are right.
	The blacks, they do feel uncomfortable around the whites.
	They do need them.
	And it's because I'm somehow emotionally more developed than you, but I don't need this.
	Actually, it would be bad for us to have it, but you definitely need that.
	There's a condescending, patriarchal, sort of paternalism in that.
	Absolutely, there is.
	Also, can you imagine, just on a day-to-day level, this guy, the playwright, saying this, what I just quoted there.
	If you were a white playwright, and you just simply took Took the words and just turned them around to talking about black people.
	Well, the fact is you'd never work again.
	Yeah.
	But you'd also get arrested.
	Oh, yes.
	Arrested.
	Never work again.
	There would be endless, endless discussions about what this says about our society.
	All of these things in all of the newspapers.
	There'd be silence from the Tories or from anyone who considers themselves conservatives.
	I think it'd be worse than silence.
	They'd come out and disavow.
	They would say no, of course that's wrong.
	Of course, whatever the Labour Party says, we agree 100%.
	That's what they'd do.
	It'd be better if they were silent.
	Do you go to the theatre much?
	Not often, I've been occasionally.
	I used to go an awful lot because I used to review them for various newspapers and everything, a long time ago.
	But don't go very much now.
	But this is all of a piece really generally in the system.
	I mean, the most kind of provocative, the most edgy thing you could possibly do now would be put on a play which even just had a character that was in some ways explaining the appeal of Trump.
	Yes.
	I mean, something as mild as that.
	But the idea that you will see a play Or read a novel, or go and see a piece of visual art, which in any way is critical of multiculturalism, migration, or any of these things, is inconceivable now.
	I mean, the inconceivable.
	And that's the only place you would find anything that pushed boundaries.
	Because I mean, the thing about this is actually, this is all kind of a settled science when it comes to progressivism.
	This is all completely within the remit.
	No, no, no.
	It is the case that the majority has been dominating the minority and therefore the minority need their own private spaces away from the majority.
	And so this all fits completely within the intellectual framework of the modern left.
	And so this is the safest thing that they could do.
	It's not in any way.
	And that's why the media hasn't picked up on it.
	That's why It's been the alternative media.
	Yes, exactly.
	I think, you know, a lot of people say, well, what does it matter?
	You know, it's a theater.
	Haven't we got far more important things to talk about?
	And actually, I would say in an odd way, no, because they are the kind of they are the sharp end of the culture.
	You know, it's also just all the same thing.
	When you criticize this, you are also criticizing David Cameron's affirmative action policies.
	You're also criticizing the Labour Party's Well, look, it's either one rule or it's a double standard, and we seem to be perpetually trapped in the double standard.
	And why should that be accepted?
	You know, I'm okay with them having this as long as, for example, some playwright come out and say, right, we're going to we're going to write a play about Alfred the Great and his fight against the Danes.
	And we don't want any Danish people there.
	Actually, because this was a part of the ethnic English struggle against oppression, which it is.
	It's totally true.
	And so that would be considered racist.
	That would be forbidden.
	Actually, you stumbled on there something else you've got.
	I don't know.
	Very, very topical.
	King Alfred's fight against the Danes.
	There was a play done in the 18th century and they needed a song for this particular part of the play.
	It was like one of these kind of pageants.
	And they composed Royal Britannia.
	Oh, is that where it's from?
	That's where it's from.
	And yet, and as we speak today, There are now qualms about this being played yet again at the last night of the prom this year.
	Every year.
	Yes, every year.
	But that's where it's from.
	And in fact, so it's actually nothing to do with like enslaving the world or anything like that.
	It was it was purely to as a kind of a bit of a battle hymn.
	It's resistance to oppression.
	It's resistance to slavery.
	I mean, you can tell by the lyrics themselves, Britons will never be slaves.
	That implies that the threat of looming enslavement is on the horizon.
	And actually we need to find the moral power to resist it.
	Also it's a, sorry, it says I'm warming to my subject here.
	It's also Britannia rule the waves, i.e.
	it's a command.
	Yeah.
	It's not rules the waves as in we do.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	It's an imperative.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Um, so anyway, just to get back to this, um, this is the chap, uh, the, the player starring Kit Harington, who is best known for his role as Jon Snow on Game of Thrones.
	So that's interesting.
	I assume he's going to be a slave master or something like that, innit?
	He's a little bloke, isn't he?
	I've no idea.
	He's tiny.
	Is he that small?
	No, I didn't know.
	But yeah, Jeremy O. Harris said that he was so excited for this because, as you say, he says it's a necessity to radically invite them in with initiatives that say you're invited, specifically you.
	That's very interesting because legally you're not allowed to simply say the color of your skin.
	Of course not.
	But this has actually happened before as well.
	As, uh, and again, it was very hard to find any information about any of this because nobody really wanted to talk about it.
	This is a very progressive writeup of it.
	Um, but as they say, uh, last year, um, in May, there was a similar fuss made out about a play called Tambo and Bones, uh, the theater Royal Stratford East, because they had a quote blackout performance.
	Uh, and so this is something that's happened before and they knew it was going to happen and they don't care.
	That's the point.
	They've decided, no, this is for.
	Our ethnic group and your opinion on that is irrelevant.
	The liberal norms on that are irrelevant.
	This is something we're going to do for ourselves.
	Again, it's an interesting precedent you're setting and you're kind of putting demands on people when you do that because that's not supposed to be the kind of society we're supposed to be living in.
	Exactly.
	And what this does is reveals that we don't live in the kind of society that we thought we were living in.
	Well, it gives the lie entirely to the whole kind of premise of multiculturalism, doesn't it?
	And diversity and strength.
	They certainly are insisting integration isn't happening.
	And what I find really weird about this as well is, do you really want to fetishize this as well?
	Like, okay, so what are we doing?
	Well, we're making the entire identity of black people just purely about slavery.
	There's just nothing about the Black identity that isn't about slavery in the modern day, and it's not even a good story.
	If it was an emancipatory story, that would at least be something.
	That's one of the reasons I hark to Alfred the Great.
	It's an emancipatory story of the English getting out of Viking rule and Viking domination.
	So at least, okay, it sucked, but there's something positive that comes out of it.
	But you never hear about the emancipation narrative in these sorts of stories.
	It's always about the struggle of oppression and how that translates into the modern day.
	And it's like, you're free now.
	You're actually free.
	You could do with that what you want.
	And all you're doing now is focusing on the history of oppression.
	Well we've seen this as well this week with the Church of England actually, another one of our institutions, which in fact you would think, wouldn't you, that they would highlight William Wilberforce and indeed the very strongly Christian effort of the abolition of slavery.
	in the 19th century but no they've just hired or going to hire a deconstructing whiteness officer in the West Midlands for example and yesterday we heard that also they're going to try to up the fund with the anti you know the basically reparations because that's what they're talking about a hundred hundred million up to a billion Right, in order to try to expunge the moral sin of slavery.
	So for them it's a kind of, this is an issue of what?
	200 years ago or whatever, but somehow or other it is a guide to all of their policy at the moment.
	It's incredible how the Christians can't even take credit for the end of slavery either.
	Because if you go back and look at any of the letters that have been signed, the petitions that were handed to Parliament, it was all based on the Christian ethic that we were all equal in the sight of God.
	And it was intrinsically Christian.
	Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter about it, and he just begins with, this is against God's image and against God's will for the world.
	And if the church can't even claim that as moral victory, to say, no, we're the reason that slavery doesn't exist anymore, actually, so you're welcome.
	You know, if they can't even claim that, then what hope do they have?
	And so, like, when it comes up, well, I mean, the church is going to pay a billion for reparations.
	My only answer is, why isn't it two billion?
	Why not three billion?
	Is it structural racism that's holding you back?
	I think it might be.
	I think maybe five billion, ten billion.
	Bankrupt them.
	Bankrupt them.
	If they're going to fall into this pit, let them go.
	That's what I say.
	I think actually, yes.
	I mean, as you say, there's a never ending quality about it.
	And indeed with this play, I mean, basically it's got to be nips in the bud.
	You can say, actually, no, what you're proposing is illegal.
	So essentially, no, sorry, you're not going to be able to do it.
	Otherwise, we are going to have this popping up more and more in the very nature of things.
	It won't actually necessarily be along ethnic lines.
	It might well be a men only, it might only be a women only play, for example, a women only audience.
	Yeah, there have been movies in America where they had, in New York in particular, I can't remember the name of the movie.
	But they had, I think it might have been the 2016 Ghostbusters movie, they had women only screenings, and a man went to go down to one.
	And of course, they have a similar law against discrimination there, which was just flouted.
	No, sorry, this is for the oppressed and not the oppressor.
	Of course, it grew to be a great classic, didn't it, that movie?
	It did.
	I'm not certain it was.
	I think it might.
	But I've got, there are some interesting points in this, right?
	So the question then becomes, well, who is someone who's black?
	Yes, but identifying as black is what they say.
	Well, they do.
	This is for identifying as black.
	Yes.
	And so, uh, they, you know, this, this defense of this as well.
	I mean, some people have been silly about this, but the basic point is meant to be inclusive of mixed race audience members who identify as black.
	It's like, well, Anyone could identify as black.
	We're in a brave new era of people identifying as whatever they like, we're told.
	So why is this off the table?
	And the only thing that one has to conclude is it wouldn't be off the table, because legally they couldn't stop you.
	You could go in there and say in an Ali G sort of fashion, I'm black, so let me in, and they are compelled to do so.
	I'm sure you'd be uncomfortable, I'm sure you'd be unwelcome, but they do say that, you know, can non-black audience members attend the Black Ad Night?
	And the inventor of them, Harris, has said that it's fine if black attendees bring along non-black friends and their partners.
	Nobody's going to block admission to anyone, because of course, legally, You're allowed.
	However, there are literally dozens of non blackout performances.
	So why would you go to a blackout night if nobody in your group was black, unless you're being weird?
	Right.
	That's very interesting.
	Yeah.
	Because there are lots of things that are, I mean, in other ways, particular to other groups that we insist have to be inclusive.
	So it's not that you can't come, but why would you want to?
	And you could say that about almost anything.
	Yes, you could.
	Yeah.
	You might want to be a straight couple who want to go along to a gay pride march, for example.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Many people say, why would you want to?
	Including me, actually.
	I mean, basically, essentially, it's, of course, absurd.
	And it's based on the premise that it's not going to be put to the test.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	And also, I think what they're trying to do is Remodel the way that they perceive society to be so they perceive society to be a predominantly white construct in which black people have to adhere to the norms and social rules of white society as they will put it and what they're trying to do is say well no look one or two white people is fine because you're not going to change the nature of the fact that it will have a black gaze rather than a white gaze and so
	Again, that opens a whole Pandora's box.
	Okay, well then we have to talk about ethnic composition.
	Who has the right to have comfort in a space?
	And if it's not the majority, why is it the minority?
	And if it is the minority, then give me how that comes about.
	And if it is the majority, then why is it that public discourse in Britain is focused entirely on minoritarian concerns?
	Why is our parliament completely wracked with debate over Israel and Palestine when most of Britain are not Muslim or Jewish?
	Why is that the case?
	Well, I would say it is what they've made it the case.
	I mean, simply by, if you just look at the demonstrations over the past, what is it now, two or four months?
	I mean, wherever you stand on this conflict, Basically it is highlighted and brought to the surface certain sort of things that meant that many people now feel extremely uncomfortable and their eyes have been opened actually to it and so essentially it has become a thing.
	It's certainly become a thing as well when we have Parliament
	changing its procedures just simply because they are frightened not necessarily of the crowd outside but also what's happening on people's doorsteps all around the country and generally and generally there there is fear and not unjustified fear either it's not but i think it's actually almost more fear of the numbers involved i think that's why basically the police essentially are facilitating all of this um one of the reasons being is that they sort of kind of know look
	As one of them said in one of the clips that have been on social media, there's far more of them than there are of us, right?
	He's talking about the police.
	But essentially, it has forced the issue, this kind of intimidation and domination and praying, collective praying in the streets and all of these things.
	So it's actually kind of forced the issue.
	But I would agree with you that what's happened is that minorities, you know, without question, trump our majority.
	And that has been the case, actually, for quite a few years.
	It's, it's, I mean, you say without question, but like almost that seems like overstating the case.
	It's been such a retreat for the majoritarian position, but it's as if it no longer exists.
	It's as if there is the idea that the majority white British population of the country deserve, you know, the, the, this, the straight white English Scottish, uh, or Welsh heterosexual family.
	Deserving representation in their own politics is an archaic absurdity.
	So what do you mean?
	Why would you deserve representation?
	Why would you deserve to feel comfortable in your own country?
	Why would you deserve policy that facilitates that?
	This whole thing has been so marginalized.
	It has, but you see minorities generally, and I would say particularly I think minorities, but minorities generally have been made sacred.
	Yes.
	They've been made sacred.
	So essentially to criticize any position they might have, on anything is actually to be profane and wicked.
	Yeah.
	It's also it's not actually to do with woke.
	Woke is just the latest expression of it.
	But so far back as I can remember, Paul, actually, I mean, like decades, the idea that we should somehow feel shame as a country has been there.
	You know, it's just simply got far more intense in recent years.
	When you have people like that in charge of our institutions, people who are essentially ashamed or essentially self-hating, when you have those in charge of all of our institutions from the civil service through to, indeed, the theatre, then basically they are automatically going to favour minorities.
	Almost, you know, without any discrimination, any minority will be better.
	You know, this is one of the main reasons why the situation we're in never seems to actually improve and only get worse.
	Because, you know, we've basically been quite literally disarmed, you know.
	Our sense of ourselves, we've been disarmed.
	And that has been going on for a long time.
	I'm reminded of Orwell, who must have been writing back in the 20s when he said the average cosmopolitan liberal in running the country would rather be seen stealing from the church poor box than singing the national anthem.
	That's right, he did indeed say that.
	In fact, he said that the English intelligentsia is unique in the world in that he said unique in the world it's quite true actually because like the French intelligence aren't like that they're positively kind of right-wing head when it comes to being French but no he's quite right and in fact he was writing that in the late 1940s Absolutely right.
	You go back to 1920s, Bloomsbury Group, all these people, very, very much the same.
	He said the Englishmen are also unique, English intellectual, in hating all of English taste in things, whether it's cuisine, whether it's building, whether it's anything.
	Any kind of English thing will be looked down upon.
	The difference now is that, obviously, he was talking about what could genuinely be called an intelligentsia.
	What we've got now is a kind of lumpenintelligentsia, right?
	That's a generous term in and of itself.
	Huge, huge army, all being sort of basically spewed out by universities from the 60s onwards.
	Yeah, no, I think you're completely correct.
	And not to go off on a tangent, but I think it is to do with liberalism itself.
	Because the fact that we have to describe these things as English gives them a parochial centered particular aspect rather than being something that is abstract and universal to all mankind.
	And so it naturally excludes other people.
	And those things that are excluded are the minority concerns and so they become special to the liberal because, hang on a second, why isn't there equal representation and equal recognition in this?
	And the issue of course is, well, it's a culture.
	Of course there's not equal recognition.
	There's recognition in different levels and the appropriate level of recognition for a minority group is much smaller than the appropriate recognition for the majority group.
	Which is just the democratic principle.
	And so we're at a point where democracy means elevating a tiny minority to be the sole point of concern of the entire country.
	Now, in other times and places, that might be considered an aristocracy, because that is also a description of what an aristocracy is.
	But we've arrived at the point where these two things have harmonized into the word democracy.
	And I mean, just to put a fine point on that, Rishi Sunak came out and said, hang on a second, is this actually right, chaps?
	And it's like, there we go.
	We've got the unelected North Richmond MP explaining that maybe this isn't good, but of course he's not going to do anything about it.
	He just says restricting audiences on the basis of race would be wrong and divisive.
	Then legislate.
	Do something.
	The thing is, you see, he talks about these things soon.
	I was also reminded of this when he made that masterful speech outside Number 10.
	He speaks about these things as though he's never ever thought about them.
	Yes.
	He's never considered them a priority.
	Yes.
	So basically, you know, the whole feeling of him is that this is new ground to him.
	He doesn't feel sure.
	I mean, to sort of say what he's, what is it, Carl, she says?
	He said restricting audiences on the basis of race would be wrong and divisive.
	He could say is wrong.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	And he could follow that with, and we won't permit it because it's wrong.
	Exactly.
	As if this is hypothetical.
	I mean, this has been done before and they're going to do it again.
	And the conservatives then go, well, if only there was someone who could do something about this.
	If only we had a moral principle to stand on here.
	I mean, they'll call themselves one nation conservatives and then do nothing.
	As I said, I mean, like, you know, when you saw him making that speech last week outside Number 10, I kind of got very angry at it, actually.
	I wasn't just dismissive, I got angry, you know, because first of all, to talk about, you know, the Islamist and far-right threat, I thought, what are you talking about?
	You know, what are you talking about?
	You've been told to say that simply because you don't want to alienate friends in the media and your friends around Number 10 or whatever.
	Also, you don't want to be singling out a particular group, even if there have been cases that point to an issue that resides within that group.
	You can't single them out because, again, the liberal order will not permit it.
	And so you have to have no where against extremism in the whole.
	Yeah, but my point, and then it was also echoed, wasn't it, by Cameron?
	Yep.
	He did the same, said the same thing.
	My problem with that is, first of all, apart from the fact that it's simply a lie.
	I mean, you know, in the sense that when I was in the London Assembly for five years, Can't think of the amount of times where basically the right wing, the far right threat was being talked about.
	You know, you never kind of got to know what the kind of groups were or any of this.
	I'm not doubting that probably there are some people, but it's not the point.
	You know what, Peter, just to interrupt, I think that you're the far right threat that he's talking about.
	Well, well, and myself and Calvin Robinson and just normal patriotic people, I think.
	Yes.
	Possibly.
	I mean, if that is the case, then, you know, yes, I can I can see the logic of what he means there.
	But when he was talking about the dangers of he was talking about was he he wasn't even talking about terrorism.
	She was he was talking about the dangers of extremism.
	Yes, of course.
	What does that mean though?
	Because I view the Conservatives as an extremist party themselves.
	I mean, there are lots of, in fact, we can go on to the next bit in a second to talk about it, because they're doing things that are just, they've never been done before.
	They've never been done.
	And these are, I think, extreme positions.
	So let's talk about the Conservatives as the party of diversity.
	They cut this out.
	This was, of course, from Rishi Sunak in Parliament.
	And I suppose we can just watch this very briefly, because I just find the messaging remarkable.
	Mr Speaker, in our party we have a proud tradition of diversity and accepting everyone from every background.
	It is a proud record that puts Labour to shame, Mr Speaker.
	This is the party that delivered the first Jewish Prime Minister, the first female Prime Minister, the first black Chancellor, the first Muslim Home Secretary and now led by the first British Asian Prime Minister.
	Well, it seems he can only champion men from North London.
	It's the Conservatives that represent modern Britain.
	That's interesting, isn't it?
	It's the Conservatives that represent modern Britain.
	So, okay, let's take his formulation.
	So what does modern Britain consist in?
	Jewish people, female people, black people, Muslim people, and Asian people.
	And I know Anglo-Saxon people, or Welsh people, or Scottish people, or Northern Irish people.
	Completely left out.
	Also, he's conceded the argument.
	Exactly.
	By doing this.
	We have out-laboured the Labour Party.
	Yes, exactly.
	It's somehow or other, you know, look, don't get at us, we're actually very good at this.
	We are exactly what you have made of us.
	Yes.
	We are precisely what you demanded.
	But the thing is, again, I mentioned this man who comes up like a foul-smelling penny, but David Cameron.
	Don't talk about him for a second.
	Oh right, well no, but basically he said ages ago, I want a Tory party.
	Let's pause for a second because I'm going to come to all of this.
	Sorry, I've been a bit ill for the past couple of days, but I didn't want to miss this podcast.
	So this really rankled me because of what we were talking about a minute ago.
	The concept of representation, I think, is deeply important and we don't think about it very often.
	Because representation means something that is otherwise absent that is being made present.
	And so the question is, why is it that Jewish interests, black interests, Muslim interests, and Asian interests are being made present in modern Britain?
	I thought that upon decolonization, upon the end of the empire, these things were supposed to be made present in their own countries.
	Why is this taken supremacy in this country?
	Why is this marginalized?
	What the average person thinks it gets, gets to have projected into their own political discourse.
	And as you said, Sinek has just decided that question is a far right question.
	It's an extremist question is off the table.
	But it's so completely unfair.
	It's so unfair to say, no, you're going to have to accept you're not represented in your politics.
	None of the discourse will be about your concerns.
	And it's not like if everything was going great, then maybe I could understand it.
	Right.
	If everyone had loads of money in their pockets and everyone's buying houses and everything was, you know, Britain's economy is booming.
	Okay, fair enough.
	We're doing great.
	We don't need to talk about ourselves for a minute.
	But actually, no, the native British are failing on almost every metric.
	And this is all our politics is.
	I mean, like this, again, it's not that I disagree that the Jewish community should be protected from Islamic extremists because something is happening 3000 miles away in the Middle East.
	It's not that I disagree.
	It's just, is that really the primary priority for the average person who's struggling to pay their rent?
	Well, I think that at the moment, possibly we disagree on this, Colin, actually, I think at the moment it's absolutely a priority.
	Because, I mean, the level of anti-Semitism has gone through the roof.
	And by that, I don't just mean these demonstrations, but basically... Oh, on a day-to-day basis?
	On a day-to-day basis.
	And so, I mean, I feel that You know, the Jewish community in this country, the amount that they have contributed and always do wherever they go, actually, is hugely disproportionate to their numbers.
	I mean, it is just great.
	I have nothing but admiration.
	And so I would want them to be protected.
	But again, there's a kind of inequality here.
	Again, it's the excessive focus on minoritarian consent.
	I'm not saying that isn't a concern, and I'm not saying... But you see, centrist people never made a deal about it.
	And I agree.
	I totally agree.
	But it's impossible to believe that Rishi Sunak would stand in front of a British flag or an English flag and talk about a particular interest that is not being represented in particular.
	I mean, like, for example, he would never stand up in front of an English flag and say, well, the Rotherham girls were betrayed.
	Their protection matters.
	Because I mean, with this is something like 51 million or something or 41 million or 54 million.
	That they've announced for the largest ever commitment to tackle anti-Semitism.
	Well, where was the 54 million?
	The largest ever commitment to tackle the ethnic rape and exploitation of English girls.
	Where was that?
	Which is still going on, of course.
	Which is still going on, exactly.
	So it's not that I'm unsympathetic.
	To the Jewish community.
	And I do appreciate that things have got very scary.
	But I think for a lot of people, they've been very scary for a long time and nothing was done.
	In fact, that was stamped down by calls that you're a racist.
	Oh, I think calls that you're a racist and also what you can't underestimate, although I'm sure you don't, is the level of contempt for working class people.
	Yes.
	Which is now endemic in our culture, to the point where no one ever really questions it anymore.
	But their votes are not sought.
	Their opinions are demonized.
	Their very culture is ridiculed.
	And I speak, by the way, I don't mean to sound déhaut en bas when I say this, because, you know, I'm from a working class background.
	I know I don't maybe sound like it, but I am.
	Um, and everything about that culture has essentially been disappeared.
	Yes.
	Everything.
	And so it's not just him, Sunak, or Cameron, or any of these people.
	It's Labour.
	This is the latest example that I've seen.
	Yeah.
	Where I've just looked at that and said, okay, it's not even that I disagree that these people need help.
	It's just, it will always be someone else.
	Yes, but you see what would make me far angrier is on these demonstrations that we've seen in London, what makes me just livid actually is the sight of demonstrators jumping all over our monuments And then the police saying, come on, get down, get down.
	Right.
	And then a couple of guys go along with a union flag and they are told to take it right down.
	You're being provocative.
	This is our police force after all.
	And I mean, that is the thing.
	That I think has opened a lot of people's eyes up about this whole time.
	And the last thing isn't it, we think of it as our police force, but is it really?
	No, no.
	It hasn't been for a long time.
	Yes, it's not been for a long time.
	I did a piece on this and it proved to be very popular actually quite a while ago, but I look, you know, like you probably grew up.
	Policemen, respect them, etc, etc.
	And they also did feel like on our side because that was the whole point of Robert Peel, wasn't it?
	That they were drawn from working people and that they were policing by consent.
	You look now and I am absolutely convinced that they are absolutely not our police force.
	It's not a hyperbole.
	I think they are there to do what you might say the police have always meant to do, which is to enforce the ruling orthodoxies of the ruling class, right?
	And they just happen to have changed into these ones.
	I think that's exactly it.
	They're enforcing They're enforcing the sanctity of the progressive order.
	So if you put up a sticker that says white British will be a minority in their homeland by 2066, that's heretical.
	This is the guy who's just gone to jail.
	Sam Meelier.
	He's gone to jail for two years.
	Again, regular, working-class English person.
	But of course, we can bring up any number of examples of people who are not from that demographic who get exceptionally lenient treatment.
	Oh yes.
	Well, the girls with the power troopers on their back, you know, this is a sign of the Hamas terrorists.
	One of the Palestine demonstrations, they were chanting, what's the solution to Israel?
	Jihad, jihad, jihad.
	And the police came and said, well, look, jihad has many interpretations.
	But yeah, okay.
	And in this particular one, it's war, actually.
	Okay.
	We know that that's what that means.
	And that's obviously what they meant.
	So, but of course, anyway, so the question is, how did the conservatives become the party of diversity?
	And the answer is, of course, David Cameron.
	Now, Peter Hitchens has been banging the drum about this ever since about 2010, saying, look, we're in an inflection point in the Conservative Party.
	We either become a Blairite party or we become a Conservative party.
	And the Conservatives decided we would like to be Blairites.
	But I mean, look at this.
	This was written two years ago.
	So this is an ancient history.
	This is David Cameron leaning in to the new progressive order.
	This is him leaning into the modern Blair paradigm, the woke paradigm and say, yeah, no, I was woke before you called it woke actually, which is a very strange flex you'd think from a conservative prime minister.
	But I think that's why he's come back because I think that he can see that the party as he intended it, is failing to properly articulate why they should be woke and is falling apart at the seams.
	Also, he said, I want to build a concert.
	Yeah, two things.
	He said, I want to, this was before this, long before, when he was possibly, whether he was already prime minister or maybe just fighting the election.
	I want to build a party that is, I mean, I want to appeal to people who are comfortable with modern Britain.
	I think those were the words, right?
	Comfortable with modern Britain.
	So immediately you cast out into the darkness anyone who's got any kind of qualms about the way we're going.
	And then you could turn around and say, well actually, Who?
	Who are these people who are comfortable with modern Britain?
	I mean, have you ever met one?
	I have.
	Occasionally they vote Labour or Lib Dem.
	Right.
	Because they don't live anywhere near modern Britain.
	They live in Devon or something.
	Or he lives in the Cotswolds.
	Exactly.
	They don't live alongside it.
	I mean, I met a lot of people who did live alongside it who voted for UKIP.
	Because they understood that something was being lost.
	Yes.
	The only party that had that sense of itself.
	Um, but I mean, in this David Cameron just explains how he was like, Oh yeah, good point.
	We are pale male and stale and that's bad.
	And so what we need to do is create a shortlist for women and minorities.
	Because how else could the Conservative Party expect to get elected again, if not for leaning into the Blairite agenda?
	It's like, that's a great question, David, and look at how your polling is now.
	And so he takes credit for Priti Patel, Sajid Javid, and Theresa May.
	All phenomenal successes, I think we can all agree.
	The absolute best and brightest.
	And so this is fascinating.
	And of course, then you have same-sex marriage, which again is a very progressive thing to institute.
	It was instituted under his watch.
	But what I find really interesting, and I think this is a group of people looking back over His tenure.
	But what I find really interested is this one.
	Committed to helping LGBT people deserves to be proud.
	Who's that by?
	Ruth Hunt.
	And we're told at the bottom, Ruth Hunt is the chief executive of Stonewall.
	Yes.
	The chief executive of Stonewall is actually singing your praises.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	But I would suggest that maybe... Keep quiet about it, yes.
	Yeah, but that puts you on the wrong side of most issues, I would say.
	Yes, exactly.
	This is a recent article?
	It's from 2016, this was.
	But it's just interesting how, in the retrospective of David Cameron's tenure, What could a left-winger find that's objectionable?
	He is literally appealing to the tenets of diversity and inclusion, saying, no, no, I did literally everything that you wanted me to do.
	I set up ethnic minority and a women's shortlist.
	I brought in same-sex marriage.
	I had mass immigration.
	I didn't change anything that Tony Blair did.
	He could have got rid of Ofcom.
	They just tinkered with it a little bit, did nothing, essentially left it in place, did nothing to the constitutional reforms, you know, the Supreme Court, the Devolve parliaments or anything like that.
	None of the laws, the hate speech laws, nothing like that.
	Didn't change a damn thing because why would he?
	He's totally in favor of all of this.
	And that's why they end up going, well, yeah, actually, I think it was pretty good.
	Yeah.
	He also said quite recently, maybe last week, around the same time as we see Sunak speak, he said something such as, I think it was, you know, we don't, we cannot have extremism, you know, essentially spoiling the multi-ethnic society we are building.
	And you sort of look at it and think, wait a minute, when, or if people have talked about a melting pot, same thing.
	When was this decided?
	You know, we are building.
	When did you have, you know, the voters okay with that?
	We vote for manifesto.
	Forget about the kind of lying about immigration, you know, we're going to cut it down to the tens of thousands, forget about that.
	When was it actually ever said, you know, yes, we want to build a multi-ethnic or multi-cultural country, vote for us?
	Never, right?
	arrogance to say, we are building, we are building.
	How dare you speak for me?
	Who is this we?
	Because when you say we, I'm not thinking the conservatives and the conservative voters, because if anything, the conservative voters have shown this is not the direction they want their party to go in.
	And this is why they keep voting against it.
	And this is why they keep getting angry that they're being constantly betrayed.
	But if you say we, meaning the Labour and Conservative Party with the Lib Dems and the Greens added on, then it makes a lot more sense.
	You, collectively, you are doing that against the express wishes of the British people.
	What do we have to do to get you to stop it?
	Which is the question.
	And in fact, that will lead us on to the next part.
	Um, the pro-immigration argument is just dead at this point.
	I don't see anyone making it anymore.
	I see people trying to mitigate the consequences of mass immigration and trying to say, well, I mean, we deserved it.
	It's a good thing, or it's somehow a duty of ours or the economy will die or the NHS will die.
	But no one ever says, no, no, no.
	It's good to have lots and lots and lots of people come into your country.
	Um, because it's obviously not.
	And this has become just undeniable.
	So this is, as you can see, the government's summary of the latest last year's immigration figures.
	I just thought we'd go through this chart because this is just fascinating.
	So the first thing to note is that in 2023, the government let in 3.4 million people.
	That's a staggering number of visas.
	That's thousands every day.
	They just must have a visa stamping machine that's just boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom No, no, I'm very trusting of the establishment and the institutions.
	Uh, they've nearly found the acid attack right here.
	They only dredged the Thames and found three bodies that weren't him.
	Uh, he's gone forever.
	I'm just joking.
	Uh, I mean, what, what, what do you think will happen with that?
	The guy missing an eye must've been easy to spot.
	Must've been easy to find.
	Disappears.
	Yes.
	Where can he have possibly gone?
	He couldn't have gotten a plane, right?
	You surely would have noticed him getting on a plane.
	I thought he'd been found out.
	Nope.
	They traced the Thames, but none of the bodies they traced up were his.
	Really?
	Yeah, he's still just out there.
	They said, oh, we think he died in the Thames.
	It's like, OK, why do you think that?
	There's no evidence to suggest that.
	And you can't find his body.
	So why?
	But he's just going to disappear forever.
	But anyway, so I'm sure that all two million of these will eventually leave the United Kingdom.
	So that leaves us with 1.4 million visas that were handed out.
	So it's beginning from the left.
	Safe and legal humanitarian routes.
	So refugees, 102,000.
	That's not the illegal immigrants, to the tune of 50,000 to 60,000 a year.
	But okay, that's a relatively small percentage.
	Then you've got 600,000 for study and 600,000 for work.
	It's like, okay, so do we have a massive labor shortage in this country?
	Are the universities undermanned?
	Are there not enough students applying for these universities?
	And the answer is, of course, no.
	And in fact, in some places you get free education, like in Scotland.
	With the 600,000 students?
	With the 600,000 students?
	Yes.
	Isn't it outrageous?
	I think, but like 400,000 are their dependents.
	Yes.
	We'll get into dependents.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	I keep preempting.
	Yeah, I apologize.
	And then 81,000 family.
	It's like, right.
	So of this, as you can see, 600,000 are purportedly here to contribute to the economy.
	So the economic argument has died because almost, you know, like Three quarters of them will not be contributing to the economy from the government's own statistics.
	Okay, fine.
	So we've got some more granular detail.
	So there were 300,000 work visas granted, and the rest, there were 337,000, and the 279,000 were dependents of the people who've been granted work visas.
	So when it says work, it's not 600,000, it's about half of that.
	And the 279,000 were dependents of the people who have been granted work.
	So when it says work, it's not 600,000.
	It's about half of that.
	The other half is dependents who will be able to claim benefits, of course, in the country, which is just staggering.
	So the percentage of them might contribute to the economy has gotten even smaller and smaller and smaller.
	And this again, it's just it's just fascinating.
	But they're trying to get skilled workers in, of course.
	But I mean, if you just look around the streets, you can see how many doctors and lawyers are just plying their trade, like in ancient Rome, saying, hey, you need a lawyer, sir.
	You can see them just doing it all over the streets.
	And they ended up giving up 300,000 grants of settlement, sorry, 119,000 grants of settlement and 200,000 grants of British citizenship, which, of course, is more than the previous year.
	And so, right.
	If that's not open borders, what is open borders?
	It's hard to imagine it being worse.
	And just to be clear, this is the most people in a single year that have ever been met into the country.
	And more people that came to the country than since like 1066 or something ridiculous like that.
	It's phenomenal.
	But this is also a part of a graph since Brexit.
	The Conservatives cramming as many people into the country as possible.
	You may remember that the year before this, it was 1.2 million people.
	And the year before that, it was just a million.
	So they've been ratcheting up the number of people they've brought into the country.
	To what end?
	I'm not sure, because it's clearly not working.
	And so you got a lot of apologia for this.
	I think Fraser Nelson is a good example of this.
	Fraser Nelson is the editor of The Spectator, which is a newspaper that's closely aligned with the Conservative Party, has people moving in and out of it constantly.
	Uh, and his argument is, well, this was just an accident, bro.
	It's just an accident.
	Whoops.
	How can any country accidentally let in a million immigrants?
	Brexit was supposed to dial it all back as everyone knew.
	So what went wrong?
	Well, the odd first odd sign, and I love when I'm reading this, make a note of how out of control everything feels.
	It doesn't feel like anyone's got the levers on the hands on the levers of government here.
	So what went wrong?
	The first odd sign was from the UK Visa Authority, which prides itself on issuing paperwork in good time and submitted a request for more staff to handle a quadrupling of demand.
	And so the Conservatives are like, well, I guess they have to have it then.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Why didn't you just refuse?
	Why didn't you just say, we don't care if the demand's gone up, you're not coming in.
	Interestingly, you know, Spectator did a leading article about a month ago Along similar lines, but basically saying when it comes to problems, you know, mass migration is quite a good one to have.
	Um, and you just think that you must either be on drugs or, or, or indeed possibly on holiday, whatever it is.
	I cannot believe someone could be so naive or indeed actually wrong headed.
	You know, it gets better.
	So the conservatives quadruple.
	Uh, the number of staff and he says the dots were there, but no one had joined them.
	The number of dependent visas rose fourfold.
	Oh, did it really?
	You've, you've got quadruple demand.
	You quadruple the staff and then you get four fold number of dependent visas.
	I mean, the dots were there, but no one joined them.
	It's not like you could have made that inference from the beginning.
	It's so insufferable to be gaslit like this.
	Are we supposed to believe that these people don't know how addition works?
	Is what they're saying.
	They're literally, well, I mean, who could have predicted that if we'd increased the staff, that rubber stamp visas by four, we'd have had four times as many immigrants.
	It's insufferable.
	And so, the Tory target to have 600,000 foreign students by 2030, why is that the target?
	That was hit in 2021, an astonishing nine years early, which is remarkable because the Conservatives hardly ever get anything done.
	Three factors had blinded ministers to what was happening.
	Firstly, there was the wildly wrong modelling.
	The model they used was no more accurate with immigration than SAGE was with COVID.
	Fantastic.
	The next was their crude calculation that for every 100,000 immigrants, that would mean a billion more headroom to lift spending or cut taxes.
	It didn't properly factor in all the cost of public services or the rise in dependent visas.
	Worst of all, ministers had started to take such figures as gospel when they had always stressed that the figures were simplistic and subject to significant uncertainty.
	So that is incredible, isn't it?
	It's like, right.
	So they've got a massively wrong model that literally says, well, we just divide the number of people by the, we've multiplied the average wage and that's how much extra money we're going to get.
	It doesn't work like that.
	And they themselves, the people who created the model said, look, it doesn't really work like that.
	And yet, so Fraser ends up going, well, I mean, the Tories seem to have blown it.
	It's like.
	Yeah, but it's not just the conservatives.
	It's all of you.
	You're all weirdly addicted to the idea of mass immigration as an economic growth model.
	Now, of course, that didn't work.
	There's been zero growth.
	There's actually minus 0.03 or something growth in the economy.
	And of course, this is just years of stagnation because of mass immigration.
	Yes.
	Basically, everything that essentially you were told was a good thing about migration is not.
	And I mean, we might well I've seen this ourselves but they do not appear to.
	I think that there are, there's another point to this I think, is that on the one hand you've got this kind of sticking to this economic model you just described to us and how wrong-headed it's been.
	I don't actually think it's entirely about that mass migration.
	I also think that there's been a sort of strange unholy alliance between businesses who want this kind of, you know, first of all businesses who want cheap labour, then this sort of thing, but at the same time there's also an incentive which is so anti-Britain that anything that in any way dilutes the sense of a nation, they will be behind.
	And I think that there you got all your people in your institutions.
	Yeah.
	There you've got them.
	Then you've got the money people here, and you've got the politicians.
	They might come from different angles, but these people, right, the ones who, I'd say the cultural people, they just instinctively, going back to George Orwell, don't like this country, and they quite like anyone who's not from here.
	I mean, you know, I remember Peter Hitchens, I think, saying, and David Goodhart said this, I think, What people don't realise is when we were kind of young and we were very pro-migration and lefty and all the rest of it, that was actually a very strong, you know, strong motivating factor.
	A general dislike of Britain.
	And I don't think you can underestimate that.
	And now we have literally about 15 million people who have been allowed in under the auspices of a general dislike of Britain.
	So if it was a general like of Britain, I mean, you've got people like Andy Ngo who genuinely love Britain, have a particular fondness for it.
	If we'd let in 15 million Andy Ngos, things would be different.
	But we haven't.
	We've imposed no demands on the people who have come in.
	And in fact, we've said, look, actually, you take precedence over the 45 million English and Welsh in England and Wales.
	And so actually, you don't have to really respect them.
	You don't have to respect their culture.
	And they're going to be forced to respect yours.
	And when this is done by native British people, it's got the sort of Orwellian character where it's obviously self-hatred.
	But this is being done under non-native British people, as uncomfortable as that might be to say.
	I mean, the Conservatives are proudly lauding that they are the most diverse party that has ever existed.
	And they're also bringing in the most people, so it doesn't even take on the aspect of self-hatred now.
	Now it looks like, and I'm not saying that it is, but if you're a non-political person and you're just looking, the Prime Minister is an Indian man.
	We're getting more Indian immigrants than ever.
	If the Prime Minister of India was an Englishman, and he was getting more English people over than ever, you would definitely draw a connection there.
	Now, I'm not even saying there is a connection there, but it's got a strange smell about it.
	Well, I mean, I don't know about that, because it seems to me that if it were kind of new, OK, there are more people than ever.
	Yes, I agree.
	But it was Boris Johnson who liberalised, whilst telling us that he was going to be firm, liberalised all the migration controls, of which this is a part.
	Similarly, Liz Truss.
	People forget this.
	When she had her brief period, she actively wanted more migration.
	So I think that I'm not saying it is about that.
	No, I can see why a lot of people have that impression and look at it.
	Yeah.
	I think that it's just purely historically they're all to blame.
	Theresa May, David, well Blair is the initiator of this.
	Blair going right from there.
	So we've sort of, OK, we have an Indian Prime Minister.
	I don't really think that He's behaving in any less consistent way as say, you know, Theresa May.
	Every single one of them.
	Particularly Boris Johnson, actually, because underneath all that fluster and all the rest of it, they actually were, they redefined what they meant by controlling our borders.
	He said he called it global Britain, didn't he?
	Yes, global Britain, but also taking back control.
	We can say how many people come in.
	Now, your average person in the street would take that to mean a certain, but they use this sleight of hand.
	But basically what they're saying is, yes, it might well be more, but at least we're deciding.
	Well, that's not what people meant.
	I agree.
	I completely agree.
	The only reason I bring it up is because of Rishi Sunak's scaremongering about the far right and concern about identity.
	And I completely agree with you.
	Sunak is completely cut from the same cloth.
	But to the person who's not engaged in politics and doesn't know that previous prime ministers had done this, I mean, like you say, there's been a slight of hand.
	So when Boris Johnson comes out and says, we're going to control our borders and be global Britain, the average person hears the Englishman saying, I'm going to reduce immigration.
	Yes.
	Not true, obviously.
	But that's, I think, what the average person is seeing.
	Now we're at a position where we've got, oh, there's an Indian man as prime minister who voted for him and they'll see headlines like this being like, oh, there's a, there's an immigration surge.
	This is the highest immigration that has ever happened.
	Yeah.
	I can see why there's a fear of the far right because If only through ignorance, I bet there are plenty of people who are in their living rooms just around the country making that connection, whether you like it or not.
	And like I said, I don't think it's even there.
	I think Rishi is just completely normal as a conservative prime minister.
	He's almost beyond cliche.
	He's a total technocrat.
	I would have thought actually when He said, you know, Islamism and the far right.
	Did he actually say Islamism?
	He didn't say Islamism.
	When he talked about the far right, I took that to mean a little warning I think you might have actually alluded to it earlier in the program, but actually, what if, for example, you are really, like many people, actually we can now say in the mainstream, we should end migration, we should have a, call a halt to it, should have a moratorium.
	That's no longer that controversial to say, but that presumably he's trying to sort of basically triangulate that to be an extreme position.
	I think so.
	I think so.
	You know?
	But again, what this does, To like your average working mum, who just sees the things that are in front of her eyes, rather than knowing anything about the political philosophy of the history of it.
	That is an Indian man saying, you are not allowed to say, I don't want any more immigrants.
	That's an evil far right position.
	And so like I said, it's not, I completely agree with you.
	I think Rishi is actually embarrassingly normal for a conservative.
	Like I don't like with someone like Sadiq Khan, you can definitely get the feeling there's probably a sense of ethnic interest in Sadiq Khan.
	I actually don't get that feeling from Rishi Sunak at all, but that doesn't mean that that won't be drawn by people who don't know anything about the situation.
	Or James Cleverley.
	I mean, same sort of thing.
	I mean, possibly if people draw those conclusions, you know, they draw those conclusions, but I mean, I'm not trying to sort of... I'm actually not trying to circumvent what you're saying.
	Just that they just seem all of a piece to me.
	And you are completely correct.
	You know, and there's nothing, there's no difference between what he's saying to what Cameron, to what Blair, to all of them.
	And there's no difference in the actions either.
	In fact, you could also say, well, why doesn't the lady not pay much attention, as you say, the working woman, she could look to Sweller Bravermans.
	And she could say, well, actually, she's speaking the truth.
	And a lot are.
	Yes, a lot are.
	But I mean, she's a different ethnic minority.
	Yeah, no, absolutely.
	And I'm sure that, I don't think it's about racism.
	That's the thing.
	I don't think it's about racism.
	I don't think the average person who's seeing this thinks, I hate Indians or something like that.
	Cause I think Sweller Braveman is actually very, and Priti Patel was very popular with the average working British person.
	Cause they were actually doing the right thing.
	That's the reason they had to go.
	That's exactly the reason they had to go.
	But I also, I also think that they aren't, Insensible to the idea that there may be people taking advantage of them in an ethnically particular way.
	And I think that's why people genuinely hate Sadiq Khan.
	But there's genuine hatred because he does seem to side with Islamists.
	And I think that's why a lot of people hate Jeremy Corbyn as well, is that he sides with people who generally don't like us.
	But anyway, let's let's carry on with this quickly.
	So Fraser Nelson, of course, is just pro-immigration, of course.
	And we'll tell you this.
	But anyway, so getting onto the Home Office, they've decided they're going to move forward at pace with their biggest plan for the biggest ever immigration cut.
	It's like, right, that's a great point.
	So if we quadruple immigration and then have a 25% cut, we've only timesed it by three.
	So, but we can also say, well, this is the biggest immigration cut ever, which is just wonderful.
	I mean, it just, would you believe these people?
	That they're planning on cutting immigration, considering they're the ones who are literally just rubber stamping as many people in as possible, of course.
	Also, you know, it's worth making a point here that the so-called New Conservatives, I think the New Conservative group, quite big of MPs, they are kind of trumpeting the fact that they are going to bring immigration down to 200.
	Yeah, I know.
	That was a catastrophe when Tony Blair instituted it.
	Net migration has got to be 200,000 kilowatts, you know?
	I mean, so we end up at the worst possible position in 10 years' time rather than have it now.
	I'd kind of rather have it now, actually.
	So, you know, I mean, there is an advantage to the conservatives being apparently incompetent, which is it hurries forward this conversation.
	But anyway, so yeah.
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies kind of had to admit, guys, this immigration thing isn't making us money.
	It's not making us money.
	This is just not how that works.
	This doesn't work like that.
	In fact, it's going to destroy us.
	The respected think tank said that Britain's tax burden would jump by 2030 as frozen tax thresholds mean inflation pushes more people into higher brackets and corporate tax payers on businesses.
	So the tax burden is set to rise sharply even after tax cuts in autumn.
	Britain will be paying an extra 66 billion this year compared to the scenario would have been, and by 2028 the tax revenues will be equivalent to 104 billion pounds.
	Fantastic!
	So we can see that it's not improving the NHS, it's crushing the NHS.
	It's not improving public services, it's crushing public services.
	It's not improving the roads or the infrastructure, it's crushing the infrastructure.
	It's not reducing the cost of houses or I'm doing anything other than increasing the cost of houses.
	It's not doing anything good to the country.
	And it's costing us money.
	You're paying for it.
	That's the thing.
	You're paying for this privilege.
	And again, when it comes to like benefits, I just can't understand for the life of me how it can be possible that someone born outside of this country can claim benefits inside of this country.
	But that shouldn't be allowed.
	And yet, As you can see, this is social housing occupied by people who are born outside of this country.
	I mean, London, the stats came out fairly recently, 47% of social housing is, and it's 25% overall.
	It's like there should be 0%.
	Sorry, but I can't go to Spain or I shouldn't be able to go to Spain and be like, okay, Spanish government, give me a house.
	That shouldn't, that should be a never event.
	I mean, and I, can you imagine the audacity of it as well?
	Well, I would expect the Spanish government to say, why would we do that?
	Well, I mean, for example, in London, where it's nearly half the most expensive place in Britain, most expensive place in Britain.
	The the measure for social housing was changed famously from local connection.
	Do you remember people used to go on the lists?
	Oh, yeah.
	My wife was on the list.
	Yes, exactly.
	You had to wait and wait.
	But it was changed from that to with greatest need.
	and when that was changed therefore of course people turning up maybe with a couple of kids nothing on they have the greatest need or whatever um so that was changed now either out of sheer kind of a sense of uh you know citizen of the world blah blah blah or indeed out of political ideology or is is moot but what it has done is entirely changed whole areas not least of all the east end uh you know which is no longer
	It's mad, isn't it?
	It's mad that the people of Britain are housing people from other countries at their own expense in their capital city.
	If you were to go back 20, 30 years and say to people, this is what they're going to do.
	Yeah.
	People will say, we'll never do that.
	That's crazy.
	Of course, we're not going to do that.
	And yet here we are.
	So it's just mad.
	But then I suppose the solution to all of this is just stop collecting the data on it.
	So the Department of Work and Pensions have decided to, as Neil O'Brien MP, Conservative MP, points out that it's going to stop publishing data on welfare claims by nationality because then you won't know that you're being taken advantage of.
	And, uh, basically Neil O'Brien, the MP here, he is complaining about this, is he?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	He's actually in opposition to this, which is nice.
	Okay.
	Um, but they've stopped publishing on it because why do you need to know that?
	Well, isn't this a situation in Europe?
	I think many European countries.
	Oh yeah, absolutely.
	France is terrible for data collection.
	And basically, it's effectively an admission of guilt, isn't it?
	Why would you not do that?
	You love data on absolutely everything, apart from when it comes to nationality and, say, tax receipts and benefit claimants.
	Then it's bad, because it makes you look like you're taking advantage of the working people of the country.
	Not only because you are.
	Anyway, we'll leave that there.
	Right, let's go on to some comments, because I'm sure there are a lot of people who have a lot to say about what we've been talking about.
	Derek says, Art has to serve a master.
	When your master is vengeful and spiteful towards anything true, good and beautiful, don't be surprised if the art created is just as vengeful and spiteful.
	That's an interesting take, isn't it?
	What's the point of these plays?
	What's the point of slave play, if not to generate a vengeful spirit in the audience?
	What kind of catharsis is being brought out from this?
	Now, I haven't seen it, so I don't know.
	The whole enterprise does seem suspect.
	I think the greatest threat actually to our sort of creative endeavour that the gentleman's talking about is basically banality and the closing down of the imagination.
	I mean that now your average playwright, I said like novelist or whatever, will be thinking along certain lines that this will not be acceptable, that will not be acceptable.
	And you end up with things that are not really slightly worth watching, maybe, but don't impinge.
	Well, I don't ever watch any new movies that come out for the same reason.
	I don't.
	I don't think they've got an experience I want to have in them.
	And you know what's interesting about the theatre thing?
	I was thinking, I mean, if only purely from a raw capitalist perspective, why would I want to limit the audience people coming in?
	Isn't that actually going to be harmful?
	Yes.
	Yes, exactly.
	Some cricket reference says the whole push to make slavery some sort of original sin exclusive to white Europeans completely ignores the history of the concept.
	Just because other nations were not developed enough to keep records of what went on or to industrialize it does not excuse them for participating in it, especially as once Britain decided as a developed nation that slavery must be put to an end, those nations resisted the edict and had to be made to by military force.
	Yes, the Anglo-Zanzibar War is always one of the funniest things that you can read about in history.
	It's the shortest war in history because a British destroyer turned up, learned they had a slave market there and started shelling them until the Sultan of Zanzibar gave up.
	It took 45 minutes.
	One might think we could be proud of that, ending the East African slave trade in 45 minutes, but apparently not.
	Apparently we have to lash ourselves and feel sorry.
	Rude The Day says, how is Blackout production not the most racist thing you've heard this week?
	It is actually, which is why we wanted to cover it, because it's genuinely awful.
	And I know I keep bringing up that like, There are, there are lots of people in this country who are not liberal, right?
	They're not conceptually liberal and do think of themselves in ethnically particular ways.
	Yes.
	And so when the discourse is constantly being racialized, I mean, let's just go back to the Rishi Sunak thing.
	I completely agree with your assessment of Rishi Sunak, but there are definitely going to be people who are looking at that going, I don't know.
	They don't think about that way and they don't know anything about the Conservative Party.
	And so essentially, I think it's going to be turning people into racists.
	I think there's a potential for that.
	And so when you've got this constant racial messaging for minorities, I'm not surprised that you've got racial messaging being criminalized for white people.
	I'm not in favor or anything.
	I'm not saying that's good, but it doesn't surprise me.
	But I don't think it's going to make them go, Oh, well, yeah, good point then.
	You know, I think you've got also got people who, um, Now I sort of think, well, they obviously think I'm racist or whatever.
	They get all this message.
	So they say, well, actually, okay, so be it, you know, I mean, which is a worry, you know, but that's what I basically want.
	It's not what I want to happen, but I'm, I'm sorry.
	I can see it happening.
	I see people saying this sort of stuff.
	I hear them and it's like, okay.
	I've been warning about this for many years now as well, and yet here you are with your black-only theatre production and stuff like this.
	Someone online says, I hate living in a time where saying segregation is stupid is controversial.
	It's not even freedom of association.
	It's an organization putting itself between people.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	That's a great way of framing it.
	Sophie says, having worked in theater, the funniest thing to me about this is the hardest thing in theater currently is getting anyone to come and see it.
	Yeah.
	This comes to the raw capitalist position.
	Even if the show is free, it is hard to make people come and see it.
	You'll be begging on your hands and knees for anyone to come and watch, which I mean, they had to go out and literally solicit an audience for the show as well, which is incredible.
	And quite frankly, all theatre is now kept artificially alive through government grants.
	Is that true?
	About government grants, yeah.
	I'm not sure about that actually, because it's on in a commercial theatre.
	I'm not sure about that.
	Actually, there is also a point, carrying on from what that person said, is of course, it's been the most fantastic publicity for them.
	Oh yeah.
	So, you know, maybe that will...
	You know, fill up the seats.
	Who knows?
	Who cares?
	Who knows and who cares?
	Well, unfortunately, I care.
	This actually all matters.
	The Shadow Baron says, I was reading the Wikipedia article on slavery in the Ottoman Empire, and it was very positive about it, almost to the point of praising it.
	Quote, a large percentage of officials in the Ottoman government were bought as slaves, raised free and integral to the success of the Ottoman Empire from the 14th to the 19th century.
	That's remarkable, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Oh, well, you know, the Ottoman Empire wouldn't have been so successful if it wasn't for all the slaves, says Wikipedia.
	Kevin says, hold on a minute.
	So a black playwright gets to have a black only performance of his play because black people needed to be free from the white gays and that's acceptable.
	However, the countryside, which everyone can visit if they can bother to get off their backside and go for a hike, is racist.
	OK, so if they can have black only nights, should we be able to have white only days in the countryside?
	But of course, that's not allowed.
	Yeah, but this is the whole point, isn't it?
	It's taking it to its logical conclusion.
	That's the only... But that's why... I mean, have you seen the sort of Muslim hiking groups and stuff like that?
	I've seen some story about it, yes.
	Yeah, there are Muslim-only ones, black-only ones, so they're just people who go for a hike in the woods.
	It's like, you can do that, but you don't have to be Muslim-only.
	You can just literally just knock on your neighbor's door and say, do you want to come for a hike?
	Well, yes, exactly.
	But this playwright, again, says something about black people and poor people, I think you have been told that they can't go to theatres.
	It's just wrong.
	Quick thing John's found.
	The Arts Council of England grant only covers 67% of the income.
	Oh, there you go.
	How do I get them to cover 60% of our income?
	Yes.
	Come on.
	Yeah.
	I can identify however you like Arts Council.
	67%.
	Two thirds of their operating money.
	- You see, that's why the Arts Council should go.
	- Absolutely. - It should just be abolished.
	- Absolutely, I mean, was it instituted by Tony Blair, for chance?
	- No, it was, the Arts Council was one of the great things to come out of the Second World War, was John Maynard Keynes, right?
	Oh, right.
	But they only thought that it was going to be like a stopgap.
	It's the same with all bureaucracy.
	It's going to be a stopgap.
	And they certainly wouldn't have thought it would be used for all the kind of political ends it's being used for now.
	It was just basically to bolster our kind of arts and heritage when we were at a low point.
	But now I think that it's budget is just under a billion.
	Over 990 million I think, yeah.
	I think it's about that.
	Bureaucracies never go away because you're literally paying people to have an investment in the future of the bureaucracy.
	What do you, as a quick thing, have you seen what Xavier Millet is doing in Argentina?
	Oh, I've seen what he's, I think he's, I've been, I think he's a very compelling character.
	I know.
	I like him.
	You can't help but wish we had an Argentinian.
	Yes, yes.
	I loved it.
	I thought he was very, he made one great point actually as well.
	He was doing an interview, I think it was with Tucker Carlson.
	He made this point.
	He said, what we've got to remember is that the left and the ideas of the left, he said, they are kept alive artificially with public money.
	And you might say, well, who knew?
	But actually, he puts it so clearly.
	He said, we have to basically come up with the goods, we have to fund them.
	All of these ideas in all the institutions we've talked about today are basically there because they don't have to go out and get the money or earn it.
	It's public money, government money.
	So take that away and at least then it's a level playing field.
	I mean you can see how it's going to wither and die in any area actually.
	What's interesting is in the Sort of, uh, late 2000s to the early 2010s, there's a huge boom of online leftist media.
	So like Vice, Vox, Slate, all these sort of, Mary Sue, all these sort of rag leftist outlets that are all collapsing in on themselves now.
	I mean, vice.com is just going to be taken off the internet because there's no demand for it.
	You know, it was given a bunch of investor money and that money has run out now and they couldn't sustain themselves as a business model.
	They're going to collapse in on themselves.
	If it wasn't, as he says, for this sort of artificial money that's injected into all of this.
	These things don't exist in the first place.
	I mean, we haven't received any money from the government or anywhere.
	It's inconceivable, isn't it?
	I can't even imagine them giving us money.
	This is all very grassroots, so go and sign up now to Notices.com.
	Keep us alive!
	But it's all completely grassroots.
	If our audience don't want us to exist, then we cease existing.
	So it just aligns our interests with theirs.
	Anyway, Matt says, the only reason the imagine-it's-the-other-way-around is totally vacuous is because equality law enshrines the right of minorities to access Western European people.
	The inverse would enshrine the right, a right that scarce few Europeans would exercise.
	The natives want the right to gatekeep access to themselves.
	I guarantee you, next to no European people are clamoring to get into minority spaces.
	Now that's not entirely true.
	There is 100% a kind of liberal Democrat voter who absolutely, and maybe not liberal Democrat, Absolutely want diversity to be away from people like themselves.
	You see them all the time praising the wonderful cuisine of wherever has been diversified.
	So that's not true.
	There aren't people who want that sort of thing, but it is an interesting point that it does Give the minorities a right that the majority doesn't have, which is to be able to gatekeeper space based on race.
	Which is, again, just another one of those things that's just like what this shouldn't be happening.
	But the other also is worth adding actually that it's based on this, but also this kind of a reaction you're talking about is also based on class.
	It's a very, you're talking about middle class, we're talking all the time about middle class attitudes on the whole.
	We are talking on the whole as opposed to working class.
	100%.
	And it really is insufferable, the middle class attitude.
	So I found that the upper class attitude is generally fairly well disposed to their own country.
	I don't get the feeling from Jacob Rees-Mogg that he hates this country, you know, and he is at least the kind of paternalism.
	Yeah.
	You know, there's something, oh yeah, well, this is ours and that's fine.
	It's got its flaws, but it's fine.
	And the working class obviously live in the country.
	So, you know, it's the only thing they have.
	But the middle class are constantly yearning for just anything else.
	They're not happy in any way with their own country and themselves.
	And I always wonder what that says about them.
	Like, what does that mean about a middle class person when they can't bring themselves to say anything positive?
	They have to go, Oh, I love the European Union.
	I love the South of France.
	I love this.
	I love this.
	Well, I think you saw those people, what used to be called Middle England, which I think has ultimately changed a lot.
	You saw those people on that massive pro-Remainer march, you know, in London a few years back.
	Funny thing is, without, you know, to be very traditional and re-smug about it, There was always a strong link between aristocracy and the working class.
	I agree.
	The middle class, they were the cookies in the nest.
	They're the revolutionaries.
	Yes.
	If you look at those wonderful Victorian paintings by Thrift, like Derby Day, there you see it.
	You see the kind of top hat and you see the caps and whatever.
	And it's a huge panorama.
	But the people absent on the whole are the professors and the teachers.
	Yeah, the bourgeoisie.
	Yes.
	From whom all liberal revolutions spring.
	The Shadow Band sends a super chat for $50.
	Thank you.
	And says, thank you for all the great content.
	Much appreciated.
	Alistair says, today's politicians talk and clutch their poles like they are bystanders to what is going on.
	They fundamentally behave as if it's nothing to do with them, and they are powerless to sort things out.
	We see it over and over again.
	I take it you saw Sweller Braverman on Trigonometry.
	No, I haven't watched it yet.
	Oh, well, did you see Liz Truss with Steve Bannon?
	No, I haven't seen that either.
	It's terrible.
	I'm too busy making our program.
	I appreciate that.
	But these were really fascinating because both Truss and Braveman came and said the same thing.
	This trust said when she was prime minister, she expected to have her hands on the leaders of power.
	And it turned out that she wasn't in control.
	And she blamed the Institute of Financial Studies, how it was, and the governor of the Bank of England, and pointed out that the prime minister could be removed, but the government of the Bank of England can't be removed.
	And so this obviously has implications for democracy.
	And Suella Braveman came out and said basically the same thing.
	She realized she said, "I found I could get more done outside of government It's like, okay, then what is the point of a government if it can't do things?
	I thought the parliament was sovereign.
	I thought the elected government would be able to change the country as they want.
	And it turns out she was like, no, we can't do anything, basically.
	And so it's like, right, that's very interesting how we've got now ex-prime ministers and members of cabinet saying, we just can't do anything here.
	So something has to change.
	There has to be some sort of structural reform.
	Um, but that's Alistair.
	I think that's the reason why they have to act like there's just nothing they can do bystanders.
	Okay.
	Well, let's talk about that issue then.
	Shall we?
	You know, let's, let's start hammering it.
	Uh, California refugee says, I'll keep it simple.
	I'm American.
	If my Indian friend wants to return to his homeland, India is waiting.
	Mexican friend has Mexico, many Asian friends, Philippines, Vietnam, China, Japan, et cetera.
	If I want the same, I need you all to save England and Scotland and Ireland and Wales while doing our best.
	Um, Sam says, is a political party like the Conservative Party not supposed to be there for the British people?
	To me, the fact that our so-called Conservative Party is interested in diversity and superficial characteristics shows that it is little more than a socialist subversion in a skin suit.
	Demons have disguised themselves as angels to lure innocents into hell.
	It's hard to say that's wrong.
	It's hard to point out the flaw in your logic.
	JJHW says, Rishi Sunak said the lie about the far right because he is an enemy of the realm, like the rest of the government.
	Was it Grant Shapps the other day, where they were talking about the purpose of the military?
	I think it was Grant Shapps.
	He came out and said, the purpose of the military is to bring death to the king's enemies.
	I'm like, what century do you think you're in?
	Extraordinary, isn't it?
	Just a complete tin ear, actually.
	Yeah, a complete tin ear.
	But I think the way as well that the whole story about the military and the fact that they're having a recruitment total, you know, downturn, as they are in America too, you sort of think, Are you surprised?
	Should you be surprised at all?
	You know, when you keep telling people, you know, working class white guys, you know, that you're basically rubbish, you know, and you're telling them that the country that you still kind of love is rubbish.
	Why the hell would you go and then fight for it?
	But also tell them that it's racist to be interested in the future of your own country.
	Yeah.
	And then say, right, you've got to come and fight for Britain.
	But when you look around, okay, everything's boarded up, everything's decaying.
	I don't know any of the people on the streets.
	I don't actually want to stay here anymore.
	Why would I, why would you think I was going to fight for this?
	Whatever you're building here.
	Cause I mean, like I, I, I ratioed David Cameron on Twitter because he had retweeted Rishi's speech saying we're building a best Britain.
	I'm like, have you looked at the Britain that you're building?
	Yes.
	Go look around the streets, man.
	Everything is terrible and nobody's happy.
	So anyway.
	uh thomas howell says the left might think very differently about unfettered migration if it is portrayed for what it is a corporate slash big big business welfare program we take the benefits of wage suppression and leave the civil impacts of the taxpayer now this is a point that george galloway makes uh which is correct like it's the old bernie sounds the old left that rooted itself in the working class of a country and therefore took the working class interest seriously.
	Of course, mass migration is not in the interest of the working class and that is an archaic view.
	Because you'll notice that the New Left does not root themselves in the working class of the country.
	The New Left root themselves in the lumpenproletariat of the entire world.
	And so any foreigner who arrives is, in their minds, below the working class.
	And so, no, that's the real oppressed now.
	And so, actually, the interest of these people is more important than the interest of the working class, and therefore mass immigration becomes a good thing.
	Yes, also amongst the elites, I remember this being pointed out a while ago actually, amongst the elites there was a genuine shift in that people who got the top jobs, if you like, really do see their duty as being one towards the entirety of mankind, you know, and not
	their own workers or you know the country it's a sort of see themselves as being this is very kind of a throwback to the 60s maybe but oh yeah it's kind of global kind of global responsibility as you say it's rather arrogant well it's horrifically and and this this has real real consequences I mean like talking about the social housing how is it a foreigner can get social housing in Britain well how is it they can access the NHS yes It's not an international health service, ostensibly.
	I mean, and again, if I were to go over to a different country, and they were like, yeah, we've got free health care for the citizens of this country, you're a foreign extraction, you're gonna have to pay for it.
	I'd be like, okay, that's fair enough.
	You know, that's what I would expect.
	Why wouldn't you do that?
	If you want to maintain your national health service, of course you have to do that.
	But anyway, I think that there's just no appealing to the left on the corporate and business side, especially when all the corporations are putting up pride flags and things like that.
	They'll just turn around and say, well, okay, but I like that corporation.
	Omar says, it's one thing to let people in who hate us, but even the ones that came before will probably have gained disdain for the country after witnessing the decline.
	Now that's another great point because I was talking to Narendra when she came in and she was saying how her parents wouldn't let anyone say a bad word about Britain because as far as they were concerned the British people had let them come in and let them live in a great country and therefore they had to be respected for that.
	But if that ethos dies, and now Britain doesn't seem to be for the British and it's actually for every minoritarian interest and the British kind of being ground under and this is a point I wrote I'm making in an article I'm going to be putting out fairly soon we we don't merit their respect That's the point.
	It's very, very difficult to, what do they say about relationships?
	How can you love someone if you don't love yourself?
	It's sort of, yes, it's the sort of same thing.
	It's like people have been told, no, no, no, you don't, we're awful.
	You don't have to be like us.
	Actually, you don't even have to speak our language.
	We'll put up Bangladeshi signs in London.
	So basically, yes, you can see that might actually foster contempt amongst people for such weakness.
	And I don't even blame them.
	I don't even blame them for being contemptuous.
	I'm contemptuous.
	Why are we allowing this to happen to ourselves?
	And again, this decline is a choice.
	This isn't because of some sort of act of God.
	This is all being done willfully by our political class.
	What can you do?
	Patel and Braverman talked a lot and did nothing.
	Well, I think JJHW.
	The problem is, As I think Truss and Braverman have said, I don't think there's anything they could have done.
	I think the institutions that ensconce the political class have grown so great around us that the political class, even if you wanted to, you don't have any leverage to pull.
	And so there's nothing they can do there.
	And we'll go for the final one.
	Matt says, they can't find the missing eye guy, the acid attacker, in the most surveilled city in Europe.
	But don't worry, Begum and her ISIS colleagues will be perfectly tracked 24-7 by MI5.
	Of course they will.
	On the plus side, at least Shemima Begum wasn't able to come back.
	Yes, again you see we have these kind of dancing on the head of a needle arguments about why she, and you sort of think, do you not understand that the situation has changed very drastically?
	So it's not, we can't afford, to have these niceties anymore.
	Yeah.
	Have you explained to Shamima Begum that her quality of life would be lower here than where she is?
	Yes, exactly.
	Or she is a British citizen and as such she should be, you know, these people, you know, people broadly on our side were saying this and everything.
	Yeah.
	I was thinking, actually, no, wait a minute.
	It's a different situation now, you know.
	I mean, they're also presupposing a certain value to British citizenship that the Home Office doesn't seem to agree with.
	No, we'll give it to anyone.
	We'll give it to hundreds of thousands a year and there'll be no end to it, which makes it essentially worthless.
	Yes.
	And okay, so what does British citizenship buy you?
	Well, it buys you insane house prices, it buys you terrible services, it buys you a massively overcompetitive industrial market or employment market.
	It's actually not very advantageous to have British Censorship, not like it was 50 years ago, where it was a highly coveted thing.
	No, now it's becoming very, very worthless.
	But anyway, before we go, Peter, where can people find you?
	Where can we find you?
	Basically, we are newcultureforum.org.uk.
	And basically we're on, well, me.
	Twitter is at PRWhittle.
	I think it's that.
	Yes, that's correct.
	And also on Instagram as well.
	Right, OK.
	But this is the most important one.
	On YouTube at New Culture Forum.
	Yeah.
	Yep, you can go and watch my interviews on there.
	Yes, it is indeed.
	And this one about London was a documentary we did in Heresies.
	Went out in, I think, September.
	And for us, it's done the best.
	It's on about 750,000.
	Fantastic.
	Yes.
	It's just hit the absolute right time, I think, Carl.
	Yeah.
	Fantastic.
	So thank you so much for joining me.
	Thank you, Carl.
	I've had a lovely time, as always.
	Wonderful.
	And we'll see you all tomorrow, folks.
	Have a great day.

▲