All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:32:27
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #886
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast, The Low Seaters.
And today I'm joined by Carl and Helen Dale.
And today we're going to be talking about the fact that together we can defeat the far right.
Finally, the criminal mind and the great realignment in American politics.
So mine is definitely going to be fun, if nothing else, actually, maybe not.
Well, mine's some good news for Americans.
Oh, there we are.
Bad news for Brits.
We'll have some fun.
I don't know if Helen, you wish to introduce yourself to anyone who may be new?
Oh, right.
Okay.
I bounce around the place and talk to sort of lots of different outlets.
Lotus Eaters is one of them.
And I'm halfway through my fourth book now.
I've written three novels, but this one's non-fiction.
I'm Senior Writer for Law and Liberty, which is a US magazine, mainly legally focused, that is owned by Liberty Fund, a big American think tank.
And my background is in legal practice, and I'm one of the relatively unusual people who's formally qualified and also has practitioner experience in both Scots law and in Scotland, and the law of England and Wales and in England.
So I tend to get asked to talk about Scotland quite a lot.
It's good to have you back.
Anyway, I suppose we have no announcements, so it's just news time.
Right.
You familiar with Clive Lewis?
Nope.
Very sensible chap.
Labour MP for Norwich South and Gaza.
That was what Labour MPs are.
Isn't half their party an honorary member for Gaza?
Yeah, they are, yeah.
And have been for quite some time.
Isn't that real, just for a minute?
Sincerely, why do they not just name them all honorary members of Parliament for Gaza?
They won't refuse it.
They're literally honouring members of everything that's not British, to be honest.
Because, I mean, like, Clive Lewis has got some bangers in his past.
This is one of my favourite from Guido Fawkes, where they're like, oh, we're gonna have to do something with these illegal immigrants.
Let's put them in holiday camps.
And Clive Lewis, here's the word camp, it's like, oh, just like the Boer War.
It's like, nope, not quite.
You know, these holiday camps have water slides.
and roofs and look like butlins because they will be but because they probably are but yeah i have i have to pay to go to a holiday holiday camp cross the channel and uh and you get put in them for free and clive lewis is like how dare you it's basically like world war ii um and of course another absolute banger position for clive if i can get this working um is uh when the government's like
hey you know all these um rapists murderers and pedophiles who have done their time and should be sent back to the country they came from Clive Lewis was like, no, and decided to jump in the way of that, uh, by writing a letter that was signed by 70 labor MPs say, no, it's, it's a tragedy to send these rapists, murderers, and pedophiles back to Germany.
What, did they class them as like skilled migrants or something?
They actually even have an argument for this?
Other than just, we like crime?
Deportations?
No, I can tell you what their argument is.
It will seem completely mad.
That's because it is, yeah.
Because it is completely mad.
These are people who think, they have taken the economic way of thinking, which can often be very clarifying and useful to people.
EWOT, you'll sometimes see it written on Twitter by economists.
And this type of thinking, which in other circumstances is very, very clarifying with goods and sometimes services, is just not with people.
And the thing is, they pretend people are widgets.
That is true.
Anyone who has done an economics A-level will be familiar with the widget story and the use of widgets.
Widgets are actually the thing that you get in cans of Guinness to try and put the head on it.
That, by the way, is what a widget actually is.
In this case, it's liberal human rights laws and agendas.
They say, quote, deportations epitomize the government's continued hostile environment agenda.
Not only is the agenda unjust, but also the Equality and Human Rights Commission has now found the Home Office broke the law with a series of hostile environment policies and inhumane treatment of the Windrush generation.
And therefore, these 50 Jamaican murderers, rapists and pedophiles are going to stay in the UK.
But do you see the widget thinking, though?
These people are the same as the Windrush generation, purely based on skin colour and country of origin in this case.
This is a complete collapsing of two groups of people who are completely different in every way.
I completely agree.
I would not say the average person from the Windrush generation is actually a present threat to young ladies walking the streets.
However, the convicted rapists, I think you can classify in that way.
But anyway, so he went to some conference in Germany, and he was like, you know what?
Like all good left-wingers?
Yeah, like all good leftists, I've just been to a conference in Germany, and you know what the real problem is?
The far right.
Now, he's basically a communist, and so this is rote leftist nonsense.
But I just love the way that, I mean, you can see the text here.
In fact, we'll watch a bit of it.
It's two minutes long, but we'll watch a bit of it, because he's just panicking, because the far right is everywhere.
for defeating the far right in politics.
Now, as you're probably aware, across the world, across Europe, in the United States, the far right are on the rise.
Not in Britain, though.
You must defeat the far right.
They're on the rise where?
In Europe and in America?
OK, but what about the impending Labour government we're about to get?
Part of the issue for a lot of these very pro-European remain supporting MPs.
And this may become an issue in five years' time for Leave supporting MPs, but in the opposite direction, is that the European Union's in the process of tacking right.
And it's tacking right among the national governments.
And as we know from the way elections to the European Parliament work, Within a few years, the Parliament follows the national governments because they tend to hold those European Parliament elections at the same time as national elections.
And Europeans are not well trained in the Australian and American style insurance policy of voting for different political parties in the House and the Senate.
That's something that both Australians particularly, but Americans too, are now learning and are very good at.
Europeans haven't quite Cottoned onto that.
So Steve Davies has made the point that he says in five years time, if this keeps up over the immigration issue, you're going to finish up with a really, really quite right-wing EU.
Suddenly I want to rejoin.
And he's made that joke.
He said, and you're going to get right-wing people saying, oh shit, the EU's good now.
And then you're going to get lefty remainers going, oh shit, the EU's bad now.
Jeremy Corbyn can finally come out of his shell.
You know he thinks it.
But anyway, I love his expression.
This looks like a man who is taking things very seriously.
Let's watch a bit more.
In Hungary, in Sweden, we have far-right governments now.
Just to be clear, the government in Sweden is not far-right.
This is going to shock you, but the government in Sweden is very moderate centre-right anyway.
Can we get some of those?
How do we get those?
They sound brilliant.
They sound amazing.
How do we get what Sweden has?
for centre-left and left parties.
Can we get some of those?
How do we get those?
They sound brilliant.
They sound amazing.
How do we get what Sweden has, which is not something I thought I'd ever say?
I'm not even joking.
Yeah, well, the only proper right government now in the EU, if you want to use the conventional political science definitions, is actually in Hungary.
The others are not.
The others are centre-right.
The number of times I've had to explain to people that the immigration policy that all these different countries want to copy off of Australia, in its original form it was introduced by a Labor government, And the modifications that were done subsequently by a mixture of both Labour and coalition governments, they're bipartisan.
Because as soon as you pay attention to the median voter, then you have to control the borders.
And it is the only way to make any other form of immigration acceptable.
One of the problems I have with the impending Labour disaster that we're going to have is that they are going to reduce immigration.
Because they're not going to have it.
No, no, they are.
They are actually, I swear to God, Quote me on this in a year's time.
I will.
No, no.
Immigration will go from 1.4 million to 800,000.
Right?
So it will still be a net of like 300,000.
It will still be, it'll be back to Tony Blair levels because Tony Blair will be behind Keir Starmer going, what are you doing?
Sort that out.
Sort that out.
Because everyone's going mad to the right because they're sick of seeing immigrants everywhere.
Sort it out.
And they will.
And they'll make it tolerable.
But the process will continue.
The other thing too is that There are certain coalitional and transactional elements in British politics that make it very difficult for a political party to do things.
It's very hard for the Tories to build houses because so many NIMBYs are Tories in blue seats.
That's a classic example.
None of those people are going to vote Labor.
You're going to need a Labor government to do this.
Likewise, The Tories, this is a classic missed opportunity, are free to squish immigration because all the people who are pro-open borders are never going to vote Conservative.
Really?
The Tories missed an opportunity?
So they missed an opportunity.
You can imagine that.
But you find this in a number of areas with the NHS.
Labour, for example, could quite dramatically, and did historically with Blair, do make major changes to the NHS because it's seen as a captive Labour issue.
Where are the people who love the NHS and think it's I think it's a member of the sainted multitude.
Where are they going to go?
They can't really vote for the Lib Dems, who are more market-oriented, more Tory with their economic policies, so they finish up being stuck.
And huge amounts of change in politics are dependent on things like that, that a big block of voters have nowhere to go.
Anyway, let's carry on and just see the full scope of the madness.
But there have been some notable successes in Poland and in Spain, where left-wing parties have been able to stop and defeat the rise of the far right.
But that could be temporary.
Here in the UK, we have a far-right government that openly uses racism and Islamophobia to divide communities.
How far right would you call the Tories, Callum?
Well, I mean, there was the speech from Rishi Sinhak last night where he just came out and said, I hate all the... No, he didn't.
He didn't do that.
It just didn't happen.
What is he talking about, man?
The Conservatives are further to the left than Tony Blair.
It's just bollocks.
I mean, I sort of don't know what to do with these people because, I mean, they must know their line.
Has anyone gone through and just got an archive of Jack Straw's comments on uncontrolled immigration back in the day?
Yeah.
I mean, he was helped by the fact that he was blind and had a guide dog.
And it's very, very difficult to criticize someone who's obviously physically disabled like that.
That probably did help him.
But even so, he was completely upfront about this issue.
Tony Blair's comments on black crime are very far right in 2008, where he was just like, no, it's just the black kids in the communities stabbing each other.
It's like, bloody hell, Tony.
You know, you Nazi.
And that's Ritchie Sedak saying that.
Yeah, imagine Ritchie Sedak saying that.
The Conservatives would never say anything like that.
Or if they did, like that donor, they would be accused of being racist.
Yeah, so I just watched this and I was in awe of how detached from reality Clive Lewis is.
He's like, look, far right are rising everywhere except in this country where, you know, I'm the MP.
The clan are already in power.
Yeah, it's terrible.
Anyway, I'm a black MP.
We're the most diverse political party in British history.
We're in charge and implementing a program of mass migration.
And so we really have to be worried about the rise of the far right, especially as we're about to get a massive, stonking Labour majority.
So it's like, right, OK, what are you even talking about?
And this kind of dovetails together with a chap called Ben Bradley.
Now, I actually quite like Ben Bradley.
Because he's one of those sort of normal MPs who's just like, oh, I walk around my constituency and I help people out.
And you can see he's actually got like young people out helping him.
And so this is not an unusual post.
He does a lot of local campaigning, local issues.
He's a councillor and an MP for Nottingham.
And so he's a good chap, seems to be doing the right thing.
And he put out this video.
And this video drove them all, I mean, you can see by the prole star here retweeting below, oh my God, look at this BNP.
Listen to this madness.
Labour councils failing local residents.
If you live in a Labour council area, you pay more council tax.
You're more likely to be a victim of crime.
You're more likely to experience fly tipping.
You're more likely to have to wait behind non-British nationals for social housing.
Their record is terrible.
That's true.
That's actually true.
Yeah, totally true.
Because what happened and this, this, this is history that goes back a long, long time.
Come back closer to the mic.
Sorry.
That probably goes back to the 1960s.
Social housing used to be allocated based on a queuing system and What happened was a change, and I think it was probably local authority by local authority.
I don't think it was national.
I'll stand corrected on that, though, if it was, is to shift towards need.
And the need shift was designed initially, oh, we need to get homeless people off the streets and that kind of thing.
But it turns out that it actually doesn't work.
And this is sort of one of these Very morally complex areas where there are different ways of solving what's known as a coordination problem, and not all of them work.
Most of the time, markets solve your coordination problems and they're fine.
But there are times, and there's actually a chap, I think he's Canadian, a chap called Michael Sandel, who's written a whole book about this, but his argument is there are times when queuing is better than markets.
And a lot of British people will just knowingly nod at this because we are the nation of cures.
But it turns out that forcing people to not claim some sort of priority based on an inherited characteristic or an inherent characteristic is actually morally good for them.
They learn that they can't just push in front of others, that they have to wait their turn.
There is a good reason for this British tradition.
I just want to say, this all is very obvious to us, you know, preaching to the choir here, but it is something interesting that all of the left-wingers are like, well, I mean, like, no, how could you say you're more likely to wait behind non-British national social housing?
So hang on a second.
When do we have the conversation that non-British nationals should be entitled to social housing?
Why are you even in the queue?
Yeah, exactly.
Why are you in the queue?
Why are you here, in fact?
Are you contributing to the economy?
You can't afford your own house to rent somewhere.
But no, this is all totally presumed because, of course, racist Ben Bradley is otherwise channeling the National Front.
It's like, what are you talking about?
It is nonsensical to suggest that people who come from abroad are entitled to a house in Britain paid for by the taxpayer.
Just as a side note, you do notice that they completely gave up on all the other points.
Yeah, of course.
Yes, yes, it will be filthier and you'll pay more in tax and blah blah blah.
But you are a racist!
Okay, fine.
And so Ben had a response to this.
Oh no, sorry, this is a Labour councillor, sorry, who, just a quick thing.
Wow, Conservative Party political broadcast just now, go on.
And what I love about these is it's like Boris with the burkas and the bumboys.
It's like, look, you can say that it's a bad thing, but a bunch of people are like, oh really?
Okay.
I'm in for that.
Ben Bradley says that in Labour-run councils you're more likely to have to wait behind non-British national social housing.
Yeah, keep amplifying the message, Alex.
I want everyone to hear it.
I want everyone in the country.
Quite a lot of these people have no sense of how they present on social media.
Not Ben Bradley, he's quite good at using it, but quite a lot of them on all sides of politics.
They don't It's the stoic line.
Have you ever stopped to consider how you look?
You know, you can't control the way other people look at you, but you can stop behaving like a complete bellend in public.
Basically, you do have control over that.
And Alex might have actually helped his case if he'd said, this is not true.
But at no point does he say here, this is not true.
And again, this has got over a million views this tweet.
So a million, 1.2 million people looked at this and thought, oh, so you are more likely to wait behind non-British National Social Housing.
You're just not allowed to say it.
Yes, because that would mean that the BNP was saying something correct.
Right.
It's not very convincing.
Or the National Front or whoever it is.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, this week it's the BNP.
The previous one was the National Front.
I mean, I don't know.
But the point is, Ben's making a very sensible point.
Maybe British people should have priority for social housing in Britain.
I mean, that's just...
I realise that Ben's now a member of the Nazi party, but he came out with just a statement like, what the hell's going on?
Apparently saying that British taxpayer funded social housing should be prioritised to house British nationals, reflecting the fact that the first duty of the government is to protect and support rich citizens, is now far-right hate speech in the language of the BNP.
Yeah, Ben.
I hate to say it, mate, but the world has gone quite bonkers.
Honestly, not sure what planet these people live on.
Come and have a chat with the thousands of my constituents who are on the housing waiting list and see the immense unfairness of citizens of other countries, sometimes even with no legal right to be here at all, being offered housing as a priority when others have been waiting sometimes for years.
The world's gone mad.
Not sure why I'm surprised.
Yeah, I mean, he's just being straight.
He's being completely straight up.
He hasn't locked his replies, interestingly enough.
And I thought we'd just have a quick look at the figures, as the spectator Matthew Goodwin points out.
Between 2019 and 2021, 16% of UK born people are living in social health compared to 17% of foreign born.
That should be 0%.
0% of foreign born people should qualify for UK social housing.
And then I'll have a conversation about social housing itself.
Kind of against that these days.
But anyway, the figure is not uniform amongst all communities.
You're going to like this one in particular.
Are we going to look at the Somalis?
Well, Pakistan.
Oh great.
South Asia.
What do you reckon it climbs up to?
60% probably.
It's only 30%.
Oh God.
Okay.
It's not that bad.
But 30% is pretty bad.
Yeah.
Like, why?
40% of them aren't employed.
Yeah, same with people from sub-Saharan Africa.
It's also why I'm going to say it now, because this is just known from Australian immigration policy over many years.
A lot of people have pointed out, I've even seen Lord Hannan writing about this, can't work out why so many Muslims vote Labour when their religion is socially conservative.
And they're also very pro-private property.
So some of the conflicts that have been between Muslims and other religious or political groupings, the Konfrontasi in Malaysia, this is the kind of stuff that Australians know about, or what happened in Indonesia with the Sukarno and Suharto stuff, a million people died.
A lot of the conflict is Muslims trying to defend property rights against people who they perceived to be communist.
Which is fair enough.
So you sort of think, okay, you would think this would be a right-wing religion, property rights, social conservatism.
It is in their own countries.
But the thing is when they immigrate, the most reliable indicator of whether statistically an ethnic minority is going to finish up voting left or right, in this case voting left, is the rates of welfare dependency.
So if you've got larger numbers of people on welfare, they'll vote for left-leaning parties, because left-leaning parties, historically, have been a soft touch in this area.
It's one of the main differences between conservatism and any form of even centre-leftism.
And the thing is, this just needs to be accepted.
Yes, it just causes difficulty.
It even did in Australia, because after the end of the Vietnam War, when the Americans were defeated, the South was defeated, very large numbers of Vietnamese, South Vietnamese came to Australia.
And they were given refugee status.
And the Prime Minister at the time, Gough Whitlam, who was Labor, was very, very angry about this.
And he actually said, I am fed up, this is a direct quote, with quote-unquote, Vietnamese bolts turning up in Australia.
And when I say bolts, that has a particular context.
Because what happened at the end of the Second World War Australia admitted large numbers of people from Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Ukraine.
And because of their experience with communism, and they were in very large numbers, they came to Australia.
They also tended to be the kulaks, the more mercantile people.
Oh, I bet they were thrilled to have property rights.
And so they were thrilled to have property rights.
And yes, they very, very reliably voted for the coalition, for the Liberal Party or for the National Party, depending on where they lived in the country.
So he's getting anti-communist Vietnamese and he's like, they're not going to vote for me.
He was right.
He was quite correct.
I mean, quite famously, they are a conservative voting ethnic minority, and it's because there are almost none of them on welfare.
But the thing is, people just don't understand that the Muslim world is not principled like the ideological West is, or people from the communist bloc.
Yeah, they're in favor of property rights.
Their property rights They're in favor of you giving them money because it's going to be their money.
It's literally, what do we gain?
And we don't care about whether, you know, we don't care if you're socially liberal.
We're not going to trans our kids.
You're just going to give us that money.
And that's how it works.
Basically just are you part of our tribe or not?
It is literally that simple.
And this is why people like Lord Hannan are just like, oh, well, I'm a classical Whig.
I don't understand why these people aren't standing on principles.
Because their principle is just mine versus yours.
Because that's what the East is like.
It's a place of tribes.
So I happen to know the number, because what is it?
I forget the account now.
Damn.
The guy who did, yeah, Juice did the number for Somali.
47% of London social housing that's for immigrants.
Yeah.
But Somali specifically, it's 70% of Somalis in London are on social housing.
Yes.
And they don't feel any shame about this one?
But that entire country is a basket case.
Oh, absolutely.
Look, here we go again, because this is what happens when you let one historical event completely colonize your view of all the other historical events.
The reason we have the Refugee Convention, which Australia has famously abrogated, is because what happened before World War II was basically boatloads of Jews were going all around the world trying to get out of Nazi Germany.
In some cases they were sent back and in one particularly notorious incident, they were sent back and all of those Jews finished up dead, most of them in Auschwitz.
So, oh no, we can't have this happen again.
Forgetting that historically the reason you had to be very careful with refugees was because sometimes those refugees had actively destroyed their own country.
They're fleeing because they're not being persecuted, they're criminals.
And that they destroyed their own country in one way, form or another, and now they'll turn up and they're quite likely to destroy yours.
And this can be, in terms of straight politics, and I once again give one for history, a historical example, who was the genius in France who decided that letting the Ayatollah Khomeini stay in France as a refugee and record all his cassette tapes that he did, which were the basis of the Iranian Revolution, You know, that was France.
The appropriate response that would have been much better for the world and for the people of Iran would have been for the Gendarmerie to do what periodically the French have done historically with people who annoy them, but for the Gendarmerie to just, when he turned up at Charles de Gaulle Airport, blow his brains out.
Well, we've got more... Refugee!
Legitimate refugee!
If he'd have gone back to Iran during the reign of the Shah, he would have been killed.
Yeah.
Okay, fine.
We've got more modern examples.
Look at Libya under Gaddafi.
Exactly.
Loads of ISIS or Islamic extremists came to Britain, committed terror attacks.
It's like, why?
Because Gaddafi will kill me?
Yeah, because you're an insane murderer.
I hope he does.
Yeah, exactly.
I would support Gaddafi.
So what we've done is we've treated the persecution of Jews by Nazi Germany and universalised it, forgetting all of these international relations things and foreign policy things.
You can't come up with a system because, to use the lawyer's expression, each case turns on its own facts.
And you can't come up with a system.
Sometimes it will be right to intervene and defend a democracy.
Sometimes, Iraq is the classic example.
No, that place is a disaster and there is nothing you can do to make it better, you idiots.
Likewise, Afghanistan, the place is a disaster.
You can't fix it.
Sometimes you shouldn't take the Libyan terrorist.
No, or you should tell Mr. Brezhnev, who wants, this is going back a bit, who wants Afghanistan.
Please, you are welcome.
Yeah, it's all yours, bro.
It's all yours.
And what else?
What do you need in the way of armaments to finish the job?
Yeah.
Some noble claim about defending fellow monotheists from evil communism.
So just to finish this up, I thought we'd go for a quick definition of far-right from David Atherton.
I think he's got a good one.
My definition of far-right is a centrist who has read the facts.
With an accompanying graph of male Muslim immigration to Sweden and sexually abused women to Sweden.
Strange correlation, I'm sure there's no causation.
But of course, I thought the final word could be given to the far right, who are expected to in fact pay for all of this.
Johnny Flagshagger Esquire, this daft Labour C-word, went to Berlin to talk about the far right.
Who are these far right groups the Tories and Labour are on about?
Shouldn't they be worried about the Muslims of the far left who get a free pass?
Do you want this lot running this country?
I don't.
Fortunately, you're going to get them because the Conservatives and the SNP, it's two parties that are going backwards at high speed, have just blotted their copybook and they're going to get a kick up the bum from the people of England and the people of Scotland, respectively.
But I do agree from Mr Flagshagger's ears to her mouth to God's ears.
Average British far right.
- Right, Londoner gay Englishman. - Yeah. - Well, we shall move on, and we'll try and have some fun in the next one.
So, we have a lawyer.
So I thought I'd do something a bit lawyer-ish, if nothing else, which is the age-old question of whether or not monkeys, sorry, animals, can commit crimes.
I said monkeys because the first example we have is in Thailand, where they want to send 2.5 thousand monkeys to jail because they've been terrorizing residents and tourists, they say.
There's probably legal theory surrounding the ability.
It's not so much theory.
I'm going to recommend a book which I'll ask you to search for and you'll be able to get the cover.
But if you're interested in this stuff and specifically interested in this weird stuff with monkeys and also just generally with primates and highly intelligent animals, so your primates, highly intelligent pet animals like a British short-haired cat or a border collie I'll bring my cat to justice.
How intelligent does it have to be?
Sort of pretty bright animals.
So can they form intent and all of that kind of thing.
There's a very good book and it's called Guilty Pigs, The Weird and Wonderful History of Animal Law, written by two legal academics, Katie Barnett and Jeremy Gans, both at Melbourne University Law School.
And what it talks about is how human civilizations have struggled over the centuries to try to work out what to do with smart animals or that animals that seem to have intent...
And the two groups of animals that really, really mess with people's heads going right back to classical antiquity are things like pigs and horses and smart dogs.
Throw them.
And the other things that throw them are the eusocial insects like bees and wasps.
I was going to criminalize bees.
And termites.
I don't think they're crimes.
So you will get extraordinary things.
And the two authors describe in Guilty Pigs, that's the name of the book, things like the Catholic Church serving writs of anathematization on an ant's nest.
I'm not making this up.
I mean, I agree.
The cover of the book, which is from an engraving in a French church of a pig being put on trial for murder, the murder of a child.
Pigs were notorious for this, apparently, eating children, little children, for the murder of a child.
And there it is in the dock, bailiffs, witnesses, lawyers, the lot.
So people have got...
Ecclesiastical courts were a thing.
Ecclesiastical courts, but it's also a case of not quite knowing what to do with these creatures.
And so in the two great lawgiver civilizations, the Anglo-Saxons and the English treated animals as things.
So they never went down this road.
I was going to say, I know exactly what the answer to this is.
You eat them.
And the Romans did it, achieved the same effect as the Saxons.
They didn't treat them as things, but they treated them as incapable of forming intent.
So they couldn't, they couldn't form the mens rea, basically.
You're on such silly territory at that point, because then if you've got a pig that is a bit above average, oh, maybe this pig can.
And so somebody, you've got an exception to the rule and now the pig's on trial.
The Romans were pragmatic enough never to fall into that trap.
But yes, France.
And notoriously, if you read the Barnett and Gans book, you will find that the majority of these trials, they're completely bonkers animal trials and also anathematizing weevils and ants and stuff like that.
It's in France.
Strongly recommend if you're interested in this and the situation that you're confronted with.
And I'll give you a little bit of information about monkeys, which is in the book.
It's very interesting.
Apart from the fact they're very clever, primates and monkeys are very high in both reactive and proactive aggression.
This is two different kinds of aggression.
Reactive aggression is the punch up outside the pub sort.
Proactive aggression is plotting and scheming, planning a war.
Oh, chimps can definitely be guilty.
Humans are equal with chimps for proactive aggression, planning and scheming.
However, all the other monkeys and primates are much, much higher than humans, massively higher for reactive aggression.
Chimpanzees are the worst.
And so this is why you get, and because they're cute and they're little and so on and so forth, people feed them and then you finish up, and my sister-in-law is Thai, so I've heard stories about this, and then you get kids getting bitten and you get Going back, look, if we're going to apply the sound of mens re to here, that monkey knows exactly what it's doing and it's doing it on purpose.
Punish him.
I love how unhappy she looks as well.
It bloody hurts!
I bet!
You're having your hair pulled!
But getting back to the monkey news, so just last month a woman dislocated her knee after a monkey pulled her off her feet in an effort to grab food and another man was knocked off a motorcycle by a hungry monkey.
Local officials have tried to create designated monkey feeding areas near tourist destinations and threatened fines to those caught feeding monkeys outside of those areas.
If John wasn't on holiday, I'd just barbecue him.
But a few troops of highly territorial monkeys have dominated the designated feeding areas, causing rival monkey groups to go bananas.
Oh, for God's sake.
Harassing humans and other areas.
This is the thing, because you get differences between monkeys the same way you do between people.
They're better at proactive aggression, so they can plan and scheme.
You're a monkey racist as well, Helen.
The point being that, um, well, the summation there, from at least high officials, is that monkeys are causing problems and we need to send them to jail.
Which...
Yeah, they're not the first, it turns out.
This is an ongoing issue with how humans relate to the smarter of the animals.
We're not good at it.
It's worth having a read of Guilty Pigs to understand that even extremely capable people who really should know better are Stuff this question up.
It's a very easy thing to screw up.
But it goes on because you go to India.
This is a story a while back.
World's only monkey jail has been turned into a school for delinquent chimps because they've gone soft on crime in India.
They don't believe in deterrence.
They believe in reformation.
I love about this is the distinction in the chimps.
No, no.
The good law abiding chimps are fine.
The delinquent chimps are the problem.
So we need a school for them.
There's Chimp Rene being like, no chimp is born evil.
Okay.
that makes him evil.
Okay.
What the hell's wrong with people?
You can't, because they say here...
So in Punjab State, there are 65,000 wild monkeys, and it's a small minority.
So despite making up...
No.
The small minority are causing havoc, so officials decided they would lock them up in a chimp jail, and therefore the crime was actually solved because they got rid of the most aggressive chimps that were causing all the problems.
And the reason they don't just put them down is religious belief.
Yes.
They religiously believe.
This is an important... It's not as serious as Hindus take cows.
You've got to be careful.
You can't really say Hinduism.
It's the most diverse religion on the earth.
Hinduism is nuts.
It's just so insanely varied.
But certainly there is a very strong tradition within Hinduism and in the Hindu epics for Hanuman the Monkey King.
And there are lots of different versions of this.
That was the basis of the TV series Monkey that people of Carls and Nye grew up with.
They're just going to have to bring in the death penalty for monkeys.
Like, sorry, these delinquent monkeys have to be dealt with.
I just reminded of that quote from the other day.
It's like, you know, innocence to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
It's just this guy.
Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
Yeah, exactly.
Adam Smith knows exactly what this is all about.
This monkey deserves his punishment.
As a message to all the other monkeys.
He looks sad now, but he wasn't sad when he was committing his crime.
No.
But the point being, there's a religious belief there.
That's the reason you can't actually do anything else but set up a monkey jail.
And it's the only one on Earth.
But as mentioned, they're now soft on crime.
It costs money!
So...
I'm running out of monkey gel.
Oh, you must be rich.
There's actually quite a cool quote from the journalist who wrote this, who apparently went there, and what happens is the really evil monkeys who have to be locked up, they're a rabbit.
You walk past and they just scowl and sneer at you.
It's like, okay, righto.
But this reminded me, we've mentioned it before, historians... Just a quick thing before we go on.
Maybe they could charge people to come and look at the monkeys in the jail and call it a zoo.
I don't know about that.
They wouldn't learn their lesson.
They'd become celebrities.
So, this is Historia Civilis' video about this, which I referenced before, and this has a lot of cases the same way you were thinking of in that book.
Yeah.
The first one here being the case of rats, who were on trial for eating all the food.
And this actually was... It was in France, right?
Yes, it was the town of Entente.
And this trial went on for months because the lawyer who was defending the rats did a very good job of legal stonewalling to the point that the case was dropped against the rats.
I just can't get over there's a lawyer defending rats.
You need to read Guilty Higgs.
You really do.
I'm aware of a bunch of these things.
It's just really preposterous.
You need to have it put in context and you'll just get to the end of the book and go...
That was a wild ride.
Yeah.
That's the feeling that you get at the end of something like that.
When you can physically watch intelligent, capable people as they go down a blind alley and talk themselves into going down that blind alley.
Because the best part is the judge.
Like, this is the judge represented over here.
And the lawyer argues, for example, that because his clients didn't show up to the courtroom, instantly they would be found guilty.
And he was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
It's known as a default judgment, yes.
Yeah, and he was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, my clients are farmers of a kind, which means that they are given the same Due diligence that a farmer would be given, which means he needs to be given a week to get his affairs in order before he can turn up to court, because he's busy.
And they're like, fine, we'll give the rats a week.
I am insanely Anglo-Saxon on this issue.
No, it's a pest.
Put it down.
Well, they turn up a week later.
Yeah, it's a thing.
It's just a thing.
And the thing is, because that word is derived ultimately from Anglo-Saxon English, So, the Anglo-Saxon thinking has passed into the modern English common law.
You can see how the French got hold of Roman law.
The Romans never did it.
They were too pragmatic for that.
But you can see how the French got hold of Roman law and kind of stuffed it up, whereas that opportunity just never arose in England because The Saxons were too sensible.
Yeah, it's just preposterous and makes a fool out of everyone involved.
Rules are for humans, that's it.
End of story.
I'll tell you what happened next because, of course, after a week, the rats didn't get their affairs in order and come to court.
So, well, the lawyer very cleverly pointed out, well, actually, this is an unfair trial because the streets of Entente, they're littered with assassins who want to kill my client.
The cats.
That's true, yeah.
So then they had to give an order to tell everyone to get rid of their cats.
And made the problem even worse, of course.
Soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime.
After all this legal defense, this left-wing lawyer who was trying to subvert justice by stonewalling, he won in the end.
The rats weren't deported back to where they came from.
Instead, Just carried on.
And that's not the only case.
I mean, you mentioned, uh, I think it's the next one here being the pigs.
Yeah.
Uh, the pigs, um, well, we'll get to the pigs actually in a minute.
There's another one before that, which is a rooster.
Oh yeah.
A rooster laid an egg and this is illegal.
No, what happened?
Roosters can't lay eggs.
Well, there may have been another source of eggs in the same area where the rooster may be staying.
Maybe a chicken.
But that wasn't the case.
It was a rooster, we're sure.
And a rooster can't lay eggs because that's a crime, because it will cause a basilisk to come out of that egg.
The French just live in a parallel world.
This case is in the Guilty Pigs book.
Anyway, long story short, they put the rooster on trial, the defence... No you don't!
The rooster didn't lay an egg, you're not putting it on trial, you're eating it.
It's gonna be delicious.
No, no, no.
What's wrong with you?
Christmas supper!
Yeah, exactly, not even Christmas!
Sunday roast!
It was given a lawyer, and this lawyer wasn't a very good left-wing lawyer.
Oh, really?
So he actually admitted to the crime, and then said, well, you... No, you don't admit!
No, the rooster did not lay the goddamn egg!
No, he admitted that the rooster laid the egg, but he didn't have the mens rea.
He didn't have the criminal mind to lay the egg.
But how is it a crime to lay an egg?
The rooster identifies as an egg-layer.
I see!
I'm sorry, the joke's just... No, but the argument was that the rooster didn't know that the basilisk would come of this egg if we continued down this path, so you can't charge him because he doesn't have the criminal mind.
You must send him to an insane asylum instead.
Uh, the court decided that no, the crime was the crime and you already admitted to that.
So they sentenced the Rooster to death by burning.
So there's that.
In the oven?
Uh, no, they burned him at the stake.
What?
Because of course.
That's a waste of good chicken.
Yeah.
And what happened to the Basilisk?
French court?
You know, I'm curious.
Who knows, we've lost the time.
The pigs, they trampled and ate a boy to death, so it was decided that the pigs were all collectively guilty and must all be killed.
It was then decided that there would be a pardon to all the pigs except three who were found guilty and sentenced to death.
Ah yes, the ringleaders.
The point being, there's a lot of disagreement about whether or not an animal can commit a crime and there's a kind of Weird logic that I'm sort of weak to.
I must be honest, when I hear these cases, a part of me is just like, maybe, maybe, because I mean, you can teach the dog not to do things, so maybe you can argue that it's got a criminal mind.
Hang on, hang on.
I have to intervene here.
There isn't a lot of disagreement over whether animals commit crime.
There are normal people who don't believe animals commit crime, and then there are idiots who are still waiting for the basilisk.
Or people in early modern France.
Yes.
Oh, the idiots.
Well, I'm partially on the idiot side of this.
But the argument is that it became the case that even the French caught up to the modern day and accepted that maybe, just maybe, the Anglo-Saxons are a bit right and the animals are sort of automatons that can't be held accountable because they don't have any free will.
But you can kill and eat them.
Yeah.
So anyway, there's this big old argument and eventually everyone sort of gets on the page, except the Thai and the Indians, that the animals can't commit crimes.
We can't send them to be reformed in jail.
That's silly.
Just eat them.
But, after learning about all of this, I must say, there's another problem, which may be a bit... This comparison may not be the most politically correct way of doing it, but... Oh yeah, go on, what is it, Alex?
I had some thoughts, because it seems to be the case that that old French mindset has now become common law for a whole different problem.
Because, of course, Europeans now, as large European nations, take this view that there are Europeans, and then there are non-Europeans, and the non-Europeans are basically automatons.
Can't be held accountable for our actions, we shall not punish them for their crimes.
Well this is the thing, the oppressor oppressed thing, it's a type of thinking that leads, the oppressor has agency but no feelings, and the oppressed have feelings but no agency.
And that's the inevitable corollary of thinking that basically brown people in poor countries can't do anything or can't think for themselves.
And where you see it, the really obvious example of it is Israel in Gaza.
So the And the Palestinians are feelings and are not, don't have any agentic responsibility for what they do.
But that's just an obvious recent example.
It is very, very common everywhere.
It's congenital in leftist thought.
It's yeah, it's just, and it does mean of course, that's why you get this situation where they can't understand why someone like Arif Ahmed, the free speech bloke who was originally from Cambridge University and an academic, or they can't understand someone like Calvin Robinson who works for your own show, whose West Indian background, because they've got this idea that everybody has to be basically a widget.
It's that widget thinking again.
It's a madness.
It's a type of madness because people don't, it's actually incredibly racist.
In the old fashioned sense of racist, as in, they all think X, they all think Y. And I'm And your parents probably raised you the same way as well.
If I ever, that flew out of my mouth as a child, and I had pretty conservative country parents in Queensland when Bjorke Pedersen was Premier, if I'd have said that all black people in Australia, all Aborigines think X, I'd have had my backside tanned by my folks.
And they're like, no, it's this percentage.
It's more, it's just the case of don't do that because Even in one family, people don't necessarily agree on politics or sport or whatever.
The point is they're not animals.
The point is they're humans and therefore they're rational beings who are capable of a diversity of thought.
Look, Anglo-Saxon speaking, I'm sorry.
Unlike the pigs, or the monkeys, who are actually animals and you can just classify them all as just being things.
That's totally fine.
Well, we'll start off with the case, or at least the French case, as to why this is maybe not the case, because there seems to be a recurring problem.
It won't be just one case.
There are hundreds of these cases.
It was Clive Lewis, like... I mean, Barnett and Gans in the book have a map of France with little stars where they all are and stuff like that.
Yeah.
But I tried to go through the details to make sure I've got some good examples for anyone who's just jumped on this.
So this is a chap, and this chap here is a Somali migrant who screamed Allahu Akbar while stabbing three German women to death.
Now he's not going to prison because, well, he claimed he was fulfilling his Jihad.
Okay, now what?
And then shouted Allahu Akbar by stabbing these women to death.
Was his argument like, jihad's over now?
Well, this is him in the docket being like, yep, yep, I did it.
I did it.
I killed them because God's great and jihad, I need to kill non-Muslims.
And the court decided after hearing him say that, that he's actually psychologically unwell and must be sent to a closed psychological ward.
This is the German equivalent of Broadmoor, basically.
Kindly, Fred and Rose West, that kind of thing.
I will make one little comment here that is a bit disturbing, but it's worth thinking about.
In the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and I think it's in the fifth one, the latest one, but it's certainly been in all the editions up until the fourth, and I doubt that they'd have changed this.
If you look at a religion, all of them, but the monotheistic ones, and particularly Islam, tend to be the worst.
If you look at them and strip away all of the history and culture and things that feed into them, they look like a cult.
They look like a conspiracy.
And the thing is, that kind of thinking, the reason it's in the DSM, is because when you get that in a human individual, there's a diagnosis often that attaches to that, particularly if they're violent.
It'll be something like paranoid schizophrenia, or one of the very serious conduct disorders, personality disorders, or that kind of thing.
And so the only mechanisms we've got in Western countries when confronted with this very unmediated religion that has not been modified by culture and history, particularly not Somalia, that's a failed state, is to say You're a loony.
You're a loony.
And we don't realize that, no, if you actually take those religions very, very seriously, particularly if you go back to the early days of the religion, the founders and their mates and so on and so forth, there is a reason why the early accounts of Muhammad from people who were his critics and the early accounts of Jesus from people and the early Christians from people who were their critics.
There is a reason why the most common criticism is, you're doodly-dally.
That's why you get that.
You know, people aren't idiots when they see these groups behaving in this way.
The perception that they may have serious mental problems is not their field.
The GSM is not full of nonsense.
There's something in this.
But there's also a background of highly liberal assumptions that operate on a non-metaphysical plane, which just can't really understand why this person would think what he thinks.
And so, yeah, OK, if you think that, you're mad.
Well, OK, but a lot of people think that.
Actually, it's a blindness in liberalism itself.
But can he be held accountable for his crime?
Yeah, in any sensible state, he'd just be hanged.
So, I mean, there's some other evidence in here that suggests that obviously... Louise Perry uses the expression to just draw out, because I think that's a good observation, Carl.
Louise Perry uses the expression about a lot of liberals not having theory of mind, and when it comes to people from different religious and cultural traditions, and when she was talking about this, and this is something I've got a reasonable amount of knowledge of, and I actually wrote a piece about it at the CapEx a couple of years ago now, is people saying that putin was irrational he's going to nuke the world and so on and so forth no no no no no no you need to understand yes you can disagree with him that's all fine that's that's a separate issue
it's a geopolitical issue but he's not mad he's completely rational he just wants different things he's in fact very clever and it's very very a lot of people struggle with that They struggle with religion when they see it in an unmediated form.
Once again, I'll quote Steve Davies again.
There's a serious argument to be made that very, very few modern Christians believe in Christianity the way, say, people did during the Thirty Years' War or Martin Luther did.
Or the Crusades.
Or the Crusades or anything like that.
Yeah.
And even in a religion like Islam, they are starting to develop this problem where very, very large numbers of the adherents don't believe the religion in the same way that they did historically.
But the thing is, it's a younger religion, so more of them do.
So they behave exactly the same way that Europeans did during the 30 Years War.
You should not be surprised by this.
There are just a whole series of liberal prejudices in this that I'm not going to go into now.
Anyway, the summation is that this man's mentally ill, can't take his words, he's an automaton, he's not under control.
So they just moved on from that one, even though he's just literally telling you why.
So how about religious reasons as to why someone might not be susceptible to their crime?
So this is an Afghan rapist who is in Germany.
He's a 16-year-old schoolgirl.
He's not going to prison, he's being sent on an anti-aggression course because that was the problem.
They say here that he Well, the evidence is that he's definitely not someone who doesn't understand what he did, because he's a very smart liar.
Because he says to the court that you can't deport me because I'd be persecuted by the Taliban if I went back.
Really?
Yeah.
But also, he did... It's very tempting for people like this to just go, gee, the Taliban are horrible people, but so are you, so let's just put you all in a bucket together.
That's a good argument for the Taliban.
The kicker is that he actually was on holiday there in January of that year, so meaning he was there about the same time I was.
In Afghanistan?
Yes, with the Taliban.
Even though he's telling the court if I went back I would be killed, he goes back regularly for holidays.
Speaking to the Build newspaper.
Just a quick thing here.
I'm glad that we completely abandoned the concept of restorative justice at this point.
It's like, okay, well, you know, I know that you're a 16 year old school girl.
This random foreigner comes up, brutally rapes you, and we're not going to send Pringles to someone on an anti-aggression course, because this is entirely rehabilitative at this point, right?
There's the other problem, of course, and this is it.
The book to read that actually goes through all the data on this is Rob Henderson's Troubled.
Is if you get a young male criminal and rapist, murderer, whatever, the way to fix him is literally just to lock him up until he ages out of it.
And the way, and the general rule is that if it's a serious crime, you lock them up until they've turned 35 because they just age out of it.
I would say floggings as well.
There needs to be some, this is the Singaporean argument.
Yeah, I've come to the sort of pagan position of, no, no, it's retribution now.
You did something terrible.
You knew you shouldn't have done it.
You need to suffer in order so the person that you commit that crime to can feel some sort of catharsis out of this.
But getting back to the point, he doesn't have a criminal mind.
That's very based.
But getting back to the point, he literally doesn't have a criminal mind, at least according to modern European thought on this.
Yeah.
Because in this case, they said... They're feeling no agency.
But also, there's no consideration for the victim that she might actually need to see him engaging in some suffering in order for her to have some sort of closure and completion of the process.
We're never going to get that far, because the judge said that he's a prime example of getting on well in Germany.
In principle, he is fully integrated with the judge's words.
Look, I lived in Germany for eight years, right?
The average German is not like this man, I'm just saying.
Germans are very civilized.
On top of the anti-aggression... In defense of Germany, from me.
On top of the anti-aggression course, this Muslim man who goes back to visit Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, he's also prohibited from drinking alcohol, which he says was an aggravating factor in the rape.
So there we are.
I'm sorry, this is one area where I agree with the old Scots criminal law.
In the Scots criminal law, alcohol aggravates, it doesn't mitigate.
Absolutely.
And the rationale behind it from Baron Hume, who was related to David Hume, but is not the same person, one of the Scottish criminal institutional writers.
And he made very telling observation, two observations.
One, you put the alcohol in yourself, you chose.
But the other one was, if people, if the people of Scotland were able to say, That they did not commit a crime because they were consuming whiskey.
And he specifically talks about whiskey.
He said that the jails of Scotland would be empty.
And I think that that captures quite a lot of this.
But in this particular case, I can't help but notice if he was European, I don't think he would have got the anti-aggression course.
Really?
You think?
I think it's the Germans doing the German thing.
Now, the Swedish have also joined in.
They did the same with a child rapist.
Raped a 12-year-old girl.
And well, he was sentenced to gender talks.
Yeah, that sounds like quite a punishment.
150 hours of youth care, which involves three months of talking about relationships, gender norms in Sweden, emotions and the pyramid of violence.
So there we are.
Literally just religious reasons.
I can't think of any other reason why you would say that the Syrian national isn't just going to prison for child rape, if not deportation, which apparently isn't on the cards.
The parents must have just been like, OK, all right.
Here's another one.
Germany, Syrian migrant who robbed pensioner and smashed up 245 car windows with a hammer in a violent spree.
He avoided jail.
He's actually getting nothing.
I mean, at least he's not a rapist.
Well, they had video evidence from a CCTV camera of him beating up the old woman and then robbing her at the ATM.
And then they knew from other evidence of all the cars he'd been smashing.
The reason he did that is because he was driving without a license in Germany.
So then they took his car.
So he went, well, no one else can have cars.
Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
200 odd.
And so they found all the evidence.
They took it to the judiciary.
And the judiciary, for no known reason, decided that they weren't going to pursue him, quoting that there wasn't enough evidence.
The police union came out and said, we don't understand.
Because they had all the evidence there.
I've got the video camera footage.
Okay, so you could just refuse to bring the prosecution.
And the thing is, you can use that video camera footage very effectively.
We all saw it with Wayne Cousins and Sarah Everard case.
When you have that footage, you can really, really nail people to the wall with it.
That's what makes CCTV so popular.
But if it's a Syrian migrant, for some reason, no.
We go on here.
This is in England, of course, in which an asylum seeker was caught by paedophile hunters.
So Abdul Karim over here, he's living in a taxpayer funded hotel in Leicester.
I see these people, you see them on social media.
It's not just Twitter.
You see them all around the place.
And I, I have the lawyer's problem with self-help, although at least in the UK, because I have to say, because we are relatively disarmed, it's just going to be punch-ups as a general rule.
And people can survive those.
Whereas if this started happening in a country like the United States or even in country Australia or country Switzerland, where rates of firearm ownership are very high, people would be getting shot.
Well, Abdul Kareem, he thought he was going to go and have sex with a 14-year-old schoolgirl.
They got caught by the pedophile hunters.
So, good lads.
And then he went to court, pleaded guilty to all child sex offences that were laid before him.
So, very much like the rooster, where...
But the defense lawyer that was given to him said that there must be mitigation because there are cultural differences between Sudan and Britain, adding that of course there is no excuse and he knows he's broken the law, but because of the cultural differences you must take this into account and he is not going to jail because of that reason.
But I love how it's literally the rooster.
Yes, he did commit the crime, but he didn't know the basilisk would come out of the egg.
Realistically, the thing that may make him not rape children again is the fact that I dare say the people who teach him probably gave him a touch-up.
I bloody hope so!
community service.
Oh, wow.
That will make him not rape children ever again, I'm sure.
Realistically, the thing that may make him not rape children again is the fact that I dare say the people in the kitchen probably gave him a touch-up.
I bloody hope so.
But, like, when did flogging fall out of fashion in British law?
Yeah.
The pillory.
Yeah, when did that stop?
That used to get put on the pillory.
No, I know!
When did that stop?
So we'll go to the last one here.
Why did that stop?
This article I've mentioned many a times just because I think it sums up the reason for this.
It isn't because those individual cases everyone was eating crayons.
They're eating crayons in a different sense.
They've taken on this mindset that The Guardian has.
Don't know if you've seen this story.
This is in Glasgow and the headline is From Sudan to the Park Inn.
The tragic story of a migrant's killing.
Was he killed or did he kill someone?
Well, he was killed.
It was terrible.
He was killed by the people of Scotland and their guns.
Those people were armed officers responding to him stabbing several people to death.
But the Guardian went with the poor migrant.
It's a short story.
He traveled from Sudan and then was killed by the Scottish.
This is a good opportunity to just make the point that Scottish people and English people are really quite different on this kind of thing.
And what you are seeing now, where supposedly the party of Scottish nationalism, which has historically been genuinely popular, you cannot deny that, has been turned into a laughingstock by the people of Scotland, is very much an expression of the way Scots do their politics.
That is why you've had that awful speech of Hunza Youssef about complaining about white people has had more complaints about it than anything that J.K.
Rowling or Kelly J. King, Posey Parker or any of the other, Sarah Philomore or Fair Cop or any of the other people who've been talking about this issue.
That is why.
And the website that brings it out, and it's worth reading if you've never encountered it before, because
It will give you an introduction to what Scottish independence looks like when it's not progressive authoritarianism and it's a website called Wings Over Scotland and it is full-on, it's very funny, the guy who writes it is very bitty, but you just suddenly you realise it and you go, gee, woke progressive pushed the Scott too far, Scott went
I don't view the Scottish as actually being a very progressive people.
They're not.
They're neither the English.
Getting back to the situation, why did I present all this?
I think it was just to make the point that it seems to be that I'm probably on the side of animals can't commit crimes.
That's pretty dumb.
But the fact that a whole bunch of people in power all over Europe have decided that if you're non-European, you don't have agency, you can't form intent.
You're basically the same thing.
You have no ability to have a criminal mind.
You can't form the mens rea.
That's a madness.
That's a sickness that has taken over the whole continent, it seems, or at least Western Europe, I should say.
But I'll end this off with a laugh, because this tweet blew up, but I don't know if people have seen it.
Some woman tweeted out, white people will literally choose a dog over a refugee in a heartbeat.
And I just love that the left position now is that those are the same thing, but the right position is... Should it be interchangeable?
You're going to get a refugee isn't it?
But no, you're right.
Your comment there is correct because it's the classic case once again of people looking at other human beings and saying they're all feelings and no agency so they can never be responsible for anything that they do.
So it is like having a pet dog or a pet cat.
And I did, I, when people, Gary Lineker is the most famous one, but there have been a number of others who said, Oh, I will have a refugee and so on and so forth in my home.
And the first time I saw comments, and I could see why they were doing it, because they were being put on the spot, because they were posh, which is fair enough.
But it was very much a case of, my God, this reads like the old RSPCA ads where they would tell you that a dog is for life and not just for Christmas.
And I thought that years ago, and now it's becoming really, really, really obvious.
And it's all about, they all think the same.
They can't take responsibility.
And it is treating entire classes of people from poor countries as though they lack the ability to think.
They're not humans like you and me.
They're not humans like you and me.
They can't think independently.
They can't think for themselves.
They don't have agency.
Anyway, that was that.
That was the whole reason for that, which is to lay out that, yeah, they really don't think they're human.
I don't know if I can make it any more clear.
Anyway, let's talk about the great realignment in American politics that is apparently happening, because things are changing in America.
Things are interesting as well.
I like watching American politics as kind of a spectator sport, because obviously I can't go and vote.
What do you mean?
Yes, you can.
He would have to take a trip to Mexico and it would be smelly and awkward and so on.
You like going to random places, but I completely understand why.
Why don't you smuggle yourself into America?
I'm going to go vote for Donald Trump a million times.
Leave Karl in his fancy five-star resort.
Yeah, well, not that fancy, but bloody hell.
But the point is, at the moment, nobody feels that they're winning in American politics.
And I found this really interesting.
This is from Pew Research.
They say, you know, as this presidential campaign comes along, 71% of Americans feel that their side, and this is on both sides, has been losing more than winning.
So, When Donald Trump was president, it was different.
So 69% of Republicans felt that their side was winning when Trump was president, while only 29% felt like they were losing.
That's interesting, because under Joe Biden, 62% of Democrats feel like they're losing.
So under Trump, Republicans felt like they were winning.
Under Biden, the Democrats feel like they're losing.
But overall, nobody feels like they're winning.
So who is winning?
This may be just an expression, this is a guess from me, but there's something, because I write for a magazine that has a lot of American contributors and they're legal contributors, a lot of the articles by the American lawyers for law and liberty have focused on what Americans call the administrative state.
And one of the characteristics, if you read these various articles from lawyers across the spectrum, it's not just conservatives or just liberals, it's just a general observation of the way the US is governed, is the administrative state is just this giant bureaucratic bloated thing that stops anyone
Any government of whatever stripe actually doing things so they can make all these motherhood statements, whether it's in the progressive places like solving homelessness, or whether it's in the more conservative places like law and order.
It doesn't matter what it is, but this bloated administrative state, which is literally based on the movement of small pieces of paper from office to office, basically.
But it doesn't do anything.
It doesn't execute.
It stops It's a giant set of gears that when you put a lot of energy in one side, it produces a small amount of energy at the end.
Yeah.
But I just think this is really interesting.
And that's how you can get people from both sides of politics thinking nothing's happening.
It's all crap and we can't do anything.
Sure.
But people didn't think that when Donald Trump was in charge.
It was the Democrats who thought, okay, we're losing when Donald Trump's in charge and the Republicans like winning.
But now the Democrats in charge, the Democrats are like, wow, we're still losing.
I can't get over it.
Can I just point out something there?
In the run up to the Joe Biden election, the Republicans thought, yeah, we're winning on all these issues.
And the Democrats were like, man, we suck.
And then Joe Biden won.
And everyone was like, how did that happen?
Anyway, so the Democrats are losing.
That's the thing.
They're losing a lot of things.
I think, OK, people will clip this out and find me being wrong if I am wrong and it will just be used to embarrass me.
And so I caveat my remarks with this.
With this observation, I have a strong suspicion that Donald Trump is going to win in November.
A lot of people do.
And I'm going to quote an American economist who I have a lot of time for.
His name is Arnold Kling.
And he writes a substack called In My Tribe, which is very good.
And a number of times he's written pieces where he says, I genuinely think that if Trump is elected, and he's not making any comment about Trump here, he says, A large number of radical Democrats will try to reproduce what happened in 2020.
It will happen again.
And this guy is one of the calmest, most rational, even-tempered people I have ever encountered in my life.
He is the last person I can think of to fly off the handle, Arnold Kling.
If he's saying something like that, I'm sort of going, Quite possibly.
I don't think they're going to take it well, but the problem is they don't think they're doing very well under Biden.
So how much worse can it get?
Those graphs.
Yeah.
First graph.
Yeah.
So for people listening, we're looking at how Americans say they lean.
And there's three groups, black, Hispanic, white.
And over the periods, it's pretty much flat for everyone, except that the whites have now become incredibly more Republican.
And now the blacks, for some reason, in the last couple of years are going incredibly less Democrat.
But also the Hispanics.
The Hispanics are just trending towards the white trend line.
And honestly, I'm going to make my standard observation about American politics here.
Why do you put Hispanic people in a separate category to the rest of the white people?
Because they're Catholic!
Honestly, that's what I suspect it is.
I can't prove that, but I swear a lot of it is to do with the fact that they're Catholic and their ancestors were all Catholic and they were colonized by Catholic countries, Spain and Portugal and this kind of thing.
But I'm just sort of sitting there going, my PT is from Spain.
Spain is a member of the European Union.
I go on holidays to Spain.
Honestly, America, get a grip!
Yeah, but Spain isn't the Hispanic peoples.
They're not Anglos, is basically what it comes down to.
But the point is, as you can see, the Democrats are not doing very well with any of their client groups where, you know, the groups they say, hey guys, we're just going to give you loads of money forever and everything will be great.
And it's not doing very well.
And the giant orange ego actually seems to be doing a lot better with a lot of these groups.
The giant orange ego.
I'm going to steal that.
This is what I like about Donald Trump.
I like the fact that Donald Trump is literally the id of America.
Come to life.
And just saying we're going to fix everything is going to be great.
You'll be tired of winning.
It turns out the Republicans weren't tired of winning.
But the point is the Democrats are starting to panic.
And so they're like, hmm.
I mean, in this particular article from Axios is great.
The drop off for the Democrats comes even after Trump made several racist and bigoted comments about immigrants and people of color.
It's like, clearly they don't care.
Clearly that's just not a driving factor for them.
We don't care if the giant orange ego is racist.
We just care that our bills were lower than they are now.
Honestly, I don't know.
I mean, I don't know enough about American politics to know what difference a president, the executive could have.
But law and order is a vote winner.
Oh, yeah.
It is more local.
And if you are associated with law and order, you will get a halo effect from that.
And I'm sure Trump is getting a bit of that because it is true that the Republican governors and local authorities and state governors, they tend to have more of a focus on law and order.
100%.
I mean, but the Democrat strategists who they've been talking to these articles, they have theories, right?
So one of them is actually immigration wasn't good for us.
Actually, replacing the voting demographics didn't work because they say, quote, many of America's non-white voters hold much more conservative views than the voting patterns would suggest.
But also, black Americans and Asian Americans, as well as Latinos, have been upwardly mobile.
The great society rhetoric no longer obtains, and because many of them are immigrants or the children of immigrants, They're not on the track of the civil rights legislation, so they don't come from a time where they have been openly discriminated against because of their race.
They haven't been openly held down because of their race, and they don't buy into the live oppression that the Democrats sell to the traditional minority
There's another thing too, like the Vietnamese who went to Australia, the United States has taken, not as effectively, it's not managed its immigration program as well as Australia has, but it has taken very large numbers of people from what political scientists and demographers describe as middlemen minorities or market dominant minorities.
Cubans.
So, Cubans, Jews, Hakka Chinese, they're the one, Chinese Malays.
Historically, Huguenots who came from France to the UK, the French Protestants.
Kulaks in Ukraine.
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
These are middlemen minorities, market minorities.
The defining characteristic of them, I'm afraid, is the really un-PC one, is they on average have higher IQs than the populations of which they are a part.
Upwardly mobile, hardworking, actually like capitalism because it allows them to get well.
So what happens with them is you will just inevitably get them voting for the party that is more, in this case it tends to be more economically focused, the party that will not tax them as highly, the party that will make it easier for them to set up a business, to work in a trade, those kind of things.
And you just cannot expect This lefty idea that all immigrants will vote for them.
We've been saying this, look, with Democrats, we've been saying this for ages, look, you're the Browns, you have to vote for us.
And the Browns are like, actually, we don't.
We vote for whoever we like.
Actually, I like the guy who made sure I had more money in my pocket.
Because they are all individuals to risk sounding like bloody Monty Python.
But there is a track record here.
I mean, the black Americans are probably the most interesting ethnic group in America because it comes from, at least the majority, come from the slavery era.
So the whole shift and everything else that's going on, they've been stuck Democrat for a hell of a long time.
If they properly shift, I mean, this downward curve here is not smaller than the slightest.
All I'm saying, just one more mugshot of Trump.
I mean, literally, that's when it starts ticking off.
The political impact of that is huge.
Yeah, but always remember, For example, I'll give the two statistical examples that are extremely well documented.
Men commit about nine times as much violent crime as women.
Blacks commit, in the United States and in London, commit about eight times as much violent crime as white or Asian men.
Okay.
You look at that and you think, my God, there's something wrong with men and there's something wrong with black men.
In both populations, what you are seeing is what you saw with the monkeys, where the Indians took two and a half thousand, took the ringleaders and the rest were fine.
It's what is known in statistics as tail effects.
And so you just get a concentration of people, of relatively small numbers of them, who are utter recidivists.
You will get a list of priors as long as my arm and I have a pretty long arm.
And the thing is, those criminals might be black.
All the non-criminal black people hate them too.
That will explain that voting pattern.
A few years ago when the defund the police thing was going on, they went around black communities and said, hey, don't you want to defund the police for oppression?
No.
I want more police.
Are you mad?
Have you seen my neighborhood?
Yeah, exactly.
So you are exactly right.
It's a very, you know, probably 10% of the male population or something that's involved in this.
It's a problem.
And everybody else of both sexes hates them and doesn't want anything to do with them.
I'm not a fan of crime.
I don't like crime.
I don't like it in my street.
I don't like it in my community.
Shock.
But anyway, that's the Browns.
How about let's go on to the whites?
Ah, weirdly, the white working class also don't like the Democrats because they've been told that they're racist oppressors.
And some guy in Alabama who's like, you know, poking a goat with a stick.
He's like, what are you talking about?
It's just like, I'm trying to get the goat to walk down the path, you know?
It's like, yeah, well, you've been hating black people, haven't you?
It's like, what?
You win all your money!
Exactly!
Weirdly enough, Donald Trump has got a much more appealing platform for the white working class.
I mean, like, we go to the previous one, that was all whites.
So, even the university educated ones.
Obviously, it skews a lot more with the normal American person who is very nice, respectful, hardworking, pays their taxes and loves their family.
Now, weirdly enough, Donald Trump's message of America good resonates better with them.
I notice he's not running so hard.
And I think this is sensible on the Make America Great Again thing, because that implies that your country has turned to shit.
And I can see why he was saying that and why the people who came up, they would have been campaign strategists who came up with that.
You can see why they were doing that as a campaign and it worked well and it looked good on their caps and all of that kind of thing.
You can see why they did it.
I'm not criticizing that, but it does imply that, oh dear, we were once great and we poof-footed ourselves.
How did we do that?
Well, yeah.
And so...
Well, I don't think it's wrong, but let me give you a quote from this.
I love this.
To recover the white working class, enthralled with Donald Trump's platform of unabashed protectionist ethno-nationalism, the Democrat Party must overcome its image as a cabal of out-of-touch college-educated cosmopolitans.
Good luck with that!
You would have to sack half the structure of the leadership.
You would!
That's not going to happen.
What do other people think of you?
The thing that I'm British, you couldn't pay me enough to live in the United States.
In terms of like really well-run countries, you need a country like Australia is well-run, that kind of thing.
Somewhere like Florida is probably fine.
Florida is probably fine as well.
It's a very similar climate to Queensland and even lots of bitey things like Queensland does.
But it's just How did they come up with two 80-plus-year-olds?
It's a long discussion that we don't have time for now.
No, I know.
Obviously, Biden is losing his marbles.
He obviously is.
I actually feel bad for him when I see him now.
Yeah, he's gone.
But the good news is that the party that is puppeteering him around, like Weekend at Bernie's, is going to get absolutely creamed.
Because, like we saw with the non-white voting demographics, they actually don't want the state to steal their children and transition them.
And it turns out that the white working class voters don't want that either.
It's such a peculiar thing that white voters without a college degree don't seem to think that the Democrats have made them better off.
It's incredible.
Absolutely incredible.
And again, just going back to the Trans Day of Visibility, if you're appealing to the white working class voter, is it Trans Day of Visibility or is it Easter Sunday?
And the thing is, I am reasonably sure when Joe Biden said he didn't know what he'd done, I believe him.
I suspect he's so out to lunch that he did not know what he had put his signature on and what he'd signed off on.
And I'm not making excuses for anybody.
The people who did that were idiots, obviously.
It's just stupid.
But Biden is just not there.
He does not know what he's doing.
His social media team will be run by millennial progressive women.
Yeah, it's that simple.
But I love the Washington Post coping and seething over this.
Perhaps workers just need more time to figure out the Biden administration has improved their lives.
It's like, what, when they're filling up their petrol tank?
This is three times more than it was.
How has this happened?
Perhaps partisanship has become so entrenched that it shapes Republicans' grim assessment of the economy.
Brackets.
Maybe metaphysics has something to do with it?
Question mark.
Close brackets.
I'm not even joking.
That's literally a sentence they wrote right here.
Maybe metaphysics.
It's like, yeah, no, you put Trans Day of Visibility over Easter Sunday.
Every Biden White House personal account was Trans Day of Visibility.
Maybe metaphysics has something to do with it.
Yeah, possibly, just possibly.
And of course, the Israel-Gaza war is probably not helping them because the Democrat Party is full of people who hate Israel.
And it's run by people who love Israel, just like both of the parties.
So now what?
Yeah, they've just got, it's, I do wonder in light of that, because that's a recent article, there does seem to be more division.
There does seem to be more division emerging over Israel and Gaza since those aid workers died.
And look, I am an aid sceptic.
I'm fairly well known for this.
I've written in the national press about my opinion of foreign aid.
I don't think it works.
All you can have is free trade with countries and all the rest of it should basically be scrapped.
I've said this for many, many years and it's a fairly standard centre-right economic position.
I honestly don't see the utility of these various humanitarian organisations in the middle of a war zone.
It does seem, unfortunately, that the ones who've been killed have been from one of the few outfits that actually does a proper job, which is really unfortunate, because some of them have been captured by Hamas.
That's fairly well documented.
And this is a common thing that Israel will throw out and say, oh, no, no, it's a secret Hamas.
Actually, this one looks like it was actually not secretly Hamas.
No, they were trying to do the right one that's actually doing the right thing.
Yeah.
So anyway, um, the point being that's ruining the chances.
And so you've got a legendary Democrat strategist, James Carville, who's like, you know, guys, not only have we lost the Browns and we've lost the whites, we're also losing the men too.
Uh, so we might have a problem.
It's like, yeah, I can't believe that you've lost the men.
The party were like, yeah, men are the problem.
Men aren't voting for that.
So weird.
Carville is convinced that... I mean, this is just something that I... Because it's not just in America.
Yeah.
It's less bad in... Once again, it's one of those ones where it's less bad in Australia, but it still exists.
But it exists over here.
Same thing.
Just don't stigmatise half the population.
That's a very unwise idea.
As soon as... It became impossible in any country from the 19th century onwards That mass enfranchised women and that started in the Commonwealth and then came back to the centre and then to the United States.
You couldn't do it anymore.
You just can't get away with it.
And the thing is, men vote too.
And all of this rhetoric that is designed.
I just keep it very simple.
All of this rhetoric that is designed to stigmatise half the population.
Stop.
Stop right now.
In America, if you choose one party that embodied feminism, It would be the Democrats.
And they were worse.
They were much worse than Labor has been over here.
They are much worse than Labor has been in Australia.
They've probably been on par.
And to be fair, it's probably worth getting a Canadian like Chris Brunette or somebody in here to talk about this when the election happens.
Because we think the Tories are facing an extinction event here.
The Liberals in Canada are probably going to be shocked.
This has happened in Canadian politics before, where an entire political party gets reduced to two seats and then disappears.
And Trudeau's Liberals are Well, it happened to the British Liberals as well.
Yeah, it did.
The entire book's The Strange Death of Liberal England have been written about this.
They sort of came back and just, it's... Now they limp along.
Now they limp along, yeah.
So Carville is convinced that the coalition that won Biden 2020 cannot be reformed.
He says, most people think we're going to lose Hispanic males.
The young black males become so disengaged from the process.
It's happening rapidly.
This is a great concern for me.
Remember Trump putting out the gold sneakers?
You remember that?
Trump's gold sneakers, just saying he's not stupid.
He knows his country.
He knows his country.
I saw them.
I probably still have a photo somewhere, which I will email to you to say that, you know, I'm not making it up.
You could buy gold Christmas decorations with Donald Trump's hair.
Yeah.
And you could buy the, not his actual hair, but his hair was modeled and you could buy them from the official Trump people.
And I just remember sitting there thinking that is both incredibly, incredible tat, but also genius.
The thing is that the gold Nike sneakers is like the Kanye West demographic.
They sold out really quickly, which is really funny.
So anyway, yeah, James Carville's a look.
We're kind of an anti-white, anti-male, anti-America party, and everyone's realizing that actually America was quite a good thing because their bills have all gone up, which is not great.
But one Democrat strategist is confident.
Simon Rosenberg is, he was right about the congressional elections of 2022.
There was no red wave.
And so he's convinced that actually Biden will defeat Donald Trump in November.
The Republicans are being hampered by abortion.
Yep.
Abortion is a classic example, and this is something that Brits can comment on, and Australians and Canadians can comment on, and it's taken people from lots of other countries like India and France as well, where these issues were dealt with through the political process by a vote by the politicians, not by the courts.
And now the Republicans work so hard on getting the courts, and they did, they're like The dog that caught the car, or the dog that caught its tail.
Just a quick aside, he's being a lot more cynical.
He's like, look, we've been raising crazy more amounts of money than the Republicans, which is probably going to help.
Which is probably going to help.
Although money in elections is not as useful, it helps a bit, but it's not as useful as people think it is.
Yeah, it's about how the money's used, which I don't want to go into.
But anyway, things are looking good for Trump.
So again, like in 2020, all the indicators What?
Too big to rig?
Sorry, just reading the posters in the background there.
Which is going to be the kind of victory it's going to be.
And I've got a mental image because a rig in Australian English is a big Right.
A big rig is a truck that one of those were an 18 wheeler that you need to transport heavy goods.
That's a rig.
So Trump is significantly ahead in six of the seven most competitive states in 2024.
There are a couple of outliers but overall the signs are looking good.
So if one smug democrat strategist is like no Biden's definitely gonna win.
Interesting.
Weirdly with the abortion thing because Trump himself Has always been historically pro-choice and is very wobbly on this issue.
He used to be a blue dog Democrat, that's why.
He will help assuage the fear of many voters that he's going to do something weird with abortion.
Whereas at the state level, someone like DeSantis or that kind of thing, that's why there was no red wave.
It was a ripple.
And that's why the Republicans are very much They worked very hard to win in the courts rather than winning over the people, which is what you need in a democracy, and they very much are like the dog that caught the car.
They should just shut up about it.
What are you going to do with it, Doggo, or the dog that caught you?
They should just shut up about it.
Have you ever had a pet bully breed?
They chase their tails.
What are you going to do, doggie, when you've caught your tail?
Well, they should just shut up about it because they've won.
It's down to the states now, so great, that's what you wanted.
Fine, leave it.
But anyway, so when asked, no matter what race, age or gender, more voters say that Trump's policies just helped more than Biden's.
I think really that's what it's going to come down to.
Oh wow, shock and surprise, the kitchen table issues again.
Actually, when I asked, and literally everyone, only 18% of people said that Biden's helped more, whereas 40% of people said Trump's.
There was a very revealing statistical analysis in the FT just after the 2020 election.
That made the point and it might have been partly by as a result of COVID.
So and I'm fairly sure the journalist in question might have been one of the John Byrne Murdoch.
He's very good on the statistics.
But one of the things that Trump did manage to achieve in those four years is redistribute wealth downwards in a way that is actually quite hard to do.
And it may be COVID checks, whatever.
I mean, Biden sent COVID checks out as well.
That's the thing.
I think it's just Trump's view towards deregulation.
Trump just wanted a roaring economy.
Well, he got it.
We've got a roaring economy.
People open businesses.
Great.
Money's flowing.
And in fact, that's exactly the quote from one of the previous articles.
This Hispanic guy was saying, well, money was flowing under Trump.
That was just, you know, we had money.
We could spend money.
We could buy things.
People were, you know, operating.
But this is remarkable.
Even women, 20% more likely to say that Trump's policies helped them than Biden.
Despite the fact that Trump, of course, installed the Supreme Court justices who overturned abortion.
And overall, the share of women who think Trump's policies helped them stands at 39%, with 26% saying he hurt them, and 34% saying he just didn't make a difference.
37% of Hispanic voters say that Trump's policies helped them personally, compared to 15%.
This is how the election is going to be won, I think.
Just people going, well, yeah, actually, Trump's ran the place well.
I think it's because the American system puts such clear lines between This administration and the next administration and you can plot it on a chart.
It's very precise because of that.
People can look at what they did this year and that year and who was in the White House.
It's much easier, whereas you don't get that same strong sense in a lot of other places.
Americans have a very clear marker.
Yeah, because it's very much team red or team blue.
And yeah, just one Hispanic person here said, just go to the pump in the store and that will tell you everything you need to know about how Biden's policies have hurt me.
It's costing me money.
What do you want to say?
So yeah, it's looking good for Trump.
It's looking bad for Biden.
But the Democrats are smugly sadly going, yeah, well, we know something you don't.
Bet you do.
All right.
Should we skip the video comments?
We don't really have enough time for much, so probably you do the super chats and then we'll see where we are.
Oh, OK.
Windpill Seeker says, yesterday I spoke of individualism, but I meant a society built on the protection of individual inalienable rights.
The defendant, own yourself, including speak to your property from the collectivist.
a nation that loves their neighbor and their neighbor's rights like their own will never lose will never lose them and this is true and right a nationalism about individualism and globalism in india ireland and scotland and uk this is about yesterday's talk of hindu nationalism being right-wing national redistributionism still means rights to redistribute and is established and excuses are endless once individual rights are lost Hindu nationalism is just so entertaining.
It's just not a religion that lends itself to fundamentalism.
Your deities all have multiple arms and are blue and have fantastic headdresses and have the most cool legends attached to them.
It just doesn't work for fundamentalism.
The thing is, I'm kind of in favor for them, you know.
It's like, yeah, if India wants to be an internationalist, I don't care, you know.
It's like, good for you and have a good time.
The thing in question is... Cover each other with lots and lots of pretty paint at home.
Okay, paint, not the other thing.
So the thing that brought it up was that there was an article writing about far-right gangs in India and what were they doing?
They're being cow vigilantes.
They're taking cows and then taking really good care of them.
That's the far right.
The Hindu far right who won't tranquilize the naughty monkeys and put them down there.
I'm happy for that over there.
That's totally fine.
When I go on holiday there, I won't see you being bonkers.
There is a flip side to be clear.
Some Muslim guys put a cow in a car to transport him, and these Indian far right guys didn't like that that was disrespect to the cow, so they beat one of the Muslims to the car to death.
Yeah, okay.
There's one more super chat, then we must end for sake of time.
The Shadow Band says, in early America, they thought prison, depriving someone of their freedom, was cruel and unusual.
So, if they didn't hang you, they'd fine you, flog you, put you in the stocks, or brand you, but no prison.
No, no, that's not just them.
The Romans thought that as well.
That's quite common.
They would often dispose of, this is for citizens, very serious offences.
They only had three capital offences, rape, murder and treason.
Murder, rape.
They only had three capital and the execution was always in private and in the prison grounds and then the family would be contacted to collect the body because it had to be taken outside the city limits to be burnt.
The Roman rules about Funerals.
But a lot of civilizations think the idea of prison And they're not necessarily kind in other respects.
That's why I picked the Romans out.
I think prison is really nasty.
People don't realize this.
And it is true.
I mean, there's a fellow who's a retired prison governor from Northern Ireland, and I think he used to run the maze.
I'm not sure.
Ian Atchison on Twitter.
He's very good.
And he's made the comment a few times about people really, really need to stop thinking that prisons are just comfortable hotels because they're not.
And we also have serious problems with prison under-building.
In the UK, which is what's leading to some of those ridiculous sentences that obviously not the German ones.
They have a different, but the ones in the UK.
Yes.
I'm totally in favor of not imprisoning people and just flogging them.
But on that note, we are well out of time, so I must end.
So, um, uh, where would they find you at Helen Dale?
Um, www.notonyourteam.co.uk is my sub stack.
It's free.
Um, you can pay if you want to, I've set it up so you can pay, but all the writing on there is free and it is literally not on your team.co.uk.
And then, of course, there is Law and Liberty, which is the magazine that I write for.
And I'm on Twitter at at underscore Helen Dale.
Do put the underscore there first, otherwise you will finish up annoying a graphic designer in Yorkshire who also is Helen Dale and got the name long before I got on Twitter.
So underscore first.
▲
Export Selection