All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:32:24
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #912
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for today, the 10th of May.
I'm your host Conor joined by Cole and Harrison Pitt.
Thank you for having me back.
Brilliant.
Thank you very much for coming back.
We have your socials and the like up on the screen beforehand because if you're not familiar with Harrison, I mean, you should be reading his stuff and watching him over at deprogrammed but He's a senior editor for European Conservative and co-host of the programme over at the New Culture Forum, one of our very friendly outlets run by Peter Whittle, so should be part of your media diet.
But we're going to discuss today how it's no longer racist to notice the costs of mass migration, how the anti-vaxxers win again, win, I suppose, a periodic victory, really.
Yeah, but it's nice to be proven right.
Yeah, we just wish that the details weren't correct.
And why the trad life doesn't work out, looking at Mary Harrington and Lauren Southern's interview, because I think some of the internet may have misread that.
But before we get into that, we do have today's Lads Hour, and that's gonna be at three o'clock.
Carl has decided to torture us by hearing dumb women talk.
I don't know how dumb they are.
I mean, it's just a female echo chamber.
And so I thought we'd get a male echo chamber.
There are much whiter women than are on the view.
I'm not saying they aren't.
They're a very representative slice, I think, of American left-leaning women.
Left-leaning women is crucial.
Yeah, exactly.
In particular.
And so I thought it'd be just very entertaining to watch.
Alright, well without further ado, let's jump into today's first story.
I'm glad to announce it's no longer to notice the cost of mass migration.
You're not going to be called a racist if you do it.
I wonder if anyone was saying this for absolutely years now.
But thank you to Neil O'Brien MP and to Robert Jenrick MP, former immigration minister, for giving us a 100 page report pointing at the blindingly obvious.
Speaking of spending money, if you want to come and work for us and you have the prerequisite qualifications, go and look at our careers page on the website.
We have a production manager job.
This is for the one in Swindon, correct?
No, we've had enough applications for this one in London.
South East London.
So if you are in South East London and can commute there, go and look at the specifications and send in an application if it's suitable.
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, well there were two things that happened this past week concerning illegal migration.
The first one is Andrea Jenkins MP had a debate in Parliament on the costs of illegal migration because she did some research into it.
And she said, and this is a quote, even the most basic calculation puts the economic burden on the British taxpayers for an illegal migration population of 1.2 million at 14.4 billion, just shy of the 10% of NHS England's budget for this year.
Imagine that as a cash injection for our National Health Service or, you know, something slightly more useful.
She told the Westminster Paul debate.
Just reduce my taxes, goddammit.
You could just stop stealing money from us to send nuclear-armed Pakistan for climate reparations or something like that.
In addition, she pointed out the Home Office expects to spend $482 million on immigration enforcement just this year alone, despite, what, 50,000 to 100,000 people sneaking through the channel.
Fantastic.
Along with almost 8 million a day in accommodation for those who have crossed the channel in dinghies.
I think that number's actually been revised higher according to the Labour Party statistics that looked at the Home Office spending.
They said it's at least 10 million now, so... Brilliant.
Yep.
I'm really glad the Conservative estimate is just 2 million a day off for Tom, Dick and Abdul sneaking into the country.
The government is also giving out £370 million to Rwanda in its flagship deportation scheme and will give £476 million in handouts to the French so they can help stopping the Channel Cross boats.
The French decided to spend that on the fence for a private football stadium whilst I checked.
Great use of our money as well.
For those who don't realise as well, I think Harry mentioned this yesterday, one flight to Rwanda was taken off and we paid him a £3,000 stipend to do it and if he commits a crime while he's there, while we're paying for his bed and board, he gets sent straight back.
I got nothing to say.
It's just ridiculous.
On the face of it, you'd never agree to any kind of contract or deal that had terms like this in advance.
You'd never sign anything.
It's just absurd.
We're just the leakiest ship in the world.
We're just pouring money out everywhere.
And we wonder why the country is degrading.
There are two risks here as well.
So obviously this is all true and this is lamentable and many people have been sounding this drum for many, many years.
But the first thing as well is we're talking about a very small segment of immigration to this country.
We're exclusively talking about illegal.
So there are two concerns I have with that.
For one, legal is much, much higher.
And the second thing as well is that even though there's a tendency for people to be a little bit too comprehensive in their take that immigration is fiscally burdensome, that's actually not the case when you segment inflows into this country in ways which are not necessarily very politically correct.
So, for example, EU immigrants, like European, EEA immigrants, are overwhelmingly a net fiscal contribution to this country.
Non-EU immigrants, and this has been replicated in studies in Denmark and in Holland, and recently I read one by the Oxford Migration Observatory, which is based in this country, is also incredibly fiscally burdensome.
And we've had a lot more of those people coming in over the last four years, since Brexit, frankly, than we have had these illegal immigrants who, yes, admittedly are fiscally burdensome.
But this is only a fraction of it, really.
These are the Menats that Harry and Callum were mentioning yesterday.
Middle Eastern, North African, and what's the tea?
Troublesome.
But you're right, the illegal migration debate is essentially a smokescreen for the mass legal migration that's been conducted by the Conservative Party since they've pledged since 1992 to bring numbers down to the tens of thousands.
Moreover, just on that, there isn't really much of a debate here.
I mean, everyone agrees that illegal immigrants shouldn't be here, apart from a few NGOs who are paid to say that they should.
So it's not even a debate that's being used as a smokescreen for the actual debate, which is the legal migration.
Exactly, exactly.
And by the way, it talks here about costs.
There are far more than purely fiscal costs to this inflow, and we all know that.
That's the conversation that both you and I have had with Eric Kaufman about his book, White Shift, where lots of people have felt the need to coach their Objections to immigration in purely fiscal terms to avoid the cudgel of racism when actually ethnocultural terms and continuity and demographics are warranted concerns and people shouldn't be chased away from that.
Yes, I'd rather have sort of 50 years of, you know, not very enjoyable deficits than statelessness.
Yes.
It's the premise that, okay, even if we could flat pack build human battery farms ad infinitum and upgrade the sewage system and have enough NHS staff, do I want infinity Africans in the country?
Because they're telling themselves a story in which we are the villain.
Tom Harwood says yes.
Well, quite.
At the risk of being maximally controversial in these sorts of circles as well, and I expect many of the viewers and maybe even you two might disagree with me on this, I actually would, not for the reasons that are commonly wheeled out by people like Alastair Campbell or Rory Stewart, but I would vote to remain now in 2016 if I got the chance again.
Hugely controversial.
And the reason for that, Carl, is because I think it should have been predictable to people like us in advance, even though we would be repatriating powers to Westminster, those were not going to be used.
Those were going to be the main beneficiaries of those powers being repatriated, given the personnel in the Brexit project, people like Gove, people like Johnson.
That project was always going to get hijacked by globalist drones, which is now why we have We tilted our immigration system over overwhelmingly away from EU immigrants who a make net fiscal contributions, be much more likely to return home and see have no incentive to support anti white identity politics.
And we tilted our immigration system post Brexit in the name of global Britain into being completely the opposite to that.
So in a perfect world, I would want I would be conceptually in favor of leaving the European Union because I think that I believe in sovereignty.
I believe in self determination.
I want those powers repatriated.
I think the European Communities Act.
was and is a disgrace but given the situation in which we found ourselves in 2016 and given the political personnel that really did exist in the real world in Westminster it would have been prudent for us to realize that the demographic foundations of sovereignty matter a lot more than the sort of constitutional de jure foundations of sovereignty and I think we obsessed too much Jacob Rees-Mogg style over restoring Dicey's constitution We cared much more about that than we did about the demographic foundations, which are truly decisive when it comes to being a sovereign country.
The reason I don't agree is just because France, Germany and Italy are all faring absolutely no better on the Middle East and North African migrant question.
So I do think they still would have set up some kind of pact where we got, quote unquote, our fair share.
That's exclusive.
Well, not necessarily.
I don't know enough about the domestic situations in those two countries, but my understanding is that we're talking overwhelmingly there about Angela Merkel's Wehrschaff and Das.
Let's bring them all in in 2015.
That is the crisis which was precipitated there and that was a sovereign decision made by made by Angela Merkel.
I grant you that a lot of those people would in five years time if they're given German passports would have had the right to come here.
But it wouldn't have been anything like as astronomical as it has been under Boris Johnson.
No, but the main thrust of the complaint seems to be that the cure is worse than the disease, which is fair, but I feel like it might be slightly short-term thinking because yes, things are bad now, but I think that actually what we're seeing is the ship turning around in all of this, in fact.
And so yes, right now things are bad, but in 10 years time, I think, if we're lucky, we'll have the kind of Britain that we'd want going in at least the right direction and being free from the EU.
So I do take the validity of your complaint as well, because it is.
In retrospect, Boris was not hiding the fact that this was going to happen.
I guess no one really thought it was going to.
Well yeah the clue was always and this is what I've said before and another thing is be very suspicious when people who want to frame themselves for obvious political reasons as restrictionists on immigration use the word control immigration as opposed to drastically reduce and if you study obviously in the manifesto in the end he did put in we will dramatically I think bring down immigration in 2019.
He and Gove were also always couching in terms of control.
Yeah.
And I think that's that's that.
We shouldn't fall too easily for that sovereigntist move, because while sovereignty is important, what matters a lot more is what you do with it.
And if you exercise sovereignty in order to increase the possibility that your own people will be stateless in 40 years' time, that's not any kind of sovereignty I want any business with.
I mean, he was under control.
He was in control of it, and look what he did.
You are right there.
Hopefully it just means that we're easy to throw off the shackles of the things like the ECHR and the like in future.
Yeah, it could have that boon in the future, I'm aware of, but I'm just saying, I do, I'm listening, but one, sorry I don't want to be too self-promoting, but I wrote a piece recently called A warning against Anglo-Triumphalism which goes into this and I'm just more ambivalent and less, I feel less vindicated about Brexit than I did say 2020 or 2019.
I feel I'm a little bit more ambivalent about it.
I think the issue is really just the people who were chosen to hold the reins during the process.
Yeah.
The concept is just abominable.
Indeed.
The structure matters less than having our friends in power.
And speaking of which, let's see someone's bid for the Conservative leadership, because that's almost exactly what this is from Robert Jenrick.
So Robert Jenrick, being the former Immigration Minister, who I have heard for like a year plus now, basically since Liz Truss appointed him, that he's quote, on our side.
And maybe he is.
Interesting, but as per usual, nothing gets done by ministers when it comes to the Home Office.
I mean, we've had recently letters of threatening legal action from the Home Office saying they won't enforce the Rwanda deportation rule, so unless you clear out all of Whitehall, nothing's going to happen on that particular front.
And he wrote it with Neil O'Brien as well, who I still can't forgive for compiling lists of quote-unquote Covid conspiracy theorists, which contained people as dangerous as Julie Hartley-Brewer and Toby Young, you know, I like being on this side.
That was purely a smear campaign, I think, to ingratiate himself with Johnson at the time.
And it was disgraceful.
A very, very depressing period in our history.
But since he's been useful on embarrassing the fact that the Department of Work and Pensions, the Home Office and the like, just aren't collecting data, which is inconvenient to the mass migration narrative.
So this will be interesting to see how this goes forward, particularly when the Conservatives lose the election and everyone's scrambling for the leadership role.
But, because Callum mentioned the report in passing yesterday, I want to go through some of the stats just to properly arm you guys with future arguments and rebuttals whenever someone, someone like Midwitt on Question Time says that immigration is an unmitigated good for the economy.
No.
No.
Even though we've like slightly evaded a recession this year, it's not because of record mass migration, right?
So, here's some quotes.
I'll scroll down to like pages four and five, because that's most... Sorry, just quickly.
Okay, so we had to bring in 1.4 million to get a 0.1% increase in growth.
That is a horrifically bad proportion.
I think maybe concealing are the problems.
Quite.
So, it says, since 2010, 10 million people have moved to the UK and 6.3 million left, meaning net migration has added 3.7 million people to the population.
That's the equivalent of the populations of Edinburgh, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Stoke, Bristol and Cardiff put together, all more than the entire population of Wales.
It's also understating the numbers, but...
Well, yes.
Yes.
Yeah, quite, because they also don't necessarily add the million-plus illegal people that they say are here as well.
Absolutely.
There are definitely at least one to two million more illegals, but probably more than that, to be honest.
Yes.
So, migration added a city the size of Birmingham, 1.2 million people, to the UK in just two years.
That equates to population growth of 1.8%.
Legal inflows, the subject of this paper, are over 25 times the level of illegal inflows.
1.2 million versus 46,000 in 2022, but those are still going up.
Good framing.
Very good framing.
The correct framing.
This is why people have been saying that they might have been listening to us.
Yes.
Good lads.
Or at least, like, the Parliamentary Assistants who are also covertly writing this paper, because I have run into some other Parliamentary Assistants, including this week, who are keen watchers of our show.
We do have friends in some decent places.
I need to get a plug in it.
It's also true as well that Rafe, in particular, the New Culture Forum, Rafe Heidelman Cooper, well worth following on Twitter.
He'll be in in two weeks.
Oh really?
Excellent.
That's a very good guest selection there.
He's spoken in the past about how he's rather suspicious he'll say something ever so slightly spicy on the NCF's weekly newspeak show and then four weeks later Liz Truss or Suella Brabham says something similar.
These people do have their ear to the ground.
Oh absolutely, yeah.
I just wish they had their brain attached to their ear sometime.
God bless them.
Excluding outflows of British citizens, net migration from 1964 to 1997 averaged 55,000 a year, whereas since 1997, when something happened, it averaged 316,000 per year, well over five times the average rate in the previous period.
Bear in mind that's the average for the Blair and Brown years as well.
The Tories are basically double bats, they're far more radical than even Blair.
And they've radically changed the composition as well, which is vital.
Quite.
But in 2021 and 2022, under a new system, which is Boris Johnson's system, 290,000 people came from the EU and 1.64 million from the rest of the world.
And that's the composition.
In addition, according to estimates published by the Migration Observatory in September 2020, there are perhaps between 800,000 and 1.2 million immigrants living here without permission.
So illegals just occupying either from visa overstays or breaking in via the channel.
Now, he notes that Blair abolished exit checks in 1998, so we can't quite know how many people are net outflowing.
But he says, after exit checks were reinstated for a time, two years of data showed that of the 10 million people whose right to remain in the UK had expired, there was no evidence of departure for over 600,000 of them.
So it's about, what, 5% retention rate?
If that rate has been consistent over the decades, then there is potentially thousands or even millions of extra people we don't know about.
Do you remember when Richard Tice kicked out Bow from Reform UK for saying there might be millions of people here since 1997 who have no right to stay and should be deported?
Richard was like, we can't deport all the people that have legally settled here.
No, there might be well over a million people since 1997 who have settled here illegally.
That's just the numbers.
It should have been Reform Party policy.
I mean, if in two years we have 600,000 people unaccounted for who should have left but haven't, and we just extrapolate that Reasonably, compared to a proportion of the inflow that had come in, you are going to have millions of extra people.
And we have to extrapolate that reasonably, because they say here, the net migration projections that fed into the OBR's modelling, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, processed by the Office for National Statistics, have been consistently and significantly wrong, excluding COVID.
The annual outturn has exceeded projection migration 93% of the time, and not by small amounts.
On average, projected numbers fell 28% full of the eventual outturn in the first year and 51% by the fifth year.
In other words, the ONS migration projections used by the OBR to set treasury policy have turned out to be too low by hundreds of thousands of migrants per annum.
Oh, really?
And by millions across the forecast period.
So I remember when going to a Conservative Party conference and some jumped up fellow, I think it was for the Adam Smith Institute or the IEA, said that if the Treasury Green Book says we need 200,000 people a year to maintain GDP, we need 200,000 people a year.
And it's like, right, so you're going by the Treasury Green Book, which is consistently wrong in the modelling, and you're wondering why we're bankrupt.
Is that really true?
These people also overwhelmingly support Liz Truss's policy perspectives and Liz Truss isn't exactly sanguine about the OBR and these, you know, blob-like institutions which uphold the economic orthodoxy.
So you can't have it both ways.
You can't be ultra critical of them when they say that your fiscal plans don't make any sense and rely on them in order to, you know, turbocharge immigration.
You can if you're an idiot.
Well, quite.
The Home Office's impact assessment for EU settlement scheme post-Brexit estimated that between 3.5 and 4.1 million EU nationals are in the UK and would be eligible.
But a much larger number, 5.7 million people, now received a grant settlement.
So the understanding of the authors of the paper of how many people who come into the UK was about 50% out.
Brilliant.
Wonder how we're spending so much money.
Between 2001 and 2021, the share of people in England and Wales born outside the UK increased from 9% to 17%.
This is higher than the US, despite the perception of America as a melting pot.
US is 14%, by the way.
In 2022, the ONS predicted the UK population would hit 70 million in 2036.
It now predicts this will happen a decade earlier in 2026.
Yeah.
But also, as Harrison was pointing out, it's actually worth becoming more granular on these things, because immigration is of course not equally spread across the constituent nations of the United Kingdom.
If you take England and Wales in isolate, there are about 60 million known people in England and Wales, 25% of which are not English or Welsh.
So, and the same is not true in Scotland.
Much to the chagrin of the late Hamza Yusuf, so to speak.
Well, yes, exactly.
But yeah, we have had this quite rapidly.
And this is why the protests in Ireland are very important, because the Irish are basically speed running what has happened to England.
And this is why the Irish progressives are like, oh no, the Irish nationalists are funded by the British.
They're like, no, we're just very sympathetic.
We know exactly how it works and what happens to you and so you shouldn't stand for it.
And Ireland benefits in that speedrunning massively benefits from the fact that It doesn't have a post-imperial guilt complex.
It also benefits from the fact that they have a plausible claim to 200 years or so of progressive nationalism.
So nationalism can be progressive in Ireland because they're an underdog nation as opposed to a domineering one and therefore it's... It's liberatory.
Exactly, yeah.
And also, I think Celtic nationalism is very, very, very demented at the moment because you've got, on the one hand... That's true.
At the moment?
No, historically it made sense.
It made sense.
Not with the Scots always.
No, no, no.
That's true, that's true.
There's a lot of... Well, in the prior century when they were allying with... Sure, sure, sure.
But it at least makes sense for the sort of ethnic autonomy of the Irish or the Scots.
Yeah, when it's united by hatred of the English, that makes sense.
Not saying I agree with it, but because I'm part Scottish myself and I like both the English and the Scots, it makes sense.
You're right though that Scottish nationalism has always been a bit sus, because look, there's a reason why the second city in Malawi is called Blantyre.
It's because the Scots were massive beneficiaries from British imperial expansion.
Well, they were a part of it.
Of course they were, they spearheaded it.
They were disproportionately part of the army.
And part of the slave trade.
In a way that the Irish didn't, and so that's very dishonest.
The way Nicholas Sturgeon will sort of blot that out of the Scottish history curriculum is very, very cynical.
To get more granular, they say here, between 2001 and 2021, the proportion of the population who do not identify as white British more than doubled from 12.5 to 25.6.
And unlike some Tory politicians, I do actually care about that because, again, if people tell themselves a particular story, they don't stop telling themselves that story about their history and their culture and their ethnic, tribal and religious baggage the moment they're dropped on British soil and have their passport rubber stamped and the like.
It's important as well to say that doesn't mean brown either.
That's millions of Europeans as well.
Yeah, and it would include White Irish, too.
In East Ham, for example, to illustrate the point, the first language of 73% of pupils is not English.
There are certain areas of London where nearly three quarters of the children born do not speak English as a first language, or proficiently, if at all.
So, talking on the employment and the economy, because obviously this is the purpose of the paper, they say, and this is page 44, in the modern era of large-scale, relatively low-skilled net migration, GDP per capita growth has actually stagnated, as this graph indicates.
Really?
This is the housing stock one, I believe.
Correlation is not causation, of course, but if the large-scale migration of the sort we've seen is so good for the economy, we have to ask ourselves, why are we not seeing this GDP per capita data?
According to the OECD, the fiscal impact of the cumulative waves of migration that arrived over the past 50 years in countries including the UK is on average close to zero, rarely exceeding 0.5% of GDP in either positive or negative terms.
So all the technological innovation since the 1970s that should have caused a productivity revolution has essentially been wiped out by the Middle Eastern and North African migrants who are net dependents on the economy.
It's very interesting, though, how the debate has changed.
And so you weren't there, Carl, but Connor and I were recently at a debate in Westminster.
It was at the Emanuel Centre.
And I think it was between, it would have been between Constantine Kissin and Matt Goodwin.
Polly Toynbee and Aaron Bastani.
On immigration is good for Britain, or immigration has been good for Britain.
And it was very interesting that when you compare the sort of excuses for immigration, people like Blair, and well, indeed, people like Toynbee would wheel out in the early 2000s.
It wouldn't just be, it would be ultra triumphalistic.
It would be, this is going to turbocharge GDP, this is good for us, it enriches us culturally, enriches us fiscally.
That's gone.
What they do now, and it's very different, is that they basically say that we have developed a crippling dependency on immigration and that's why it's good for us.
Which is a little bit like saying, The heroin addict benefits.
I'm really going to suffer if you take away my heroin.
If you take away his heroin, he might die.
Ergo, the heroin is clearly good for him.
There's a similar... The withdrawals would be too painful.
Indeed.
And that's a massive concession that they're making to us.
And it means that we should wean ourselves off these crippling habits that we've developed structurally in this country.
And Matt Goodman was very good at hammering that point home.
Especially so, when you look into the statistics, they say Out of the net migration of two million non-EU nationals over the last five years, that complete shift in composition of migrants after Brexit, 15% came to work.
So no, it's not a benefit.
We are literally importing dependents.
Yes.
85% are dependents.
You had a statistic as well, I remember we spoke about it afterwards, about social care in particular.
The idea that our social care sector and the NHS in particular, sorry, the NHS and our social care sector in particular are just completely dependent on immigrants.
It's actually much lesser than you think.
So Miriam Cates wheeled this out in a parliamentary debate.
They handed out 70,000 social care visas last year and only 17,000 places were filled.
Well the ethnic breakdown of the NHS is actually public knowledge.
The NHS is only about a third, 98% in this.
Yeah, about a third non-British.
And so, okay, but the country's nearly a third non-British.
Exactly.
So this is actually quite proportional.
And there's also no obligation as well.
And I don't at all mean this in a heartless way.
I actually mean this in a very sincere and humane way.
You don't need to devalue what it means to be a citizen of this country by instantly giving these people citizenship.
You can just, if you really do need guest workers, so to speak, you can house them in perfectly if they are going to be making a net fiscal contribution precisely because they do work in something like the social care sector.
Even if during the kind of weaning the junkie off his pappy powder period, There's no reason why you can't have some of those workers in and not make them citizens, give them indefinite leave to remain, which means that if they do end up causing trouble, or if their children do, or whatever it might be, you're in a much stronger position to make clear distinctions between the host population and the guest, and you can expel the guest if they start behaving in ways which are deleterious to the self-determination rights and cultural coherence of the host population.
There's even a term we can use to describe them.
Ancient Athenian democracy had a class of people called metics, who were the foreigners who worked in Athens because it was a prosperous and productive place.
And crucially not slaves, different from slaves.
Not slaves, they were completely free, but they just were not involved in the political system because they weren't citizens.
And there wasn't a pretense that they would, and there wasn't a pretense that they would feel as strong an ancestral connection to Athens as someone like Plato would.
Of course.
They were there for economic reasons, and everyone accepted that.
That was the deal, and that worked.
Yeah.
So I wanted to just get onto housing before we have to wrap up.
So in London, they say, the growth of the population accounted for by migration was greater than the growth of the housing stock.
Surprise, surprise.
Making that upward pressure even sharper, 67% of private rented households in the capital are headed by someone born overseas.
So it's 47% of social housing is occupied by someone who's foreign-born, but 67% of the total rented housing stock is occupied by someone who's foreign-born.
And this is privately rented?
Yes.
Public?
Yes.
Oh.
But still.
They said it's 89% of the total demand for housing that's been driven in the last how many years has been driven solely by mass migration.
Yeah.
This was predictable.
That's the problem.
It was obviously predictable that if we allow in millions of new people, then house prices are going to go through the roof.
The laws of supply and demand don't cease to exist just because you're in a cosmopolitan mood.
But it was also predictable that wages would stagnate.
Okay, we're bringing in millions of low skilled workers to compete with the native British workers at that level.
Well, obviously it's going to depress their wages through competition.
It's a commodity like any other.
Exactly.
And the thing is, I'm not an economist, but I know these things, because this is the most tried and tested economic theory that any... I mean, you can explain these things to a child and a child will understand.
And it's just crazy how finally, in the year of our Lord 2024, we're finally getting MPs to be like, yeah, hey guys, turns out that didn't work.
The raw numbers themselves, right?
To accommodate for the numbers of migration, levels of net migration, for the last few years, they needed to build 3.44 million homes.
But they only built 200,000 a year, didn't they?
Yeah.
So that was 2.25 million to meet underlying demand pressures.
Translation, all the people we brought in.
Sorry, the other one.
So that's 2.25 million to cater for the native population, and 1.19 million to cope with net migration.
So they only increased the number of homes by 2.11 million.
So that's a deficit of 1.34 million homes, with net migration in effect counting for 89% of the deficit.
Yeah.
Great, fantastic.
From 2012 to 2022, net migration added 2.92 million to the population of England.
Given the average household size of 2.3, that's 1.3 million households in England alone, an average increase of about 6%.
So that added 12% to the house prices, according to the modelling.
So, yeah, 12% unnecessary addition to the house prices, which were already going up because of inflation and rising interest rates.
Yeah.
Isn't that just wonderful?
But does that sufficiently explain why the house prices have on average gone from four times annual salary to 12 times annual salary?
Yeah.
So I appreciate that inflation is a major issue, but I think the immigration, I think that understating the effect that immigration has had on the house price increase.
There's also a libertarian argument which tends to want to get its oar in here to the effect that what we need to do clearly is just, you know, have a bonfire of, you know, NIMBY housing regulations and although that might on a purely spreadsheet level...
...may compensate for some of the laws of supply and demand which we're seeing manifest here.
The question is that what would people's communities actually be like if they're subjected to the kind of property developers dictatorship effectively that libertarians would want to inflict on us?
And it's become apparent, there was a TikTok trend recently of people from overseas going around English houses and going, wow, these are really bad quality houses.
It's become apparent that we aren't living in particularly great houses, even with the regulations.
Part of the reason is the best new houses, and I'll finish on this, are being given to people just born abroad.
For example, they put the famous chart in here, something that we've actually spoken about on the podcast before.
This is in their report?
This is in their report!
72% of Somalians are living in social housing.
Is that what they're saying here?
Yes.
Yeah, it turns out.
And then you go down, it's about 60 odd percent of other Africans, and then Jamaicans, Ghanaians, Afghanistan, North Africa.
Look at the United Kingdom, it's basically middle of the pack in our own country.
Sorry, can we scroll down to the bottom just to see what the number on that is?
Right, so 19, 18 percent of social housing goes to British people.
Is that what they're saying there?
Yes.
Jesus.
It's pretty surprising.
There's no proportion of the population.
90% of British people are in social housing.
Per capita, Somalians, 72%.
For all I care, the United Kingdom could be literally at the top and Somalia could be second.
I'd still be pissed off.
I was about to top that one.
No single foreign person should be housed at my expense.
0% of foreigners should be eligible for social housing in Britain.
Whether they're Kiwi or Somali.
Sorry, I don't care if you come from France, Canada, Italy, United States, India or Somalia, 0%.
Well, um, our London Mayor cares about who lives in social housing because he's building brand new social housing and he's planning it around, building it near mosques and halal butchers.
I wonder why!
So, I'm just going to finish on this little clip from Sadiq Khan.
Islamic faith is the issue of housing and so we need to build far more homes in our city because, you know, often people from minority communities want to live near a mosque, near halal food, near places where there are other people like them so they, you know, for a variety of obvious reasons and they're priced out.
Because there's not enough housing, so we're going to build at least 40,000 council homes, at least 6,000 rent control homes.
And the final thing to say in relation to Londoners who are Muslim is, look, one of our strengths is our diversity.
It's something I'm really proud of.
Diversity here meaning non-white, of course.
Always meaning non-white.
Yeah, it would be absolutely terrible if the English would prefer to live around people just like them and have their local butchers and their local churches, wouldn't it, Sadiq?
So, congratulations to Jenrick and O'Brien for putting out this report that tells us the blinding the obvious, if we just open our curtains, but I appreciate the attempt to change the narrative, fellas.
The issue is though, because the Tory party has been so crap and lost pretty much every local council and London and most of the mayoral seats, they're still going to be building local social housing for their ethnic clientele classes.
I'll make one very quick point.
So there's a double schizophrenia on the diversity is our strength, multiculturalism is our strength crowd.
One of them is the obvious one that, you know, Diversity is our strength, yet the community relations exist on such an existential knife edge that conflict in the Middle East... The London Mayor has literally put out statements after October 17th saying, now as we know, in times of... Don't do anything crazy!
...things in London can flare up.
So on the one hand, it can't be our strength if it requires a battery of legal reinforcements and propagandistic reinforcements to hold the tapestry together.
But there's also a double There's a schizophrenia on this point as well, just speaking in purely fiscal terms.
If Muslim immigrants into this country really were making a massive net fiscal contribution, why do they need our money to live closer to mosques?
Presumably they're rich enough, well-heeled enough in the way that say Russian immigrants into Britain will be.
Like no one's angling for Russian immigrants to be closer to vodka shops or wherever Russians might want to be, you know?
And that's because Russian immigrants here, they've all had their assets seized now obviously, but they're going to be making a massive net fiscal contribution assuming they're paying tax and not dodging it.
Um, and so, you know, he's speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I mean, he's conceding that we're importing dependents.
Yes, of course.
That's what he's saying.
And that's our strength.
Yes.
Which is, yeah, which is his strength.
Well, quite.
Yeah.
Sorry.
No, no, no.
I had to say that.
Totally fair.
Totally fair critique.
So anyway, this is a segment we're not going to be able to put on YouTube because we're going to be talking about the vaccine.
Because more interesting things have been happening.
But before we go on to that, if you would like to work for us and you live near or around London, do go to the careers section of our website and apply because we want to hear from you.
So let's begin with what our credentials on this are.
I haven't been vaccinated.
with the COVID vaccine.
I've had like other vaccines but this is not what we're talking about because I think that in the COVID pandemic and the subsequent vaccine rollout we can say that this is a particular and separate event to other questions of vaccinations because vaccines usually take a decade to be fully tested and to be rolled out and so there's a lot of data behind them and of course this wasn't something that I suppose we could charitably say was available during the COVID pandemic
But I think the the issue with the Covid pandemics is becoming more and more apparent that this was a political crisis rather than a health crisis.
Especially if you look at just the numbers of people who died and the kinds of people who died from What in retrospect looks like just a severe case of influenza, which happens every year.
30,000 people on average die a year from influenza.
Usually they're in their 80s because that's life and nobody really cares.
But this became a strong political thing and a kind of groupthink gripped the political classes, the media classes, the activists.
And there are some people who cynically say, well, it looked like it was some kind of power grab by the scientific elite to try and impose their dictates on society.
And there's an element of truth to that, I think.
Certainly trying to codify it, the right to do it again and with the WHO's academic preparedness treaty.
So to establish a precedent and a series of procedures that would allow a kind of scientific managerial elite to exhibit a greater deal of control of society than they otherwise would.
And so I was deeply suspicious of this from the start, as I'm sure most people was.
I didn't take any of these vaccines, despite the pressure.
And we did quite a lot of work talking about them.
We were saying, well, look, the vaccines are actually not well tested.
And the mRNA technology is very new.
And we don't know what the long term consequences of it will be because you need time to pass to discover those.
And that hasn't happened.
And so we were skeptical on that issue.
Then, of course, the documents from Pfizer came out, which showed that they had total legal immunity from anything that they did.
Crazy, if you think about it.
Then there was the media demonization of Ivermectin, which apparently was Very reliable way of preventing or helping with COVID infections.
Mitigating symptoms, I think.
Absolutely.
Did Chris Cuomo come out and say yes?
Yes, he did.
In fact, most of them did.
But and then we went through, Harry and Thomas went through what the anti-vaxxers actually got right.
In fact, there were so many things we did a part two on this, because this was just Something that kept happening and then it became apparent as well that actually there were a spate of heart attacks and in fact these were manifesting themselves in places where you don't really expect people to have heart attacks such as in 20 year old athletes.
Usually it's the people in the world who have actually the best hearts, the best conditioning.
So when footballers just started collapsing on the pitch regularly, it became suspect, especially as 97% of them had been vaccinated because FIFA and various other football bodies had mandated it.
You can't play this sport without getting We did a stream as well about the subsequent side effects which has now been acknowledged which include psychosis and blindness and things as well.
Yes and so as you can see we've covered this a lot and if you'd like to catch up with it you can go and sign up to lotuses.com £5 a month and watch all of this content and this This content grows more golden as time passes, because as more time passes, the more comes out.
So recently it was this AstraZeneca vaccine can cause a rare side effect.
Well, that's interesting because a lot of people have been censored and demonized and subjected to what I think is just the most kind of cruel public treatment because of what has been done to them.
It's something I really don't want to let go of.
So what I'm going to do is I'm going to read from this just so we can see what the actual information is.
So AstraZeneca are being sued in class action claims over the vaccine developed with the University of Oxford caused death and serious injury in dozens of cases.
Lawyers argue that the vaccine produced a side effect that has a devastating effect on this number of families.
The first case was lodged by Jamie Scott, a father of two, who was left with a permanent brain injury after developing a blood clot and bleed on the brain that has prevented him from working after he received the vaccine in April 2021.
Hospital called his wife three times to tell her that he was going to die.
Pretty awful.
And again, one core component of justice in this British legal theory is that it's swift.
Three years on, they're still trying to get it.
AstraZeneca is, of course, contesting the claims, but has accepted in its legal documents that its COVID vaccine can, quote, in very rare cases, cause TTS.
And TTS is thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, which causes people to have blood clots and a low blood platelet count.
And so that goes rather counter to all of the messaging that we heard.
Anyone who shared any concerns that the vaccines may have caused blood clots and caused heart attacks and various other things, while they were demonized and roundly denounced, often taken off social media, often made fools of by people like Piers Morgan.
I remember being on GB News and Talk TV at the time, before I even joined this company, and I was beating this drum.
Because what I would do is I would just go look at the ONS's weekly death statistics, and I would say, well, you're more likely to be hospitalised, die, and infected by COVID if you've had the vaccine.
And people would say, well, yeah, of course, because more people have had the vaccine.
And I'm like, yeah, of course.
But that means the vaccine hasn't bloody worked for those people.
Yes.
And also, if there are outliers for risk factors like this, why would you take it if you're not at risk of Covid when the average age of dying is 83, and it was immediately dismissed with pejoratives of conspiracy theorists, or you're overplaying it, or you're scaremongering it, it's like...
I don't want to have been right about this, but I was, and I don't anticipate that I or anyone else is going to get a sorry for it.
It wasn't just being named and shamed and how that is public as well.
I mean, there was a whole, in many countries, Austria I think went the furthest, there was a whole legal framework to reinforce this stigmatization of unvaccinated people or people who Yeah, France as well.
Boris Johnson floated the idea.
I could be getting this slightly wrong because I've met, not for the same reasons that these people have, but I've slightly memory hauled that period just because it was so ghastly in many ways.
These people have, not these people on the screen now, but you know the people who were behind it have even more reason to memory haul it, particularly now that stuff like this is coming out.
But as I recall, I think the only, and this speaks volumes in itself, the only resignation that occurred, or the first resignation that occurred on principle, so not because you'd been canoodling with your mistress in the way that Hancock had, but the first resignation in Boris Johnson's government that occurred was two years in and it was when Lord Frost resigned, partly because of some Brexit stuff to do with Northern Ireland it must be said, but I think also he mentioned that he didn't like the way in which
Johnson was going to be creating a two-tier society because I think in December of 2021 we did actually have a law take effect and then three months later it was quietly repealed which did you know make vaccine passports a requirement for venues up over a certain size indoors and another one if they're outdoors or something like that.
At that press conference, he said, we are looking into mandatory vaccination.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
Yes.
I see.
So he introduced vaccine passports alongside Whitty and Van Tam or whatever it was.
And then as a throwaway comment, he said, we will investigate.
And the Austrians did a lockdown of the unvaccinated for a week, I think.
The French would have it.
So you couldn't go to a restaurant if you didn't have a vaccine passport.
Canadians are the same.
Yeah.
And New York did the same sort of thing.
And it's just like, okay, so there was a general insane power grab over society by the kind of technocratic managers.
Of the Western world, and it was awful.
And the thing is, I'm thinking most of someone like Andrew Bridgen, who got vaccinated twice, suffered a vaccine injury, spoke out as a Conservative MP, and then got kicked out of the party for having the temerity to say, look, this has been done to me, and I'm living with this every day now.
And so now he's an independent MP for Leicester East, God willing that he'll win the next election, because he's one of the few that actually, no, I'm going to stick my neck out on this.
And he paid the price.
I think so many people did.
Even the few people who probably do go a little bit too far, they're down paranoid rabbit holes, I actually have very little, I feel very little right to attack them given the fact that trust has been so overwhelmingly and comprehensively blown apart.
You're dealing, the problem with the managerial conception Well, there are many problems, but one of the problems with the managerial understanding of human beings are not widgets in a machine.
We have fears, we have concerns, we have anxieties, and this is why it's really important that, as Robert Putnam says, not only should there be a vertical trust between the people, that's very vital, There should also be a horizontal trust between those in power and those who rule and those who are ruled.
And if you're blowing that trust apart by calling people names and, you know, people's question, natural instinct is, if this is so good for me, why do I need to be shepherded, herded like a sheep into doing it?
Why can't you just give me the information and then I will exercise my own judgment and do it?
And that was completely blown apart by this mixture of nudge and mandates.
There's an epistemological question here that the scientific establishment doesn't want to concede, but is obviously true.
Which is why, so repeatedly, the anti-vaxxers did keep getting these things right.
Because there are different ways of establishing the truth or likely truth of the thing.
And of course, the scientific community want absolute certainty.
They want infallible levels of confirmation.
And this takes a long time to get.
However, most people actually don't work on that standard.
Most people work on a much more fallible standard that is about inference and probability.
And so, okay, well, it seems that it's likely that if a vaccine is using experimental technology, such as the mRNA technology, which is not itself very well known, hasn't been fully tested, and the way that it's being implemented is more with the rod than and the way that it's being implemented is more with the rod than with the carrot, then I'm going to take there's something about this that's probably not fully on the level.
And actually, I'm probably, my gut instinct is to not trust this, and I'm probably justified in that.
And this is the kind of thing that we're covering now.
This is the vindication of that.
But that to the scientific managerial type is, well, no, obviously, We're certain that this is the case, until tomorrow when you're not certain, until the next study comes out that shows.
And so that shows that your certainty, your reliance on the certainty of everything that came before, was based on false premises.
You were wrong.
Karl Popper says in his falsification theory of what science truly is, and this is what the managerialist class miss in thinking that science Scientific truths are just, you know, these sort of mosaic precepts handed down as tablets of stone.
They're sort of a revelation, a deliverance, and then you just implement it because we are the Gnostic elite and we have exclusive access to this realm of knowledge.
Popper says that science proceeds by conjecture and refutation, and the refutation aspect is very important there because it hammers home to the scientists, and all good scientists do think like this, That any knowledge he comes across, particularly if he's going to be externalizing the costs of him being wrong onto the population at large, is provisional.
And the knowledge that it's provisional acts as a check on that kind of, you know, triumphalist sort of managerial gnosticism, which completely infected and suffused our body politic for three or four years.
It was horrific watching it and the scientists speaking with absolute certainty to tell people who themselves do credit science with a level of authority that, I mean, I think now it's lost a lot of authority actually, that did then credit science with a level of authority beyond their own belief system and then say, well, the people in charge I assume are good people.
They are speaking from this position of authority.
I will then trust them, as you say, offloading the costs onto these people.
The whole thing turns out to be a very, very black mark on the very nature of our civilization and the way we think we understand the universe.
And in fact, speaking about offloading costs, AstraZeneca was given full backing by Boris Johnson's government, which means we're going to be paying the bills.
The company themselves, no one at the company is going to be suffering the cost of this.
As they say, the government's pledged to underwrite the bills.
So we're paying either way.
But the thing is, as well, is this isn't actually very new.
It was just repressed in the media narrative.
So they point out that scientists first identified a link between the vaccine and a new illness called vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis as early as, I'm not a scientist, as early as March 2021, which was shortly after the vaccine rollout began.
That's why they put a pause on it for, what was it, under 40s in this country?
Yeah.
Prevented you from taking it.
Yeah.
Australia also worked this out in 2021, and as you can see from the Australian government's health website here, they just say there was a link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and its rare but serious side effect, which I'm not going to pronounce again, TTS, And they say, well, it's quite rare.
So it's about two to three people per 100,000 under 60 years of age.
But okay, but if you're vaccinating millions of people.
Four times.
Multiple times.
And you've mandated.
And again, Australia had insane lockdown and vaccine mandates, which lots of people I know were thinking, oh, maybe I'll go to Australia.
And then the COVID-19 thing happened.
And everyone was like, Jesus, that kind of a bit of a tyranny, aren't they?
So yeah, they are a bit of a tyranny.
And to be honest with you, Britain, if you look at the reaction of the rest of the world, Britain actually did get off fairly lightly.
We're with the sixth strictest lockdown in terms of punitive measures for violating the rules of lockdown.
But in terms of vaccine mandates, we're slightly less.
Sorry, the 6th most punitive?
So there was a ranking of how much you could be fined and for what- Oh, the penalties handed out.
Yes.
Because we had essentially unlimited fines which have not been levied since the Middle Ages.
Yes.
But the things that people were actually forced to do were actually a lot less punitive than in other countries.
Australia built camps.
Yeah, literally.
I was about to say, yeah, literally built camps and drag you off to them if you tested positive for COVID, which is just mad, isn't it?
When you think about it.
And so they stopped doing this in 2023.
So it took them two years after learning that because they withdrew it.
And then after this, two weeks after the UK court case, AstraZeneca just decided to announce that it's going to withdraw the COVID vaccine all across the world.
They say that, quote, they're doing it for commercial reasons.
It's like, hmm.
It said the vaccine was no longer being manufactured, supplied because there are other vaccines.
They're tackling new variants.
So, right.
Interesting.
Interesting timing.
Didn't happen before the court case.
Happen now.
I see.
Here's a question then, Jones.
What do we think should have happened then in terms of the vaccine?
I'll give you a bit of content.
Milton Friedman, who I don't agree with on a huge amount, it must be said, he had an interesting idea on vaccines, namely that Vaccines should be, as you might imagine, pretty laissez-faire in terms of the right of companies to produce them and all the rest of it.
But, crucially, he said that the tort laws should be beefed up in a very real way so that if people are damaged they can sue for damages.
And obviously a lot of that was During this crisis was withdrawn so I think Milton Friedman would have what his libertarian policy would have been say buy AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna go ahead and try to market them as effectively as you want you're completely free to do that but people can and certainly wouldn't have been in favor of government mandates and even promptings and all that sort of thing but he would have been very much in favor of people being able to sue for damages.
Do you think that something like that should have happened or should these have been withheld from the market altogether?
It would have been wise to have withheld them from the market because they didn't bloody work and they had lots of side effects.
The political energy wouldn't have permitted it.
Yeah, quite.
Yeah, because obviously lots of MPs had invested in these vaccine companies, lots of congressmen had invested in these vaccine companies, made lots of money off of that, so undoubtedly there was lobbying pressure there.
I think it's more than that as well.
I think there was a kind of brain worm that was going around that everyone had to be seen to be doing something.
It's a bit of both, yeah.
I'm not saying it's not any of that, you know, but I think it's also... I think they're in a kind of bunker mentality where they're like, oh god, someone, we have to do something.
What about the older people?
They didn't largely work for older people either.
They did not prevent transmission as advertised.
And that's also the crucial point.
even if they were not combined with state power, they still didn't work as advertised.
So the reason they falsely advertised them and rushed them out and the like is because they were insulated from lawsuits with qualified immunity.
So it's the combination of state and corporate power here that is the major problem.
Would you have wanted, say for example, that my grandmother was slightly spooked and a little bit scared and she wanted to have two...
I think she had ended up having two or something like that.
And she would have wanted to do that.
Well, it's hard to... Look, we lived through the period of history.
It's hard to disentangle that from all of the things you're talking about.
The beer campaigns and all the rest of it.
But I don't have strong views on it.
I'm just wondering whether we think it should have been... Like maybe if you're over 70, it can be marketed to the over 70s and they can make that choice for themselves.
But if it would have worked?
But this is the thing.
But what about if it worked in terms of mitigating symptoms while you had COVID?
So let's say that there wasn't that pretense to stopping transmission.
Because I think that's now the argument that they tend to make, isn't it?
It tends to be, okay, yeah, we admit we were wrong.
It doesn't stop transmission.
That's the reason people wanted to take it.
Because of course, your grandmother didn't want to leave the house in case she even got it in the first place.
I think people wanted to take it so that their symptoms, particularly older people, if they had pre-existing vulnerabilities, so that their experience with COVID would be less severe.
That was what my grandmother wanted.
Yeah, I mean, the thing is, as far as I'm aware, and I'm no expert on this, it does have the sort of properties of a traditional vaccine, as in, it'll protect you from personally suffering from having the virus, right?
Again, I never took it, so I have no idea.
It doesn't prevent transmission.
No, I didn't say it prevents transmission.
Suffering with the virus.
From you personally suffering with the virus.
Oh, to a degree, but not... But the point is, it does actually do what it's supposed to do as a vaccine in that regard.
It depends on the strain as well.
Sure, sure.
But the problem is, that's not... I mean, and if they'd taken a very just normal, okay, well, we've got a vaccine...
You know, take it at your own discretion, but we can show through clinical trials that it does reduce the severity of your COVID infection if you get it, like a normal vaccine does.
So have it if you want to have it, don't have it if you don't want to have it.
I would have been okay with that.
I wouldn't have taken any great exception, but that's not what was happening.
Of course.
This is counterfactual.
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, and as a counterfactual, I mean, then no one would have talked about COVID at all in the news cycle.
And indeed, there wouldn't be an attitude, a completely understandable attitude of paranoia setting in on a whole host of fronts now in our politics.
And some of that I don't go for, go in for.
Some of it I probably do go in for a bit.
But it just wouldn't exist as much because trust wouldn't have been comprehensive.
I think this is going to cause problems in terms of public trust for many, many decades at this point.
I think at some point in the near future, though, they are going to try again, and they'll say, oh, there's another virulent flu that's traveling around, and I think the cooperation will be far, far less.
They're already developing them for Disease X down in South Africa.
Yes, exactly.
But anyway, just to finish off this, so you'll remember, I mean, there are lots and lots of compilations.
of this sort of thing going around.
And they're just superb ones on Twitter.
I don't know who Milk Bar TV are, but this is an international compilation.
So you can see from Britain, from America, from Australia, talking heads who would go out and say, no, it's 100% safe.
It's 100% effective.
It's 100% going to prevent you.
Ivermectin is terrible in this.
This is quite a long compilation, but you'll see the Chris Cuomo 2021, 2024 comparison where he's just completely talking back everything that he said because they were just lying.
They were just lying.
It's insufferable.
And many of them apparently were just paid by pharmaceutical companies because actually people have been doing a lot of investigation into this and it's too small to see.
But it's just people being just openly paid to go out.
Tucker Carlson's made a very good point as well about how, why would a vaccine company advertise on a news program?
No one watches news and goes, oh yes I must get my vaccines.
It's not like a Mars bar.
They're obviously doing it so that they have financial leverage over these news broadcasters.
And Pfizer, I mean, in America is worse than it was here because they would literally have the news broadcast sponsored by Pfizer presented at the beginning of the broadcast.
And now we're going to tell you about the COVID vaccine.
Oh, good.
Oh, good.
Yeah.
And of course, many, many, many, many people were unfairly censored because the YouTube guidelines on this are still basically archaic.
The YouTube guidelines, and this is why we're not going to put this up on YouTube, because, I mean, and I don't think we've said anything here that actually triggers the guidelines, but it's just such a sensitive subject, it's not worth even going near the line on.
I mean, they say, look, if you contradict the World Health Organization guidance on the safety of efficacy and ingredients of the vaccines, then you get slapped.
It's like, okay, but so DisasterZeneca, did they just do that?
Because they just admitted that there was a risk of TTS or whatever it was.
Constant alleging the vaccines cause chronic side effects.
Outside of the rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities.
It's like, well, I mean, how close are we to that line?
And how effective they are when they do not reduce transmission or contraction of the disease.
But the World Health Organization has said that they don't.
The CEO of Pfizer said that.
Yeah, they don't.
And why would they prevent the spread of the disease?
The point of a vaccine isn't to prevent the spread of the disease.
It's to make sure that it doesn't affect you negatively when you get it.
And that's all, I mean, that's just the orthodox understanding of Axies.
So the point being is that the social media companies, such as YouTube, but Facebook has similar guidelines, apart from Twitter, actually, which seems to be literally the only place in mainstream cyberspace that you can actually have a reasonable discussion on something and expect not to be deplatformed.
The social media companies are still, they have these archaic guidelines as a holdover from 2021 when there was the mass panic that set in, the desire to control the narrative.
We still live with these things.
So just to basically say well done people who are skeptical of the COVID vaccines, you were right to be so.
I saw your tweet as well that said, uh, I have never met anyone who did not regret not getting a Covid vaccine.
Yeah.
I just don't know anyone.
And then people don't know.
They'll say, like I said, that's what they'll say.
Yeah, everyone who got it, who didn't get it, died though.
So, oh, did they though?
Yeah, yeah.
Did they die?
Because I got Covid and not.
When was my funeral?
Yeah, exactly.
I've had Covid, you know.
Well, I thought we'd discuss Lauren Sudden's recent interview with Mary Harrington because there has been quite the Contentious discussion about how it was received on the right.
And I think there's a reason for this, and it's because lots of people, particularly I think of our age, Harrison, have come from homes which have suffered from the fraying of the social fabric and the breakup and alienation of their mother from their father.
And so they want to rebuild from a broken frame of reference a way to have a happy marriage, a happy family, children of their own, and something meaningful in their own life.
Which is a noble sentiment, yeah.
Absolutely, yeah, and that's completely non-objectionable, and they feel that this interview with Lauren, who is talking from her personal experience about the breakdown of her marriage and how she ended up being a single mother in a cabin in the Canadian woods, has attacked that, but I don't think that's the case.
And so I want to, also having spoken to Mary and saying that this is not how she wanted to be received, I wanted to discuss this, particularly with you two gents, because I thought you'd have a good take on it.
I think a lot of people have rightly been pointing out that Lauren Southern isn't a traditionally right-wing woman, she's a libertarian woman.
And so, libertarianism being an offshoot of liberalism, had a bunch of liberal priors before going into, I guess, what you call the ideology of Trad Online?
Our Christianity should have mitigated a bit of that.
You would think.
However, I think that her understanding of Christianity, and she's admitted this, has also been in the listicle, I got it from a trad meme concept.
And essentially what happens there is trying to copy or rote learn traditional gender roles or biblical gender roles or faith does not map onto human fallibility.
And you might select the wrong person, you might have personal failings, which is why you selected the wrong person.
And so if you're trying to smash two meme conceptions of how men and women should behave together, it doesn't necessarily map onto the give and take that you have to do in real life.
And I just want to be clear, it's not that the people who want trad lives are wrong in any way.
It's a totally desirable thing to have, I know, because I have one.
But it has to grow organically.
That's the issue.
Yes, and in most cases, and this is why it's so relevant what you say about the fraying of the social fabric, it is a learned behavior insofar as you are just enmeshed in an environment where it's taken for granted.
And so I'm very fortunate in this respect, my parents have been married Since 1996 I was born in 98 and you know I saw firsthand that marriage was both something to aspire to but also crucially not just something which you you know you enjoy the superficial surfaces of it as as delivered to you by the algorithm on TikTok because you've been watching some Andrew Tate videos and then all of a sudden this pops up
It's also something that you need to work for and it's something which requires sacrifice and it's something which... Cooperation!
Cooperation and human messiness and learning more about the other, learning more about yourself, calling the other to virtue, encouraging the other to call you to virtue.
It's a cooperative messy wonderful endeavor and I'm lucky in that I've experienced that firsthand so I've always I must say found the trad aesthetic as presented in its kind of glossy you know garment quite disturbing because I know that it's actually not like that up I mean there are moments which are like that but it's not fundamentally you know a you know a pretty girl with her hair perfectly done like churning butter It doesn't map onto reality perfectly.
And people need to understand that these ideals are downstream of activities that people engage in.
They don't exist as mere propositional content translated into an algorithm.
But also it's the reason that people are looking for them.
And I think you're exactly right at that point as well.
Because when it is in the position of propositional content that is served to you via the algorithm, The reason that you are drawn to it are essentially just consumer reasons.
You know, this is the aesthetic, this would be a nice and enjoyable thing.
But that's not actually what you get out of a trad life.
You don't get pleasure out of the trad life in the immediate consumer sense.
What you get is satisfaction.
Which is something that can only happen over a long period of time, and it's not for the algorithm.
Because as you say, there's a huge amount of human messiness in it.
But at the end of that, or during it, again, I wouldn't put pictures of my house, my living room up online, because it's always messy.
Because when you take the snapshot of that moment, You know, that's what persists online.
People go, oh wow, his house is messy.
You're not seeing the human love that's taking place that I would try to put across to you.
I don't want to make this a too strong a statement because I don't think it's always true.
I think it can be quite wholesome to want to put your children on Instagram and all that sort of thing.
It can be, it can be.
But it's also a massive green flag.
So I'm not saying it's a red flag if a girlfriend or prospective girlfriend or prospective wife wants to have an Instagram, family Instagram of sorts.
I'm not saying it's a red flag, but it's a massive green flag if they say they don't.
Yes, quite.
You have a sphere of life that is insulated from other people's opinion and commodification.
Mary calls this the digital hijab, where basically you practice digital modesty.
Have a family group.
And if you think, oh, I want my family to see my church, just have a family group chat on WhatsApp.
It's private and you can circulate these wonderful photos.
But just to say, I have put kids up on my Instagram and there is something to be said to show other families that, no, we We should be pacifying the Internet, right?
We should be making the Internet family friendly, right?
And so to say, well, no, the Internet's this evil wild space that's just full of pornography and stalkers.
Actually, it's not.
It's actually really quite full of quite normal, wholesome people.
And actually, I think there should be a place on the Internet for families, you know?
And so don't get me wrong, it has been one of these things in my mind where it's like, oh, you know, but I've said, no, no, actually, I think I'm proud of The life I have and I want people to be able to see that, you know, it is important to, to be the example for others.
And, and my, I mean, my Instagram is very family focused.
I get lots of women on my Instagram being, Oh, so beautiful kids.
It's all very wholesome.
So you are right that there is, there is that aspect to it.
I'm not trying to in any way discredit it, but also there is a consequence if we sort of silo ourselves away because it's not, Because most people won't.
Most people weren't anyway.
I think there's trade-offs of these things.
You need to raise the social desirability and the salience of having a family and its meaningful benefits and what you can give and what you can receive.
But also, you can't ever control how that is received by people online.
And you don't want someone responding to a photo of your child in an untoward way without your knowledge.
Obviously.
Speaking of things that we have to do work to put in, I'm going to have to plug this before we start.
This is if you have the prerequisite qualification to be a production manager and you're in the London area, commute to South East London, go check out the job page on our website.
Now for anyone confused as to what we're actually talking about, here was the interview Mary conducted with Lauren Southern.
I'm going to give a little preface because I think we need to establish credibility here before we know that we can talk about this.
The reason I wanted to bring this up is actually you did a really good video on this.
Thank you.
I've done the Twitter link because you don't get paid on YouTube because YouTube are awful so go and look at it and watch it on Twitter.
Mary watched this and she spoke to me about it and she said her quote here and this is very important takeaway for everyone when they're listening to this.
Carl nailed it when he talked about how it can be mostly his work and her work but what matters is that it's just the work.
So it's not about dividing it up according to what work you've seen in a study or according to an Instagram meme.
It's about an organic, living, flexible... Unity.
Yeah.
The definition of love is willing the good in the other, and so that means that you do trade-offs on the presumption that none of you are trying to exploit one another.
Yeah.
So that was good.
We also spoke about Mary's work in Evil Origins of Feminism Part 2.
Subscribe to the website.
That was £5 a month to get all that.
Condensed version.
Essentially, we need to re-engender sexual solidarity and there's a bit of the only way out is through.
You need to be a continent man before you're a virtuous man, according to Aristotelian formulation.
So going trad is not bad, but it's not trad enough.
It's like performing the 1950s when it's like a representation of a small sliver of time.
The problem is with trad ideologies, it tends to look backwards rather than looks forwards.
And so you are constantly comparing where you are now to somewhere that you've idealized in the past that you don't live up to.
Whereas actually, if you were to look forward, you'd be comparing where you are now to somewhere that you can achievably get to tomorrow or the day after.
And actually, you will find yourself in a positive upswing in your own relationship rather than constantly being resentful and bitter about looking backwards when you don't have.
What are truly wholesome, uh, you know, heterosexual relationships, if not a gamble on the future, not like it's not an aping of past.
It's not, it's not, you're not supposed to be a pastiche of the past, as you say, it's supposed to be generative and it's regenerative and it's supposed to be forward-looking.
And, um, you know, you know, that a civilization is in, is in decline.
A when, you know, there's an environment of antinatalism, which clearly exists now, but there's a sense in which this, Excessive romanticization of past ideals and distilling them into a pastiche which can give you clicks is also a harbinger of decline, I would say.
Yeah, but there's no optimistic longing for the future.
There's only an optimistic longing for the past.
There can actually be an optimistic view of the future because the trad people online, they're not wrong in wanting what they want, right?
At all, obviously.
And they are generally right in the man should be the breadwinner, obviously.
Most women will tell you they think the man should be the breadwinner and the woman should be the breadwinner.
The Queen of Domestic Affairs.
Her primary concern should be the dependent children, but of course women have always worked from the household for the household.
Yeah, exactly.
It's just flexible around childcare rather than making the career the primary thing that defines the woman.
Yeah.
At the expense of the kids.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
But this, when it becomes abstracted into an ideology online, takes on a sort of hard boundary, which isn't, it just doesn't exist in the real world. - Yes. - Like, you know, sometimes my wife's got a migraine or something, 'cause the kids have been screaming all day, "Yeah, I changed the nappies and put them to bed." 'Cause it needs to be done. - It doesn't make you less of a man for doing something. - No, of course not.
You know, like, it just needs to be done, god damn it, you know?
And you know, she's like got this splitting headache.
I totally understand.
But then there are the days, I mean, she doesn't work obviously, but like, you know, when I've got things to do around the house I need to do, that she'll do them because I'm just, you know, I'm having a terrible day or something like that or whatever it is, you know.
And it can just literally be me just going like, look, darling, I'm just going to sit in my office this evening and just, you know, paint some miniatures and put some podcasts on or something.
And she'll understand because, you know, part of my responsibility is spending time with her and stuff like that.
And so she'll understand that's not going to happen that day because I've had a bad day.
And so, like, You've just got to be so much more flexible than talking about these things online would portray them to be in the real world.
Well if I might say something on that because it links to like this following link that I was going to mention because I know people are going to be in the comments slash in the chat or at the moment saying There's no wonder that people are very risk-averse and are gravitating towards hard boundaries because divorce courts and family law is reached against men.
I did do an interview with Jeff Younger, who I actually spent some time with in America, absolutely gentleman, who's been the ultimate case of his wife abducted his kids and is involuntarily transitioning them in California.
And even he said, I don't want to jettison the institution of marriage just because it has been corrupted by modern law.
But I have taken the time to actually investigate that.
So go and watch that if you can.
We're not going to go through it all here.
But what that hinges on, that flexibility, that give and take, that willing to have defined roles, but there's a bit of a permeable barrier between it because of human fallibility or need, relies on trust.
It relies on vulnerability.
It relies on willing the good of the other without an expectation of the good returned to you, but a gratitude when it is.
It's not contractual.
Yeah, exactly.
And I think people are trying to make it contractual and I think they're trying to codify it into set boundaries of male and female traditional gender roles which are desirable but inflexible because they want the certainty of never being exploited again or it never breaking apart like they've seen their parents do.
And it's completely understandable when you see a case like this.
It's completely understandable because, you know, he's completely right.
The way that the law deals with marriage now is just It deliberately has an incentive to try and break them apart.
Absolutely.
And to punish the husband as well.
Because it begins in the feminist framework that assumes that the man is always somehow the aggressor in any kind of interaction between men and women.
But it is an understandable but frankly a complete logical error to say that because the incentive structure has been negatively calibrated over the last 50 The negative structure within which people pursue the good has been negatively calibrated in the last 60 years.
That thereby invalidates the existence of any particular good.
Things can still be good, but harder to pursue.
And people acting in, like Connor and me, younger Zoomers acting in this space, are going to have to ponder things in ways which my grandparents wouldn't have done.
But it doesn't mean that striving towards that, albeit on altered terrain, more difficult terrain, is not a worthwhile endeavor.
And it doesn't mean that it's out of reach either, but what it means is you have to practice more discernment because I think the desire for a more rigid contractual arrangement is out of the fear of uncertainty because of the lack of understanding of the person that you're considering to be Your future partner.
You don't know them well enough.
You don't trust them.
You don't really love them enough.
And it's something that I don't have the answers to, just to be clear.
I'm not a Zoomer.
I'm not struggling with these things.
You do learn on the job.
And it is painful if relationships break down.
I've had that, and that's been hence one of the reasons I've been investigating it.
In opening yourself up to the possibility of being vulnerable enough to be exploited, and you probably will be exploited, you'll eventually find someone that has the exact same fears but the same courage as you, and then the reciprocity becomes seamless.
And it was a joy.
Lauren didn't have that, and that's why Mary's talking to her, to try and act as a sort of warning to not...
Yes.
up IRL and instead allow yourself to be more receptive and to have a more complete value structure that isn't as performative before going into relationships.
You don't select the wrong person.
It's not to say that marriage and even the trad desires themselves are bad things.
No, they're totally understandable.
If your wife or your husband use your marriage certificate as a kind of accessory, then you've I think the impulse is completely correct.
Right, and it's important to say as well, about three weeks ago, Mary did an event at the Unheard Cafe about trad wives defending them against Sarah Dittum.
So Mary herself is on the side of the trad wives writing this article when she was editing it.
So it's not like it's coming from a malicious point.
I'm touching on the side of the trad wives and the trad husbands, or potential trad husbands.
I think the impulse is completely correct.
It's just you have to be realistic about how you're going to get there.
Being against false messiahs doesn't mean you're not on the side of the messiah.
Yeah, quite.
Good way of putting it.
There we go, yeah.
So Mary's background, if those haven't read the article on Feminism Against Progress, is in her twenties she was bandying about in lesbian communes and experimenting gender identities and her nan once just told her, if you tried being normal Mary...
And then she got married, had a kid, and she stopped being a proper freedom feminist type and now she's a reactionary.
That's the shortcut.
The longer route is reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, but... Just try being normal.
Be normal.
That's basically what Aristotle was going for.
Just a quick thing.
I see this all the time where it's a woman in her 20s or 30s who's been like, wow, if only I could have known that Sleeping around in my twenties would make me an undesirable prospect for a marriage or something like that.
You know, some timeless piece of wisdom you could have just asked your nan about and she'd be like, no, you can't do that because men will think badly of you.
Don't you dare do that.
And you would have known.
And yet you've had to go this long security route and end up in a position where you're like, damn, I wish someone had told me.
And it's based on such a mis, it's based on such, and I would apply it to men as well, but it is of course different.
At the level of perception it's slightly different.
And perceptions matter in society, that's a fact.
But it doesn't devalue and degrade women to make this point.
You're saying that you are in possession of a gift, don't degrade it yourself.
And so it's actually an ennoblement of women to tell them this.
You know, it doesn't devalue them one bit.
No, not at all.
If anything, it's actually increasing the importance of what it is you were given by nature.
The corruption of the best is the worst of all.
Yeah, 100%.
So Mary writes, comparing our experiences, her and Lawrence, two things emerge.
Firstly, that this is not a matter of the right being toxic for women, though as Southern's story reveals, there's plenty of scope for toxicity if you misapply it.
It's rather that purist ideologies, as such, map, at best, uneasily onto the practical realities for life for women, and especially as mothers.
And secondly, that the simplifying polarizing incentives baked into the contemporary internet are increasingly warping the ideologies of both left and right into such extreme forms that any sincere effort to apply these in real life will almost inevitably be the stuff of nightmares.
basically the medium is the message and so even if your message is strong the trad ideal it's being contorted by the way in which we spread information on the internet which is pithy memes and insults and it's not that as well it's the way people consume it as well because one of the points i made in my video is that um there are some trad wife influencers who are very beautiful very well put together the houses are clean they're there you know like with a low-cut top you know It's chased only fans.
But the point is, yeah, yeah, kind of.
In a way, yeah, kind of.
It takes on the aspect of a kind of fetish.
It's a different kind of commodification.
It is commodification, but also it's in the way that the people receive that.
Because they see all these tiny, perfect, made-up snapshots of what domestic life purportedly is supposed to be.
Whereas, obviously, as someone who's really living it, trust me, there's a lot more vomit involved.
There's a lot more wee on the floor involved.
There's a lot more food on the wall involved.
Having to bribe them with Starbursts to get them to use the potty for the first time.
There's a lot more of them, a lot more screaming.
And women are very anxious about this because, and I think, and maybe men are too, possibly, but you know, you will meet women who will say things like, will you be less attracted to me if I'm, because I'm a bit nervous because I'm going to be, you know, I'm a bit bigger and I'm going to be sweating and... Would you still love me if I'm a worm?
Would you still love me if I'm a worm?
But that's what they're asking, they're asking if my fundamental physical appearance changes and I fall afoul of some kind of medical problem which can result from pregnancy, will you stick around?
That's why the anxiety is there and this is the sort of source of the wife check meme.
You can either get mad at it and be alone or you can think that's endearing because men and women aren't the same and so we can kind of dote on them for having these like silly but understandably impulsive thoughts.
Yeah I've seen pictures of my mother holding me just after she'd given birth to me and obviously she looked, I mean it's just my mother, I think she looks beautiful but she's sweating and like you know she's got lovely red hair but it's kind of black because of all the sweat and she looks and so it's never going to be completely Glamorize.
Marriage is a lot, from seeing it the first time, it's a lot more like the beautiful messiness and imperfection of Rembrandt than it is the sort of hyper-glossy, you know, trad wife aesthetic that you will encounter online.
And it's more beautiful, it's more human, and people should embrace it.
And people should be less judgmental as well about women not always conforming to the girl in the field churning butter.
It's just, with perfect makeup on and perfect hairdo at midday.
But if all you see is a dozen images of that from different women.
It's like, well, why isn't my wife...
No, it's...
They're lying to you.
All of Instagram, all of social media are very curated snapshots that don't really exist in reality.
Don't worry about it.
Yeah.
And I think the reason people took badly to this article, I'll sort of try and condense this down, is that Lauren, and I think she admits herself in the article, and I think people might have skipped over this or they read the vibe more than the content, as often happens with the internet, is that Lauren is not the best example of this necessarily, but she is a living example of it.
So for those who don't really know, watch Lauren's thing and also look at this.
But she married a federal agent in Australia after about four months of talking to him, flew out, got married because she got pregnant and started living the stay-at-home life and renounced her very lucrative and notable online commentary career, which had also incurred lots of costs because she'd been banned from the UK and on watch lists and the like.
So after he decided, and this is her account of things, of course, we can't hear this fellow side of the story, but I have no reason to believe she'd be dishonest.
After he decided to put emotional pressures on her, tell her to do the total share of the housework and childcare, would walk out after arguments and not be emotionally responsive and then also say you're a financial burden.
And then when she went to visit her family in Canada, he foisted a divorce on her, Um, she split up and became a single mother.
And so people might be pointing to, well, you insufficiently vetted this man you only dated for four months and then got married to.
And she's actually saying, like, she's, she's totally understandable.
That's the point of this article.
Yes.
Say, look, I failed because I bought into an online ideology that actually doesn't really map very well to the real world.
And it's again, not, not the impulse under the ideology is wrong.
It's that I had not implemented these things correctly.
I mean, four months is a crazy short time.
Yeah.
So she said, and this is Mary writing up, Southern's careful to emphasise she knows many traditionalists and happy, loving, complimentary marriages.
Okay, there we go.
So marriage is not the problem.
So I hypocrite as much as I like him.
Your tweet was wrong, mate.
But she says it's a fallen world and her community includes many women whose husbands seem to have been drawn to listicle-style gender ideology precisely because of the power it offers over women.
Quote, those guys want someone they can feel, they can definitely control, who's never going to leave them.
who they can do anything to now some of those people will be abusive but also some people are drawn to it both men and women because they want that rigidity and certainty because they had a broken home and so the attraction is totally understandable it just might not map onto reality yes um apparently there's some sort of underground railroad of some women in conservative space that have this kind of thing i know radefem hitler constantly talks about this does she yeah apparently she got married and had the same thing i mean take everything radefem hitler says yeah i don't know if i mean it's entertaining but you think but point being but but
So what Mary finishes with, and this is your tweet, you responded to someone saying, this is not about Lauren Southern.
Yeah, it's not about Lauren Southern.
It's about how ideology is being constructed to try and insulate you from the worst excesses of modernity, and you may be drawn to it because you think it's the easiest way to get what you want, but it isn't necessarily the best thing for you.
You think that what it's going to do is allay the fears that you have going into The world that you're going to inhabit.
But actually it just makes you more fearful and it just makes you less able to deal with the difficulties of daily life.
Yeah, quite.
And so I'll finish with this quote.
The first generation to grow up online is now approaching middle age.
A great many, besides Lauren Southern, have road-tested ideologies they developed in virtual space and are finding them inadequate to the real world's complexities.
Because we live a lot of our life online and we live as if online is equivalent to offline.
I doubt online gender arguments will abate any time soon.
The tussle between men and women is a culture war as old as humanity itself.
Men and women always need to find a way to live together, which means negotiating these ways our material interests and physical capabilities align or exist in tension.
With the wider world in flux, it's hardly surprising to find ourselves here again.
The challenge is finding solutions that are grounded in reality rather than abstract purist ideology.
The internet's first generation of natives may be the one who bring us back down to earth.
Even the erstwhile Queen Bee of the extremely online radical right is now a convert to living in reality.
So perhaps there's hope that the rest of us in our politics will always find a way also back there in the end.
And so it ends on the optimistic note of essentially, don't just live out memes, do your best to have a bit of give-and-taking relationships, and we hope you get what you want.
With that, onto the video comments.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you some very sage words to live by.
Those who know me, I'm a nobody.
You understand?
And you can't kill a person with no body.
So, why am I afraid?
I'm not afraid.
I'm afraid of the boogeyman.
Who's the boogeyman?
You figure it out.
I'm getting out of here.
I'm going back to Waterloo where the vampires hang out.
What?
Okay then.
Is that it?
Enjoy the glue you sniffed.
Next one.
In honour of Callum, I thought I'd have a bit of fun and do my own little ethnic map.
This is Perth, Australia, my home city.
Total born in the UK, 7.4%.
However, if we shifted these northern areas, we see that climb into the low 20s.
I have to say, I am a little concerned about these ethnic enclaves that are starting to form.
Yes!
Even when the cultures are extremely similar, multiculturalism just doesn't work.
There are a lot of Brits moving to Australia just because the weather's nicer and the taxes are less punitive, basically.
But when I was out in the US, people were saying, would you come over here?
And I just said, it's kind of too big and alien.
No matter how crap England gets, it's going to be difficult.
On to the next one.
We can always fix it.
I don't really know if this counts as California news, but I'll let you connect the dots on this one, dear viewer.
Are you familiar with this meme?
No.
Chirp?
You're not familiar with the chirp?
That's very interesting.
There is something about black American households where they have a ceiling bird.
It's a particular strange native species to black America and periodically it will chirp in the background but they've become accustomed to not hearing it.
So basically, it seems that disproportionately in America, black households don't replace the batteries in their smoke alarms.
And this became a bit of a meme because everyone started going, hang on a second.
And so you'd find out like, you know, I mean, there were just so many examples.
Just random interviews, like Kevin Samuels and that, and they'd be talking to a black woman and just keep going off in the background.
But then, like, there was a guy, I can't remember where he was, like Chicago or something, who had run for office or something like that and been disqualified.
And so they were doing an interview with him, and in his house you hear the chirp in the background.
But then people started noticing that sometimes it appeared in rap albums, So literally, there's like, there's recording studios.
Yes.
And so they'd like, you see in the comments timestamp, you go to it's a beep in the background, this rap album.
Oh my God.
It's famous Sadiq Khan's recent interview on the mayoral campaign where he's talking to a woman in her, like in her social housing saying she had black mold because she'd actually just covered up the vents.
Right.
At a certain timestamp, people noticed the chirp.
So yeah, that's an intercontinental phenomena.
That's the meme.
Wow.
It's very amusing.
Well, thanks for the brief.
The primary impoverishment EVs will cause is insurance.
Public buildings will face increased premiums if they have underground parking with EVs present.
Home insurance premiums will rise if owners do not have adequate firebreaks between their garage or charging point and their house.
Insurers will also refuse to pay out, as two Canadians have discovered when their Hyundai cars had slight damage to the underside near the battery, and they were told they must replace the pack, at a cost more than the purchase price of the car.
I recently spoke to a taxi driver about this, and he said exactly the same thing.
He had an electric car, and they need to replace the battery, and the battery's worth more than the car.
I'm like, how the hell is that possible?
Yeah, because of the scarcity of lithium.
But if the battery runs out after the warranty, I know people, I've heard stories of people that have just set light to the car to say, oh, it's written off before the warranty, so they can just get a new one.
It's cheaper to replace it.
Green revolution, fantastic.
Anyway, on to the next one.
Yes, I will have to explain it.
It is about two crazy dictators talking about power.
One rules through apathy, by making people not care about politics, and thus maintaining her power, while the other one pretty much makes outright the elections.
What makes me think about this is, where exactly are we in this?
I didn't really understand it and I saw anime.
So, I don't know what to say.
I have- I don't know.
Don't send anime.
Anyway, next!
Surely, surely around the hospital will be clean.
Oh.
Okay, well, I guess the hospital's not clean.
Holy fuck.
Where is this?
There's another pile of trash like slightly down the road too.
And a donkey!
I'm just going to pause that because that's really annoying.
Can we not send in video comments like deliberately irritate us please and that we have some context for?
I'd rather engage with you guys like as a conversation.
The problem is I don't really know what that's come from or what's going on.
It's the lack of context.
Yep.
I can never remember the guy's name.
Some French architect.
Beau, the guy you're thinking of is Le Corbusier, the literal and metaphorical architect of the modern Malaise.
Specifically, his damned document of the Athens Charter of 1935 laid out in concrete detail the modern architectural horrors.
He was of course a communist and a favourite pet of Stalin, and a staunch social constructivist who believed that architecture was the best way to reshape social man to usher in the utopia.
He also famously quipped that history itself was an active antagonist of progress that must be deliberately and knowingly destroyed.
May he eternally rot in hell.
Orwell wrote about this in Notes on a Common Toad.
I had heard about this before, but thank you very much for the briefing.
It was very interesting.
Last one.
Hello ladies and gents and crew, when it comes to owning a firearm, at least for New South Wales, it goes in this order.
First, you need to establish a genuine reason for owning a firearm.
Once you've got that, then you need to apply for a firearms licence, which comes with a background check and a firearm safety course.
Also on those licences are classifications, I'll get to that later at some point.
Once you've got your licence, then you need to apply for a permit to acquire, which there's different types of permit to acquire depending on the classification of licence you've got.
And that takes two weeks back from the government and then once you've got your boat to acquire you can then purchase a firearm at your local firearms dealer.
The question behind that was, do Australians still have firearms?
How can they get them?
Apparently it's a lengthy bureaucratic process, just like over in Britain.
And you'll probably be turned down if you do apply.
Quite possibly, yeah.
Right, so we do have two rumble rants, which is fantastic, thank you very much for that.
Daveyverse, if I was to ask my MP if I can take the resettlement deal, would I get it?
No questions asked.
3k and I would like a holiday.
No, because you're not a legal migrant.
It's only open to illegal entrants.
I mean what are they going to do if I land?
I'm not saying.
Don't lie.
Just cheap flight to France.
Hop on a rubber duck.
Yeah.
Lose your passport.
What's your uncle?
3k holiday to Miranda.
And then just commit a minor crime in Miranda.
Don't do that.
And then you send back.
Someone will do that just for fun.
There are internet esposers that will do it.
I'm surprised Lord Miles hasn't done that.
Callum should text him.
Freddie, $20, thank you very much.
Off topic, remember after Islamic terrorists blow up civilians and say don't look back in anger as the immediate response?
Now actions of the Israel military are used to attack Jewish people globally.
That's because of the post-war order of where the state of Israel has been Collectivise with the identity of Jews because it's the Jewish homeland, because it is the compromise after the Second World War, so they need it so that they're never persecuted again.
And then when Israel becomes an issue of salience, it then becomes equivalent to Jews, because everyone thinks of Israel as... But the point is, they're not saying don't look back in anger, because Israel's not in Gaza.
That too, that is not the point that he made, but that's correct, yes.
Well, Palestinians are saying that, but the political establishment, like the Conservative Party, are not saying don't go back in anger.
We'll go through a couple of comments just before we run out of time.
ConorIsGayForGod says, It's not wrong, is it?
People are getting bummed by God!
We don't have the same Washington system.
would be the best if all those civil servants morally opposing the Home Office plans be fired.
Similar things have happened before.
Ronald Reagan fired 11,000 air traffic controllers after they legally went on strike in 1981.
We don't have the same Washington system.
We need the Republicans to be able to do that.
But I mean, you know, thinking it's conservatives, we've got an overwhelming majority in Parliament.
They could literally just legislate it into being, which they haven't.
Joanne says, a lot of overseas workers have joined nursing agencies which pay better than the NHS and make staffing problems within healthcare worse.
I'm a registered nurse and I've seen this problem get progressively worse over time.
Yes, I mean, the NHS at this point is just...
Such an unwieldy beast that it just... I mean, root and branch reform would be highly desirable, but nothing substantive is ever going to happen with it.
And then we wonder why seven and a half million people are on a waiting list.
It's like 11, 12% of the entire country just sat on a waiting list.
It's like, okay, amazing.
Kevin says, someone gave Chuck Norris the Pfizer vaccine.
After weeks of pain and cardiac problems, the vaccine finally died.
Omar says there was zero justification not to try safe over-the-counter treatments like ivermectin other than because it would prevent them using emergency authorization to fast-track the jabs.
It was so maliciously financially motivated I'm convinced people put on ventilators to increase the death count.
I don't know about the second part but you are, I mean, the fact that any other options of treatment were stigmatized just shows you exactly how captured the entire system was.
It's like, sorry, And that was not the only thing, but that was just a huge thing for me.
I was furious about.
Anne says, Covid continues to harm people.
In addition, many of the people who have died as aggressive cancers are way up in the millions have heart problems.
Still, no one is held accountable, either for lying or for killing people.
Yeah, and that's another thing as well.
the number of treatments that got pushed back there's going to be a huge number of excess deaths because of that if these have been treated in time but no because of the political brain worms that had taken over everyone's minds people died over it and she's right no one's going to be held accountable for this Too many sunk costs for anyone to ever admit moral culpability, I suppose.
Right, so we're gonna go to Lads Hour in less than half an hour, but before you do, quickly, in the break, I mean, if you haven't subscribed yet, you'll be able to watch us live, so five quid a month, it's below.
You can get in touch with us via the comments.
Go follow Harrison on Twitter, go look at him at the European Conservative and watch deprogrammed, where I'll be popping up possibly sometime in future.
Good fun, and that's in 25 minutes, but... It's gonna be good.
I love the view.
I wish I was still drinking for this.
Right, if not, enjoy your weekend.
We'll be back on Monday at 1 o'clock.
▲
Export Selection