Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 17, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:17:11

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #917

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So today we'll be discussing whether or not Nigel Farage is going to become a Conservative MP as part of a containment effort, how there's war in the House of Peace and how it's a dangerous time to be a politician, and global majority behaviour.
	Because it turns out that the Anglo way of life is global minority.
	Not quite.
	Not universal.
	No, no, no.
	I think it's a useful framing to remind yourself that Not everyone from everywhere behaves like us, but before we do that, assuming everything works stream-wise, at three o'clock we're going to be doing Lads Hour again.
	We are going to be joined by Ralph, and Josh is going to make us argue with an AI woman.
	I'm very much looking forward to this.
	Yeah, I am as well, actually.
	I'm going to relive my teenage years, I suppose.
	If you haven't subscribed to the website yet, you can do so for £5 a month, and you can come and watch us live, and we'll read out some of your comments as well, so we'll be able to interact with you.
	But without further ado, Turns out, Nigel Farage might be a Conservative MP, and this is because reform and the Conservatives might be forming an election pact.
	Now, Farage has denied this, playfully, but you get the big ask, and then eventually, as time rolls on, as it looks like they might have a path to power, Might start looking a bit more appetising, particularly with the people behind the scenes who are involved in financing this effort and bringing the relative players together at drinks events and on outlets like GB News.
	So I thought I'd outline this by starting to look at what exactly has put the Tories in this dire strait because ahead of the next election, which Rishi Sunak hasn't called yet, I think he hasn't until right at the end of the year so it could even be January 2025, When he does so, ahead of the next election, the government forecasters, the Migration Advisory Committee, are saying, don't worry guys, we're finally going to get net migration down below the 2019 target.
	What was the 2019 target?
	240,000.
	That's... as bad as Blair.
	Yeah, actually higher than most Blair years, yeah.
	But also, like, Doubt.
	Highly doubt.
	And I think this is coming out now, because next week we get the revised net migration numbers for the whole of 2023.
	Oh yeah.
	So they're going to look really bad, because before it was only June to June.
	Now it's going to be all of 2023, so that 672,000 is going to be lower.
	Yeah.
	And so they're trying to say, don't worry guys, what's happened here is that because we stopped the postgraduate scheme from bringing all their dependents over, it's actually reduced migration numbers more than we thought.
	Turns out... Never allowed!
	Urgh!
	Sorry.
	Well, it was 450,000 last year.
	Yeah, I know.
	And now they're saying, don't worry, it's only going to be 200,000.
	Brilliant.
	Why is a single... Why... What's the point?
	Well, so do you remember the report we went through last Friday with Harrison?
	Neil O'Brien and Robert Jenrick had released a report and they said that we've got the postgraduate degree visa scheme might as well be called the Deliveroo visa because people from Bangladesh are coming over, starting a master's degree, dropping out in the first two months and disappearing into the gig economy and then they're overstaying by multiple years.
	So that's what that's happened there.
	Why not just cut the visa scheme?
	Because obviously all our universities are hooked up to foreign money as an IV drip.
	Do you know why?
	Because they literally charge foreign students twice as much.
	Yes, and also most of the foreign students come over with more money so they can pay for more expensive student accommodation, which is usually linked to the university, so it prices native students out of this.
	I remember living in that accommodation.
	It wasn't particularly fun, but... I mean, the government could have regulated this and said, no, you're just going to have to charge them the same.
	They could have regulated it.
	Well, under Theresa May, they set the target, I think it was by 2026, they were going to have like 600,000 foreign students or something, and the target was totally arbitrary, and they achieved it in 2021.
	It's like, well, line go up, I guess.
	Infinite growth, always good.
	Now, even if they do get net migration down, even if they go down this route, it doesn't matter, because it turns out we're probably going to get a Palestinian refugee scheme.
	So this, this was a letter signed by 50 different MPs, peers and the like.
	There's some familiar names on there, some of the names you'd expect from the sort of like Labour Party, the sort of fifth columnists.
	But then we've got people- Nadia Witton.
	Yeah, the um, she's the MP for the Sontaran- Jeremy Corbyn, Jesper Lund.
	Sontaran Homeworld, yeah if I remember correctly.
	Um, but, but the interesting thing about this is obviously these are just The Labour MPs in waiting that are expecting to become the next government.
	As I covered on my show on Wednesday, it turns out that actually the shadow immigration minister for the Labour government has already confirmed that he's already drafting the legislation to pass through when the Labour win the election.
	It's based on the Ukrainian refugee scheme, which, bear in mind, had 200,000 people come in since it was implemented.
	So 200,000 potential Palestinian refugees, all of whom, according to Palestinian polling bodies, Why should we have to deal with the problems that Israel has created?
	I've never been to Israel.
	I'm personally not on the, oh my God, it's terrible, it's anti-Semitic narrative because that's just not my concern.
	I'm not in favor of it, but I do know these people also hate English people.
	So I don't want them here.
	They're a threat no matter where they are.
	So I'd rather not bring them in.
	Thank you very much. - Why should we have to deal with the problems that Israel has created?
	That's the issue.
	Sorry, you know, I just have no sympathy for either of these groups and I don't want them here.
	I'm happy for them to crush Hamas, I just don't want to pay for it or suffer the consequences of Palestinians looking to move elsewhere.
	And they mean me ill will.
	So no, I don't want hundreds of thousands of foreign potential terrorists that Egypt and Jordan won't take in even though they're neighbours because they're worried about terrorism, coming over here.
	And it looks like a pretty miserable inevitability.
	It turns out as well that even the current illegal migrants we've got, we probably won't be deporting them because the Home Office Department that's been tasked with carrying out the illegal migration bill that Rishi Sunak himself passed, has now been told to cut numbers by Jeremy Hunt.
	So the specific department they set up to carry out the illegal migration bill, they just set it up, and now they're being told to cut staff.
	This is Stuart Skeets, who's the Director General for Strategic Operations at the Illegal Migration Operations Command, and he wrote to colleagues this Tuesday to say his department has been told to cut the numbers of staff to pre-pandemic levels in line with the Chancellor's plans.
	Brilliant.
	I'm dreading the Labour government, but I am looking forward to the Conservatives getting crushed, frankly.
	Yeah.
	So I wanted to ask you, Ralph, because you're quite the European politics expert, and you're also a lot more chipper, so you might be able to... Yeah, this isn't your problem, so... Yeah, you might be able to lift our mood a little bit.
	Am I right in thinking that basically every European country is handling it better than the British?
	I know it's a really low bar, but Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, there's hope on the horizon, at least.
	Well, I wouldn't say that every European country is handling it better.
	I think the Danish have changed course, the Swedes have changed course, but it's important to mention they changed course.
	So they made the same mistakes that the British have been making.
	I mean, the situation we saw with the Eurovision music song contest, whatever the thing was, right?
	That Malmö is, in some areas, is a majority Muslim city.
	And by the way, this development started in 2004.
	So what I find ironic about this debate is now everybody says, oh my God, what is happening?
	You just see the tip of the iceberg, but the iceberg has been there for a very, very long time and 90% of it is still beneath the surface.
	The Germans have a horrible migration policy starting in 2015 under a conservative government, one has to say, and is now being continued under a left-leaning or far-left government.
	The problem, I think, there always is, and this is the issue in Europe as well as in Great Britain, I mean, I understand that, and we talked about this previously, that of course every political decision has a moral content, but I think there is no other policy area like migration that is almost exclusively approached from a moral perspective, and not at all from a national interest perspective.
	Like any other policy, you look at migration policies and say, okay, what is international interest and how would we have to design it for it to be a net positive for the people of this country?
	Because I think then we could really kind of also shift the conversation, as you correctly point out.
	The idea, whoever is responsible for this, the idea to bring hundreds of thousands of people from Gaza to Europe or the United Kingdom, I think the first question is, OK, what's the benefit for the British people?
	What's the benefit for the Europeans?
	You cannot ask that question.
	Why not?
	I would ask this question in any policy area.
	If there's a tax reform, I would say, why?
	What's the pros?
	What's the cons?
	If we build new renewable energy, I'd say, what are the pros?
	What are the cons?
	It's the same with migration.
	But this is the only topic where we say, We have a moral obligation.
	But let's be honest about this, or at least have the debate.
	Do we?
	What exactly is Austria's, the UK's, Germany's moral obligation to the Middle East?
	I mean, again, you can always construct... Maybe Britain's got more than Austria.
	Yeah, I would say so, yes.
	I mean, that's the beauty of Austria, right?
	No responsibility anywhere!
	Oh really?
	The last time you were here, you said something very funny but very important.
	And you said that all of our politicians look at a policy and then they go, what would Hitler do?
	And then do the opposite.
	Yes, I still stand by that.
	Yeah, and you're completely right.
	I've been drilling down on it in my shows in the last few weeks, but this is essentially the post-war mindset of anti-racism as the modus operandi for every single European state and America at this point.
	After the Second World War, because they're so afraid of acting in the interest of a particular people, a particular ethnicity, a particular culture, a particular history, that they get called, or suddenly magically contorted to, the Fourth Reich.
	So they have to do everything they can to accommodate from everyone for everywhere else, just to prove their non-racist credentials, so that they aren't the second career of Adolf Hitler.
	So that's why I think all of these politicians, including Tory MPs that are in this bloomin' debate as well, have considered the entire world their constituency, but they're neglecting the problems at home.
	I think you're right.
	It's this absurd thing.
	I think we drew entirely the wrong lessons from World War II.
	The lessons apparently we drew, or at least starting in the 1960s, if you will, was that nationalism, patriotism, kind of a believe in your own traditions, in your own culture, having a cultural backbone is actually a negative thing.
	But this completely ignores that Certainly, there's a long debate whether National Socialism was actually universalist and imperialist or nationalist, but there was a national core to it, right?
	The German element was very important.
	But by the same token, I would argue that if the British would not have confidence in their culture, if there would not have been British patriotism, I think they would have folded in 1939.
	And this is like, I don't want to overdo the whole World War II comparisons because people get tired of it.
	But it's an interesting thought experiment.
	Let's say that Britain in 1939 would have been multicultural Britain compared to fascist or neo-Nazi Germany and fascist Italy.
	Would they have fought?
	Or would the Guardian have said, who are we to tell?
	What do we know?
	We must understand.
	Maybe it's our fault.
	After World War I, we've been really hard on them, so don't we understand?
	But even if we were like, even if the Guardian was like, no, they're fascists, we've got to defeat them, blah, blah, blah.
	I mean, OK, do you think you're going to get the recruitment levels that you got in a homogenous, patriotic, self-confident state?
	No, I don't think you are.
	You know, I mean, if there's one thing we're seeing now, the militaries aren't capable of meeting their target.
	Which makes sense.
	If you tell your younger generation that your country is the font of all evil, and now go and fight for that country.
	People are like, wait a moment.
	If the British Empire...
	Especially if the British Empire itself is now morally indistinct from the Third Reich despite being the engine which fought it and preceding it abolished the slave trade around the world as the single most expensive act of foreign aid in history.
	It makes no sense and so if you don't have a cohesive narrative no one can buy into it and no one can tell themselves a story.
	The problem with the Palestinians is they have a very strong story.
	They have a very strong ethno-cultural and religious story And we happen to be the villains in that story, so it's not very wise to bring them in here, and now we also have no infrastructure for eventually getting rid of them, because if they break in illegally, they won't be deported, and if after five years of a Labour government they come in, hundreds of thousands en masse, with no sunset clause for when they have to be sent back, which Conservative MP is going to have the courage to say, we're going to have to send these people home, actually?
	Nigel Farage?
	Well, funny you say that, actually, because a few Conservative MPs have started thinking, yeah, we're up S Creek without a paddle here, and Lord David Frost has said we might get fewer than 100 seats.
	Approaching zero.
	Because that's what the polling shows.
	Yeah, when he pointed that out, when he said there might be a hole in the submarine, they decided to threaten to throw him overboard.
	I mean, literally, they're going to lose 300 MPs.
	But what I don't understand, and I'm not from this country, so maybe you can explain it to me.
	If we look at all the polls that we have, like, you know, Matthew Goodwin is doing a lot of the polling.
	The British population, I mean, or the British electorate, it's clear where they stand.
	We're not being shy about this.
	This is the thing I don't understand.
	What can we do?
	How can we reach the voter?
	How can we frame our message?
	The problem is not the framing of the message, the problem is the message.
	If you don't say, or if you don't even pretend that you're willing to do what the majority of the people want, No wonder that they turned their backs towards you.
	I mean, what I find so odd in Britain, and this is, for me, this is so German for me, so I'm surprised that the British do it, but if I understand correctly, and please immediately stop me if I'm wrong here, so that a significant part of the British population is mad at the Tories for not really governing Conservative, so therefore they're going to vote for the even more left-leaning party.
	Most of them aren't converting.
	The majority of people are just not voting.
	Oh, they're not voting?
	Matt's poll says 6 in 10 who voted in 2019 are just staying home.
	Yeah, so we have the actual results of this as well, because we've had several by-elections, and so you get fringe candidates like George Galloway, who normally wouldn't be able to win anything, winning on sizable majorities, just because the vote just tanks.
	And so he's winning by a number of votes that's like, you know, Half of what previously voted the previous year.
	So just if any amount of people have just been voting for the Conservatives, the Labour Party wouldn't be winning this.
	It's just the Conservative voters staying home and saying no.
	So it's even worse.
	So it's not that the Conservatives lose votes to the Labour Party.
	They lose voters to the non-voting bloc.
	It's just like me after I go on a date two times and I kind of turn women into a tally of men.
	The same thing in a political round.
	It's exactly because the Labour Party has got this sort of, about a quarter of the electorate is just diehard, we're always going to vote Labour.
	And the Conservatives can quite reliably beat them because about a third of the electorate will happily vote Conservative.
	And so, and then the rest is just split among the secondary parties.
	And so the Conservatives can generally pull off quite good wins if they've got a relatively appealing platform.
	It's just at the moment they've got Rishi Sunak and infinite managerialism and infinite migrants in yeah infinite like spending of money infinite nothing conservative is going on and so the conservative society won't bother just won't bother and so that 25 percent is going to score a massive unprecedented electoral victory that will make Tony Blair look like an amateur And it'll be under Keir Starmer, the world's least charismatic man.
	So they're thinking, how do we pick up 10% instantly?
	I don't know, maybe we just allow people to run as Reform and Conservative MPs.
	Like people allow them to run as a Labour and Co-operative party, for example.
	So we'll just fold Reform, a Tory light, into the Tories.
	But why would Reform want this?
	Reform must surely be smelling the blood in the water and being like, OK, we're just going to eat you whole.
	You know, why would reform need this?
	Because then they instantly become MPs.
	Sure, but, like, you've got five years.
	If Tice was a campaigner...
	Like, if TICE was a campaign.
	Ah, there we go, yeah, yeah.
	There you go, yeah.
	And also, I find it very interesting, right, so in these interviews, so Andrea Jenkins, who is the woman who recently, she's one of the only people that's put her name to a no-confidence letter in Rishi Sunak, she's the one that flipped off the Remain lawyers.
	She was pro-Brexit.
	The other week, she hosted a cost of illegal migration debate where she did a full breakdown report, revealing that actually we're spending £14 million a day, not £8 million, turns out.
	Four MPs showed up, only two of them because they were forced to, whereas the rest of them all showed up for the Gaza debate.
	Yeah, they have utter contempt for us, right?
	She said, look, can we just fold them in and get rid of some of the One Nation lot and swap them out and so we can have a bit more of a robust Conservative party.
	I think she's being sincere.
	Yeah, I think she probably is.
	Um, Jacob?
	Jacob Rees-Mogg is saying that we need to unite the right.
	Now, I'm not saying that Jacob's being insincere, but I am saying that Jacob has flip-flopped on quite a few things.
	Jacob Rees-Mogg is a cunning political operator.
	He's a party man.
	He's a party man, and he doesn't stick his neck out when it's not necessary, even when it's the right thing to do.
	And at the moment, he can see the iceberg that the conservative Titanic is about to crash into, and he's saying, well, look, can we just please change course?
	No.
	It's also, I think he wouldn't stick his neck out if there wasn't the infrastructure there to make it safe.
	Yeah, yeah, he won't.
	To lay it out for the background, some of Jacob's former staff run a body that funds GB News.
	That body also is good friends with Liz Truss.
	The body that Liz Truss has set up, the Popular Conservatives, is headed by Mark Littlewood, former person at the IEA who went to university with Liz.
	He's good friends with Nigel Farage, who's Nigel Farage, obvious host on GB News and head of Reform UK at the moment.
	So there's a lot of intersecting, well-financed Friendly interests that are going on here that could say behind the scenes.
	Well, okay if Liz Truss wants to reap revenge on the Conservative Party for cooing her we've got popular GB news hosts that could bring reform in and this could write the Tory ship and prevent a Labour government and also we would lose a lot of money if we were in opposition for five years.
	Yeah.
	It makes sense that this bet is safe for Jacob to make because notably it's necessary because he's going to lose his seat if the polling's It's been redistributed.
	Yeah, especially after the recent by-election that Ben Habib was fighting, and it was the Wellingborough and Kingswood one.
	I think it's Kingswood that's getting grafted onto his with a bunch of Labour votes, so Jacob Rees-Mogg is likely to lose his parliamentary seat if things don't change.
	And so I think it's very interesting that he's made this bet as well, because other Conservative MPs have criticised the party and haven't been slung out.
	The Lib Dems, after this segment, called on him to be slung out.
	Rishi Sunak, Dead silent.
	Sunak can't afford to be making hard borders because everyone, well no one likes him, so.
	The interesting thing is though, Mog here did say, what we need is a big open and comprehensive offer to those in reform.
	The prime minister should offer candidate selection to senior members of the reform party such as the estimable Ben Habib, GV News contributor, Richard Tice, GV News contributor, and the one and only Nigel Farage.
	Anyone notice a name missing off that list?
	The Anderson.
	Oh yeah, of course.
	Hmm.
	The Anderson who was kicked out of the Conservative Party for saying Sadiq Khan was giving Islamist protesters a run of London, and where did he defect to?
	Oh, reform!
	That'd be a bit of egg on the face for the Conservative Party, wouldn't it?
	Be a bit confusing for them to do that.
	Not surprised they didn't bring it up.
	Yeah!
	It'd be a bit of a difficult backroom deal to do, wouldn't it?
	It's almost like politicians aren't quite honest.
	And so he kept hammering on this, basically.
	It's been quite interesting, the last few days.
	He said, the parties remain separate, this could hand victory to Labour on a plate, even though if you added the percentage of Reform UK onto the Conservatives, they wouldn't tip it past.
	You'd basically need Nigel Farage to become Reform's proper leader and offer him, like, deputy PM or party leader.
	The Conservative platform would have to just be end immigration.
	Yes.
	That's what it would have to be.
	Well, this is, right, that's the absolute mad thing, right?
	Rees-Mogg is saying, conservatism means slashing net migration, stopping the small boats, leaving the ECHR, rolling back net zero, building more homes and unleashing Britain's latent growth.
	Right, so nothing you've done for the past 14 years.
	Yeah, why, you've been in government!
	Conservatism is the opposite of everything we've done.
	Yeah.
	So basically, he's governing of, like, what would Farage do?
	And then do the opposite.
	Yeah.
	Not great.
	So Patrick Christus, actually, on the day that Mog did this, asked Farage what he thought.
	And Farage said, It's an extraordinary thing to say, but Jacob should play a bit of Supertramp.
	Their top track is called Dreamer, and it's just not going to happen because Rishi is not bold.
	He has no leadership whatsoever.
	He doesn't.
	Note that.
	It's not going to happen because Rishi won't do it.
	Not because I'm turning it down.
	Fascinating, right?
	So, then he had some Lib Dem MP on and he said, oh, I don't think you should be thrown out of the party, unlike what my party says.
	I think you would lose lots of voters and MPs, though, if you did have Farage in and Rees-Mogg's just gone, I think we've lost them already.
	This is him declaring war on Michael Gove, basically.
	Good, but why did it come to this?
	Like, I just don't understand the Conservative Party.
	It's like, okay, well, we're about to get trashed in the election.
	We need to get the red meat out.
	It's like, okay, but if the red meat is what gets you voters, why isn't that the party policy?
	All day, every day, and why wouldn't you just continue to sail off into the sunset?
	I just... Nigel Farage has the same opinions of you, actually.
	I bet he does, because it's a sensible opinion!
	We'll finish on a little clip, because, um, Jacob just invited Farage on the next day to have a conversation about it, and he just said point blank, will you join me?
	And, um, Fraud wasn't polite. - On this, the problem here is twofold.
	Firstly, I think you underestimate the level of contempt that is felt for the Conservative Party, especially post-2019.
	It is a sense of betrayal, And the big one is immigration.
	The sheer scale of change that is happening in our communities.
	You think Blair was bad?
	Try this for size.
	Try this for size.
	The Conservative Party allowed more people to settle in this country in 2022 and 2023 than came from 1066 to 2010.
	I know.
	It was, what, 1.4 million net in two years.
	It is an astonishing figure.
	Net?
	No, gross 2.7.
	Okay, but net 1.4.
	Well, remember net is a lot of British people retiring to Spain or moving abroad.
	It's also students going home and things like that.
	But the numbers are stunning.
	I agree, I agree.
	The numbers are stunning.
	And I think that Brexit voters, and particularly the UKIPI-type Brexit voters, who for the first time in their lives were only Conservative in 2019, they feel an absolute sense of betrayal.
	That's the first problem that makes any pact of any kind unlikely to win.
	If it was possible, it might mitigate the level of disaster.
	But the other problem is this.
	I can sit and chat with you about these things, and I've got other friends on your wing of the Conservative Party who we campaign with in Brexit and everything else.
	You are, Jacob, not amongst the members, not amongst the voters, but within the Parliamentary Party, you're outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1.
	You do not represent the centre of gravity of the current Conservative Parliamentary Party.
	The thing that seems to me to mitigate against all of this is that if you were to be a leading figure within the Conservative Party, There would be absolute reassurance that at last we were serious about migration.
	You could not be in a Conservative cabinet that wasn't doing it properly.
	Unless we were continuing the con on the British people.
	But then you wouldn't do it.
	No, I wouldn't do it.
	In terms of the parliamentary party, dare I say that most members of parliament, of all parties, actually want to win their seat at the next election.
	I think the number who are avowedly pro-European and resent the Brexit result is actually quite small.
	And that if the Prime Minister were to take a lead on this, now that may be a big if, there is a real opportunity Because it's where the nation is.
	You see, you said we should both be in the same party.
	And I think if we were both in the same party, what we are offering to the electorate is what a plurality of voters want.
	It would win a majority and could then be implemented.
	The difference is, I'm in a party, albeit honorary president, that I agree with.
	You're in a party that you disagree with.
	Well, I agree with all the members.
	He's not pulling any punches.
	No, he's not.
	Basically, Jacob Rees-Mogg has been, and I don't want to be rude to Jacob, reduced to the position of basically grovelling, please save us.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	That was really impressive from Farage.
	Yeah, I know.
	So what do we think, fellas?
	To finish this out, is this an attempt at containment, to contain the rage at the Conservative Party by the Conservative Party infrastructure that are not quite as insane as Michael Gove?
	Is it likely to happen?
	What do we reckon?
	I mean, I don't know why Farage would want to do this.
	I mean, Farage is a campaigner, right?
	So I think that he can just bide his time until after the election.
	I mean, this is what I would do if I were him.
	I'd just bide my time until after the election.
	Watch the Conservatives get absolutely slaughtered.
	Watch probably the biggest defeat in British electoral history happen.
	And then just step out of the shadows and go, right, okay guys.
	We're recruiting, get in, we're going to be on the streets, in the buses, we're going to get around, and we're going to just flip this whole thing for the next election.
	We've got five years, let's get on with it.
	But I mean, Farage is 60 now, so who knows what he wants to do, right?
	But, I mean, I don't see why he needs to save them.
	That's the thing.
	Any thoughts?
	I mean, if I were to reform you, Kyle, I would take this video clip, you know, kind of plaster it all over the internet and say, we don't believe in the Tories.
	The voters don't believe in the Tories.
	The Tories don't believe in the Tories.
	I mean, this is, unless this has already been agreed upon behind the scenes, to go out with this and not having it, you know, kind of sealed up, this must have been one of the least strategically smart moves that you can make.
	Because you basically say, we don't believe in ourselves.
	Please save us from ourselves.
	Who would want to vote for such a party?
	Everybody wants to be on the side of a winning party.
	You want to be with the guys who are confident.
	You want to be with those, you know, or the underdog that's about to crush it.
	And this is the exact opposite.
	This is a very, very odd strategy.
	And as Carl said, I mean, it would be absurd for reform to go for it.
	This is their campaign spot.
	We are not the true conservatives.
	And you know who says it?
	The conservatives.
	The best thing that can happen to you.
	And literally calling them traitors to their faces.
	Yeah.
	You betrayed us and you burned up all of the goodwill that you amassed.
	Boris got a staggeringly good win.
	He flipped seats that have never been conservative.
	And you just set that on fire and put an Indian in charge in his place.
	And it's like, well, no, I'm sorry.
	Now you sound like Prince Philip.
	Well, yeah, but that's the point.
	It's like... Or Joe Biden.
	It's like, look, Rishi is not representative of the country, right?
	That is just the fact of the matter.
	In any way, he's insanely wealthy, he doesn't come from Richmond in Yorkshire, he is of Indian extraction.
	And so people voted for Boris, the bumbling English aristocrat Fool.
	And then the members at least voted for Liz.
	And yeah, whatever you think of trust, again, she is at least representative of the country.
	And then you're like, no, we need the Indian manager to come in and just tell everyone it'll be great.
	And it's like, sorry, I'm sorry, but this is just not acceptable.
	You know, this is just not how these things should work.
	I mean, we're at a point in time where all of the constituent nations of the British Isles were governed by people of foreign extraction.
	And I don't want to, I'm not like someone who's particularly bothered about this sort of stuff normally, but it's the way this was done.
	You know, if Rishi had won an election, okay, totally fine.
	You know, and if Rishi came out, like, I mean, I would vote for Suella Braveman.
	Yeah.
	Like, hell, you know, she, she's got great policy.
	She's got, you know, she's got great attitude towards it.
	I'd vote for Suella Braveman.
	But, you know, she can be functionally representative, substantively representative in the things that she'll do, but Rishi isn't that, and he was put in, and so he doesn't look like us, he doesn't act like us, he doesn't do conservative things, and it's just like, what did you think was going to happen?
	You know, what did you... Sorry, I know I'm going off on one, but it just really annoys me.
	I'm looking forward to the YouTube short of that because I couldn't have summarised it better myself, boss.
	That won't go on YouTube.
	True, fair point.
	This probably won't go on YouTube at all.
	But anyway, we'll keep updates coming as we do.
	I like following Westminster stuff.
	And next week, when I talk to Liz Truss, I'll be asking her.
	Insufferable.
	Honestly, I... I just wanted to wind you up, that's it.
	Yeah, no, it does.
	So, can we get the next one up?
	It is a dangerous time to be a politician, so I thought I would introduce two Islamic concepts to you.
	The concept of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.
	And what these mean are the house of peace and the house of war.
	These are the two worldviews that underpin the Islamic worldview.
	And so you might be thinking, OK, well, how does this apply to us?
	Well, it applies to us in the way that people think of left and right.
	The left, very clearly, the right hasn't learned this yet, has their own version of the Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Hab.
	If you're a left winger, you do something left wing, then you're one of us and you're in the house of peace.
	And we love you and would defend you to the end of time.
	If you're in the house of war, then it doesn't matter if you're a good person.
	We hate you and you need to This is the friend-enemy distinction in action.
	Very much.
	So we understand this applies to the left and right, but the thing is, I think that many people on the left have got to realize that actually, they are not the Dar al-Islam.
	The populist left-wingers, like Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, and of course, Robert Fico, they're not in the Dar al-Islam.
	They're not in the House of Peace.
	They are on the porch, trying to get in.
	But actually, they're something else, because the House of Peace in the West is the International Managerial Liberal Order.
	Aren't on board with that?
	Well, you're actually in the house of war.
	You just don't know it.
	And that's what I think we can learn from this.
	I mean, you remember Bolsonaro got stabbed?
	Bolsonaro very obviously in the house of war for the left, right?
	And so when a mentally ill communist, but I repeat myself, stabs him when he's on his campaign trail, nearly killing him, he just gets called mentally ill and then just get let off.
	So no punishment.
	By obviously, didn't you know that?
	Was he not incarcerated at all?
	No.
	So he's in some taxpayer-funded resort, basically, where he'll be given everything he needs forever after stabbing who became the president of Brazil.
	doesn't go to jail and so he's in some taxpayer funded resort basically where he'll be given everything he needs forever after stabbing uh who became the president of brazil and we know why they do this the left looked and go look at his social media history he's a communist well we can't punish him if this was the reverse if this was um lula getting stabbed by some bolsonarist oh he'd probably been executed in public you know it would have been of the treatment of the january
	six protesters who didn't even violate the guide ropes of the capital when they were walking around who literally were let in by the police yeah and they've been held in solitary confinement for four years straight yeah and they're still there by the way which obviously injustice but the point is they're in the wrong house right they're in the house of war versus the house of them and And, like I said, the modern West has this too, and we call it the end of history, right?
	Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, he makes this explicit, where he says, look, there's the liberal West, that's the end of history, and then the historical world.
	And in the historical world, that's the house of war.
	The end of history is the house of peace.
	And this is why I think it's worth pointing out to the left, the populist left, you're not in the house of peace.
	You just think you are.
	Right?
	And this, I think, was brought to sharp relief with Robert Fico.
	Now, Robert Fico, I don't know a huge amount about him, so I just went to his Wikipedia page.
	I was like, right, okay, let's see what we can learn from this.
	It turns out, oh, he joined the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia back when that was a thing.
	Then he joined the Party of the Democratic Left.
	Okay, then he dropped that and then created the Social Democrat Party, is it?
	In Slovakia.
	And so he's very much a man of the left.
	And you can see this from all of the policies he does.
	Very left-wing policies.
	So he empowered trade unions, creates severance pay, and all these sort of things back in 2012.
	He changes the flat tax system to make sure that wealthy people pay more money.
	All these sort of Bernie Sanders sort of policies, Jeremy Corbyn policies.
	And this, again, we've seen with Jeremy Corbyn.
	He thinks he's in the House of Peace until Keir Starmer, who actually is in the House of Peace, ruthlessly removes him from the Labour Party.
	Like Stalin-esque levels of, no, you're gone.
	You are just non-person.
	And so FICO has got a very sort of Corbyn-esque sort of policy.
	He's been, but as you say, the sort of the nationalist left.
	He's Islamophobic, should we say?
	Right.
	He has said that thousands of terrorists and Islamic State fighters are entering Europe with migrants.
	We monitor every single Muslim in Slovakia.
	But the thing about his Wikipedia bio I particularly appreciated was his relationship with the media, which you won't know, but you might know.
	It's fun.
	They say, during his press conferences, he often verbally attacks, belittles and taunts the present journalists, often accusing them of bias and attacks on his government.
	On several occasions, he has openly and on record used profanities against specific journalists, calling them idiots, pricks, prostitutes, snakes and hyenas.
	He has also been recorded ridiculing journalists' physical appearance.
	He repeatedly described the Slovak press as a new opposition force that was biased and was harming the state and national interests, and failing to stand behind the common people.
	In 2021, he described journalists as Soros's gang of corrupt swines whom water is already boiling.
	He said the media is obsessed with him, wants to destroy his party, and are waging a jihad against it.
	Well, at least you can't accuse him of being dishonest.
	Yeah, or standing on the fence.
	He said that journalists were an organized criminal group with the aim of breaking Slovak statehood and called on the Slovakian police force to investigate them.
	He was the Prime Minister of Slovakia, by the way.
	So, very Trumpian in his rhetoric, but not right-wing.
	Obviously left-wing in his policies and his history.
	And so, in June 2023, a group called Reporters Without Borders asked him to stop legitimizing harassment of the journalists.
	His argument, you're trying to destroy Seleucian statehood and reporters without borders, like, yes.
	Why?
	Why are you doing this?
	And so lots.
	But as you can see, the point being, he's not in the House of Peace.
	He is in the House of War.
	The House of Peace is the international stateless world order.
	And he's not a part of it.
	And this is the sort of Jeremy Corbyn position.
	You have to understand they aren't your friends.
	And so.
	He was shot in broad daylight recently by a 71 year old man which is weird.
	I did hear a suggestion this might be mafia related because there is a lot of organized crime in this state but we don't have any confirmation.
	Well there's no particular reason to think it.
	Obviously, we're not going to show the video or anything, but he's approaching a group of supporters and a man called Juraj Cintula shoots him in the chest.
	So, according to Slovakian news outlets, they say the perpetrator is a self-described writer and poet from a small Western town and a founding member of the Rainbow Literary Club.
	Now, that might not have the same connotations in Slovakia.
	Right, okay, so I was going to say, is this an instance of the traditional communists versus the gay race communists?
	Possibly.
	But I don't know, so I'm not going to say.
	But the thing is, this Sintula chap, he doesn't seem like he is an advocate of the international liberal order, at least from statements that they've found on social media.
	One statement was the inhabitants tradition and country and culture from migrants coming outside of Europe is different.
	And so, oh no, sorry, I misread that actually.
	They should protect the inhabitants country and tradition and culture from migrants coming from outside of Europe.
	Sorry, so I've read that wrong.
	So he was in favor of the international liberal order.
	And one of their TV stations reports a video of him saying, I don't agree with the government's policies.
	Why are the media being targeted?
	Why is RTVS, which is a media outlet, being under attack and various others?
	And so allies of FICO have blamed the liberal media for the attack, accusing the journalists of creating the environment that promotes hatred for FICO and its populist policies.
	And this is a pattern that we have seen before.
	This is why Bolsonaro was stabbed.
	This is why, like, when AOC was like, oh, there are concentration camps on the borders, and then one of her fans goes and attacks one of these concentration camps on the borders and gets shot, you know, they know that what they would call stochastic terrorism is something that happens.
	And this appears to be a case of that.
	So it's for the left, the populist left have to understand that the Apparent plausible deniability, the liberal media will hide behind and say, well, look, you know, we're not ginning up people against you.
	It's just, you know, if this thing's happened, this thing's happened.
	Well, that can happen to you too.
	And that's what I think has happened in this case.
	Any thoughts?
	Yeah, I think it's even worse because, I mean, I think we all agree, right?
	That violence or political assassinations are to be rejected.
	But pointing, would you just start kind of adding on to this a little bit?
	What was fascinating was the reaction in the media.
	In the German-speaking media, but also in the English-speaking media, if you read it, some stated it outright.
	For example, Der Spiegel, which is kind of the leading weekly magazine in Germany, they literally wrote in their first article that he contributed to his own assassination by poisoning the political climate.
	So there's this kind of, and every other article started with the pro-Russian populist Slovak Prime Minister basically saying, really, really bad man gets shot, which is kind of wink, wink.
	Did he have it coming?
	It was like she was wearing a short skirt.
	I mean, I would never use the words that Fico has been using.
	Fico is an interesting figure because he is a little bit like people comparing to Orban, but Orban is a statesman more.
	Fico is a little bit, even in the way he speaks, he could be prime minister.
	I think if he would not have gone into politics, he would be a mobster or, you know, running a, which maybe by the way, if rumors can be believed, that's something he does as a kind of a sideshow running a criminal organization.
	But that's besides the point.
	He's not entirely wrong in what he's saying, right?
	There is a kind of political media cartel in the West, and that's not a conspiracy.
	I mean, we see this every time there is a poll taken among journalists.
	Who do you vote for?
	But you see where they stand ideologically, and they don't make a secret out of it.
	I don't think we need to question the existence of this at this point.
	Yeah, it's obvious there's an international liberal media consensus and you can identify them by the way that they describe the people they don't like.
	As you say, you know, evil right-wing populist gets shot and he deserved it.
	Okay, well we know whose side you're on.
	Also, the stories are all downstream from the same place, like the Associated Press gets the press briefings, they get the photos, and then the other outlets have to go cap in hand to them, so they've all got to keep each other on side and go to the same cocktail party, so it's a nexus that disseminates only one opinion down to everyone else, and so you get into this position where it's morally legitimate to assassinate your political enemies.
	True, but I think it's symbolic of something else.
	And I think that we can actually build a nice bridge to the previous conversation.
	Because, of course, the contemporary journalists, you know, in the mainstream media, whatever you want to call it, I mean, they're educated in the same institutions.
	They're marinated and socialized in the same beliefs as the bureaucracy is.
	So this always worries me.
	Let's assume, let's play the hypothetical.
	Nigel Farage gets into power.
	Nigel Farage becomes prime minister.
	My worry is always, You don't need a populist right-wing leader.
	You don't need a permanent leader if you have a permanent bureaucracy.
	And I think this is the big problem.
	What you would have to do, and I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect here, but basically, and this is true in all continental European countries as well, basically you would need a purge of the bureaucracy.
	Not saying, you know, drag it, but basically fire them and rehire people.
	By the conditions that we ask about primarily.
	For example, I would have no problem at all to say somebody who wants to be a civil servant has to demonstrate, and we can discuss in what shape or form, a certain loyalty or dedication to the country.
	It's exactly the opposite of DEI, because we live in this absurd world where we tell people who want to join the public service to make a dedication, to profess loyalty to everybody but their own country.
	It's just like saying, you know, it's like me joining The Manchester United fan club, and they say, in order to become a member of this fan club, you have to swear allegiance to Manchester City.
	It would be absurd, but I think we do this in public service, we do this in the media.
	We'll probably get back to this at some point.
	There is this element almost of shame when it comes to being loyal to your country.
	And I'm not talking about rah-rah Great Britain.
	Just saying you're a public servant, right?
	You're in the bureaucracy.
	So what should at least to some extent be on your mind is, you know, my role, my dedication is to to increase the benefit, the well-being of the British people.
	That should be like the most obvious thing in the world.
	But it isn't.
	And I think this is and I'm sure we're going to talk about this as well.
	The problem really does start with the universities, let me rephrase this, with the education system.
	Because that is where you instill certain values in people and you instill them to such a degree that they come to us like second nature.
	Even I, honestly, I am considering myself a nationalist, a patriot.
	But even as I'm saying it, I kind of always have to convince myself of it.
	Even if I read, for example, I think there was this one recent British politician, I forgot her name, I'm sure you know, who was kind of now paddling back a little bit and saying, sometimes men can be women and women can be men.
	Oh, there are lots of them.
	I know it's not true, but there is a part of me that says, But if everybody says so, maybe it is.
	But this is a cultural phenomenon.
	My brain says one thing, but my gut says something else.
	It's like cognitive behavioral therapy.
	You kind of reprogram yourself.
	But that's hard work.
	I mean, Conor, you, Carl, we're in a position where we do nothing but digest culture and politics.
	But many people who live hard-working lives don't have the time to do this.
	So they are also then marinated by the media, but it's in this worldview.
	And they know that it harms them, but it's so internalized that they can't do anything.
	Basically, in a sense, and pick which term you prefer, It's either a kind of collective Stockholm syndrome, right?
	We know we're kind of under control, you know, or ruled by an elite that does not have our best interest at heart.
	Or it's like the kind of bettered wife syndrome, right?
	Everything happens.
	Well, maybe I did something wrong and they just mean best and, you know, then they push me downstairs.
	I think one of the big problems as well is that no valid alternative moral framework is ever presented to these people as well.
	Any moral framework that's based in patriotism is just stigmatized from the word go for the international liberal order.
	That's the only thing that's moral anymore and so the journalists and all the incentives push them into that stream and so they just go with the flow.
	But it's such, I agree with you, but it's also such an ahistorical approach.
	What bothers me is we have, of course, the present company excluded and myself, but in many ways, even these political and philosophical debates have become so shallow in many ways, even if you look at how it is written in the opinion pages.
	Nationalism, if we take it as a kind of historic, the history of nationalism is actually one of a very, very Open and integrative force.
	We tend to forget this.
	We think about nationalism.
	Well, we think about, I don't know, everybody thinks about the Nazis.
	But if you look at the United Kingdom, I think it was a great accomplishment to get the Welsh, the Scots, and the English together in one country, the United Kingdom.
	And was it five or six?
	I don't know how many Scotsmen were actually British Prime Ministers.
	Oh, loads.
	Yeah.
	Yes, so this is really an accomplishment that this was made capable because nationalism actually goes beyond ethnicity.
	There's a strong cultural element to it and that is something worth preserving and it's the precondition for a functioning society.
	I mean, how do you want, if you have a bureaucracy in politicians, Whom you tell that kind of a strong emotional attachment to your country is either negative or not necessary, then of course the only thing that motivates them is money.
	I mean, you basically make corruption the default position, which, by the way, you see in the European Parliament.
	I mean, you send people there and tell them you are there in the name of your country, but, you know, you can't, you know, that's not right.
	We have buffed it.
	So there's an international rules-based order that we're trying to uphold.
	But that doesn't really exist.
	Well, you could argue, as you see currently in Brussels, that this weird gay flag, whatever it is, is the kind of flag of this movement.
	But it's not real, right?
	People mock nationalism.
	They mock national anthems and these kind of things.
	But that is something real that is there, right?
	History is something that, however you interpret it, that's something that exists.
	But as you correctly point out, that liberal international order, that's not really something you can be... How are you loyal to that?
	How does that work?
	It becomes like a divine inspiration.
	It's almost like we're going to bring about the kingdom of God, you know, where it's something like it's from very far away and something in the ether, but they feel the load of it being pulled, the heart pulled towards them.
	Yeah.
	But anyway, let's let's carry on for a minute, because thankfully Fico is in stable condition after the shooting.
	So he's going to survive.
	And I thought we'd I mean, you're absolutely right how they would kind of justify it.
	Uh, and say, well, you know, he kind of had it coming, which is what they did on Sky News.
	Um, I think, uh, just watch this.
	Cause it's just one of those things where it's like, it would be so easy to just come out and say, wow, that was wrong.
	Very divisive in Slovakia.
	It's divisive within the EU.
	So it's not surprising that this sort of event might take place because it's a very unhappy country at the moment, Slovakia.
	Not just on this basis, but on the basis of how the country is going in general towards a more authoritarian future or a more conventional West European sort of future.
	Okay.
	Divisive just means he doesn't assent to the international global managerial order, which we have preordained as the inexorable path on which history is going, so he's a speed bump on the road to utopia.
	And the country is going towards authoritarianism.
	You mean the country's voting for people you don't agree with.
	Because that's what's happened.
	And I would add something because this is really something where I have a very hard time controlling my own emotions.
	Like what you just heard, right?
	Going into a more authoritarian direction or in the more common Western European direction.
	If you look at the more common quote-unquote Western European direction, they try to outlaw right-wing parties everywhere from Germany to Spain.
	That's also authoritarianism.
	They're trying to criminalize Trump.
	The hate speech laws, they're talking about Scotlandia, Bolsonaro.
	So this is the so-called, as you say, the so-called normal West is constantly trying to weaponize the legal system against those who think differently.
	They go over to, like, smart tech and say, ooh, these people are very dangerous.
	Exactly.
	Even though he's popular, he keeps winning elections.
	They're not accusing him of cheating.
	It's just like with Viktor Orban.
	It's like, oh, he's a dictator.
	No, he's not.
	Why would you even say that?
	He spent eight years out of government and now he's back in government.
	What are you talking about?
	It's just that he's not an adherent to the international liberal order.
	Keir Starmer will never have a hit piece written about him.
	Because he is.
	He's 100% the global managerial type.
	They don't write hit pieces about Rishi Sunak.
	Like, notice how the media treats Rishi Senate with kid gloves because he's a part of it as well.
	And so this is just one of those things that people have got to pay attention to.
	And so I just thought we'd end this by pointing out that actually the House of Peace that the International Liberal Order is trying to build is actually not as peaceful as they might be thinking.
	So just, you know, just a quick reminder.
	I mean, you'll remember Pim Fortune shot by an insane left winger because he was like, not sure this Islam stuff is actually that great, folks.
	And so he got shot in the head back in 2002.
	Shinzo Abe got assassinated by some mental because of a grudge he had against the Unification Church.
	I don't really know anything about it, to be honest.
	David Armas, who was just stabbed in his surgery, constituency surgery, by an Islamist terrorist.
	You have Joan Cox.
	All his colleagues just dead silent on it.
	Oh, they all said, well, you know, It was online harms, still to this day.
	Marc Francois, who I normally like, tried to pass David's law to censor online speech.
	Yeah, because a tweet stabbed him.
	Yeah.
	And so just to be clear, I mean, you've got Joe Cox who was stabbed by a sane right-winger before Brexit.
	You had the attack of the Donald Trump LA rally in 2016.
	And then you've got other ones in America.
	You've got the 2011 Tuscan shooting.
	You've got the shooting of Clementa Pinckney.
	And then you've got other people who are political, but not necessarily politicians.
	People like Salma Rushdie, who got stabbed losing an eye.
	And then just pointing out that, hang on a second, what are all these attacks on politicians doing?
	It's like, hang on a second, I thought you said the House of Peace was about ending violence in the political system.
	No, that didn't happen.
	You're just lying.
	I mean, third world dictators don't have this many attacks on them.
	You know, this is something that you're not taking into account.
	That if you say, well, no, we're all just going to get along.
	Well, that only holds until someone decides, no, I'm not going to do that, actually.
	And now I'm going to stab someone.
	Now I'm going to shoot someone.
	And this is, again, this is on the politicians.
	Like the other day in Parliament, when Lindsay Hoyle was afraid that another politician would just be murdered and the entire parliament had this gross pawl over it where they were afraid oh god just any at any point someone could just jump up and kill a politician it's like welcome to our world you're actually still living in it you know whatever you think is going to come out of the the eternal liberal order is not working for you for the politicians or for the people on the ground just be aware Can I add on something, because I think you're absolutely right.
	And this is, I think, the problem that people like Sunak and people like him really have, is they're a little bit like the Bourbon Restoration.
	So they thought, OK, there was this populist wave in 2016 and a little bit before.
	So we had it also with Pim Fortuna, as you mentioned, who was shot in 2002.
	And they thought, OK, we can kind of put the genie back into the bottle.
	We can go back to how it was before, but you can't.
	And you see now, as it exploded in 1848, I think you see similar development.
	People are tremendously angry.
	And they try to say, well, it's just because they communicate so much.
	There is so much social media.
	But you could shut down X tomorrow and Instagram and whatever it is, and people would still be angry.
	This is the thing.
	The idea is, and this is what I do begrudge them, right?
	The idea is by so many in this, as you so aptly described it, in the managerial classes, that they are not really angry at you.
	They just think they're angry at you because populists tell them to be angry.
	But this is the kind of the new trend of the United States, where apparently the new line is to say, the economy is doing great.
	People just think they're getting poorer.
	And this, by the way, you see the same in Europe.
	I have this debate with German friends all the time.
	They say, no, no, the government is doing a great job.
	It's just the AFD lies to the people and tells them that they are getting poorer.
	Well, I think people like they pay bills, right?
	They know if there is more or less.
	But this is how it is now.
	They say, no, no, you are brainwashed.
	You don't see reality.
	I'm sure you guys followed this a couple of weeks ago, I think last week, when Winston Marshall had the Oxford debate with Nancy Pelosi.
	She said exactly that.
	She said exactly that.
	We have all the solutions, but people don't hear them because of what gays, guns, God, and this is what they think.
	And Rishi Sunak probably thinks the same thing.
	I guess he goes to bed and says, I'm doing everything right, but people don't see it.
	Yeah, it's a lie that they tell themselves, and it's making the world worse, and it's actually getting them killed.
	Indeed.
	It's getting the politicians attacked and killed.
	And, I mean, obviously the rest of us as well.
	So it's just, this can't hold forever.
	But again, just to be clear, the global liberal order will happily sacrifice you for it as well.
	They won't do anything about it.
	Nothing will be done about any of these things.
	And in fact, they'll come out and say, well, you kind of deserved it.
	Benny, we'll leave there.
	That was excellent, by the way.
	I just wanted to say.
	Oh, thank you.
	Very good framing, I really like that.
	And speaking of fun framing... So, do you remember quite a while ago, I think it was well before I started here, that yourself and Callum did a segment on the Yucca Macamorras?
	Yes.
	So it was the UK Global Minority... Was it?
	UK Minority Heritage, Global Majority Heritage.
	- Right. - And at the time, we laughed at that 'cause it's a very silly acronym.
	But when you think about it, actually, the Anglo-Saxons, and I'm gonna include that here because Ralph, God bless him, is German, you know, we have higher standards than most places in the world. - We used to. - Well, we imported those standards, right?
	We exported those standards and gave them morality.
	Instead, we now import lots of people that don't share those standards, that don't tell themselves the same cultural story, and we start wondering, why is public transport just full of people on speakerphone, speaking a language that sounds like it's from Star Wars or playing TikToks out loud?
	Well, thankfully, the Guardian have told us it's because of the COVID pandemic and not because of immigration.
	What's COVID got to do with this?
	Well, I'll read you the throbbing brain of Zoe Williams.
	Strap in, folks.
	So she says, phone signal went live this week across a quarter of the underground system in the capital, mainly in central London.
	Tried it today.
	It's rubbish.
	It doesn't work, just like everything else Sadiq Khan runs.
	With further coverage planned by the end of the summer.
	This is great news for people who can't go five minutes without talking, and bad news for everyone else.
	The previous lack of coverage, network coverage, was just about the only thing keeping us civil.
	Yeah.
	I happen to remember, right, that Japan, for example, when I went, on the overground, all their trains, you do have phone signal.
	And yet?
	And yet, I didn't hear Punjabi TikToks played aloud.
	But what I love about this is, I mean, look at this woman, right?
	That is almost a quintessentially English woman.
	It would be difficult to find someone who is more the platonic form of a kind of tutting English woman.
	She's the kind of aunt you'd expect to be correcting the women that are trying to get matched up in an Austen novel.
	Yeah.
	And so this form of English woman is going to have existed all the way back to the time of Hengist and Horsa, right?
	This kind of, you know, you know how things should be done, but you're not doing it.
	But what she can't admit is that this is a product of her ethnic particularity.
	You have the concern for loudness on the train because you're English.
	Yes.
	That's where this comes from.
	I bet she doesn't like it when they don't cue properly as well, right?
	All of these, these are not universal attributes as she has just found out, but she's going to have to blame it on something else because unfortunately for her, That's just the reality of it.
	We're all blank slates.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It must be external forces, mainly socio-economic factors, that are causing us to act this way.
	It's the cruelty of English civilisation from which I derive all of my standards in the first place.
	But also, look at the way it's just people who can't go five minutes without talking.
	It's like, okay.
	Why?
	Name where they've come from.
	You know, name, name the kind of person that you're talking about.
	It's just people who can't.
	Okay.
	But that's, it's not, it's not Chinese people on the train, is it?
	You know, no, it's actually different kinds of cultures who have different kinds of differences and you can't admit that.
	So she's got to talk around the subject.
	The other interesting thing is as well, yes, there is a platonic archetype of the kind of woman in England, and I'm sure there's those on the European continent as well, that will enforce social standards.
	I mean, I remember you talking before about Germanic tribes that would go around correcting promiscuity.
	So women do enforce social standards.
	And so if the social standards are wholesome, they will correct them in the community and you'll have that rich tapestry of community cohesion.
	It's a beautiful thing.
	So why doesn't she feel comfortable doing this to the people on the train?
	Karen is a force of civilization.
	I know, I know.
	I hate to admit it.
	The phrase Karen is anti-white propaganda.
	Genuinely.
	I refuse to use it, right?
	Customer service has become shit ever since you stigmatised the Karens.
	You shouldn't have attacked those women, right?
	So why does she not feel comfortable being Karen?
	I'm going to defend my aunties here.
	They're all Karens.
	Interfering aunties are correct.
	They are, right?
	You can put up with a little bit of busybodying to prevent... It's true.
	Infinity people of no particular origin, clearly, shouting on the phone on public transport.
	Yeah, why doesn't she go and Karen them?
	She is a Karen, go on.
	You know, and if it were me, you'd come and Karen me.
	Get on with it, why aren't you doing it?
	It's because you don't know these people.
	Yes, exactly.
	It's unfamiliar, and that unfamiliarity might have driven down the standards, but it turns out that's not the reason standards have been driven down, right?
	Across all transport networks, there has been a radical divergence in etiquette since the pandemic.
	Since SOMETHING HAPPENED that period... Has there?
	Who's etiquette?
	That period... It's perfectly normal etiquette in lots of parts of the world to literally have people hanging off the train.
	It's almost like that part of the world might have CHANGED how our train's run.
	That period there was minimal occasion to share space with strangers, which introduced a lot of complexity to a system that was already badly codified and somehow erased all the tacit consensus we'd reached beforehand.
	You know, if you, like, have a glass of water, and then you drop some chili oil in it, and you sip the water, and you go, whoa, something's upset the radical consensus of this water.
	It must have been because I've left it out for too long.
	It's like, no, it's the foreign element you've introduced to it, actually.
	The rules used to be incredibly simple.
	If you wanted to listen to anything on public transport, you did it with headphones.
	The only grey areas were around is anything audible through the headphones.
	Ideally not, but a young person with the volume up in a surfeit of jour de vive could get away with it.
	Unwritten cultural British rules.
	conversation be held with real life associate friends and couples normally stay pretty quiet but colleagues find it impossible because of the power imbalance science is awkward unless it's mutually agreed there are all these rich and intricate social expectations that are woven into just how you do things for consideration for the others unwritten cultural british rules yes and i'm sure these are the same basically in europe as well yes i would say so I mean, the one thing she writes in the article about the never talk to a stranger on the subway or the tube, I would slightly disagree with this.
	Yeah, that's totally untrue.
	I have to travel on a train through France going to the European Parliament.
	People would try and talk to me.
	Yeah.
	Why?
	That is really weird.
	Yeah, I know, it's really uncomfortable.
	Nobody talks to you in London.
	I know.
	But, you know, you don't interrupt someone else's personal space.
	Because the English are really weird because we expect to have our private lives in public as well.
	So this is why there's lots of quiet, polite.
	In fact, this is exactly what she's talking about.
	She is talking about this here, where it's like, well, why don't you just have it in heaven?
	So you're not in private.
	Like the expectation of kind of this privacy in public is actually really English and really weird.
	And the French don't share it.
	The Germans don't share.
	The most awkward thing that has ever happened to me was in 2009.
	I think I went to the Oktoberfest.
	I couldn't figure out how to pay for the bus.
	But the thing is, when you get on the bus, like in England, you've just got to pay the bus driver.
	But you don't do that in Germany, or at least in Munich.
	You have to do something with the bus, but it's all in German.
	I couldn't figure it out.
	And so I was just stood there and I could feel everyone looking at me going, he didn't pay.
	And I'm like, I would love to pay.
	Not one of them volunteered to show me how.
	Right.
	Not one.
	And so they're all just there giving me the sort of Karen death stares.
	I'm like, look, man, this is I want to pay.
	You know, I'm an Englishman.
	I want to pay my way, but I don't know how.
	And none of you will help.
	And I don't speak any German.
	And you're pretending you don't speak English.
	So now what? - You know?
	You're basically demonstrating global minority behaviour.
	I absolutely was!
	The global majority just plays TikToks out loud, it turns out.
	But no, apparently it's just because after Covid the brakes came off.
	It's now no longer unusual to hear music, TikToks, whole TV shows sometimes broadcast to the carriage, as if the phone and its owner are in a private world and everyone is just in a simulation.
	Some bystanders seem merely annoyed by this, but for others it is hell, since they can't tackle the original rule breach without themselves breaching an older rule, never engage with a stranger on the tube.
	I once unknowingly sat next to my actual dad on the Piccadilly line thinking, "Weird, that person smells like my dad," and didn't look directly at him until we were getting off.
	That's the level of standards is enforced, right?
	Because we were meeting each other.
	Now, I don't think it's purely because British people haven't been used to socializing with one another for a couple of years.
	I seem to think it's probably because of this.
	Ah.
	You look at 2021, and something happens where people from a different nation, not European mainly as well, where some of these standards are still in existence, the migration just shoots up.
	And it's particularly from places that, I mean, of course they have technology, but Recently adopted.
	They haven't developed many social customs around it yet.
	Yeah, they don't have etiquette.
	Yeah, not all of India has Wi-Fi.
	But all of Britain does, and the phones are more cheap and available, and now I have to listen to very loud phone conversations in Hindi on the Elizabeth Floor.
	You see it just walking through the street, just like they'll have the thing and it's like, blah blah blah blah blah blah, very loud, walking down the street.
	It's FaceTime!
	Why use FaceTime?
	Yeah, what to do?
	There's something specific about care workers in my area in South East London, right?
	All the care workers are African women, because that's the care visas, right?
	And they use speakerphone like this, and they shout into the speakerphone, it's like, There is a function at the top of the phone, if you just lift it to your ear slightly, and it happens to perfectly align with your mouth, actually.
	Sorry, if we can go back to the thing, right?
	I love this complaint where she was saying, where is it?
	The privates.
	There we go.
	They're in a private world and everyone else is just in a simulation.
	This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the English try to live their private lives in public, right?
	Because she's just like, why don't you just have... Because you're not showing me any consideration for my private world.
	Whereas in these countries, they obviously, you're not in private, you know, you're in public.
	Why would you think that other people's volume and interaction wouldn't interface with your own?
	But for the English, no, no, no, no.
	You know, we, you know, we've got, you know, I'm sat on my chair and I'm thinking, and the guy next to me isn't going to interrupt that because he's doing the same.
	He's got his own little private world going on.
	And her complaint is that they're intruding on her private world.
	But importantly, the inverse is true for other social consideration.
	So it's like, they do not think that you should have a right to privacy, so they blast out.
	So they're aware that everyone is around them, so they're in public.
	Yeah, they know.
	But then they're not aware, for example, when people are standing up and exhausted, like a pregnant woman that now has to wear a little, I'm pregnant, please give me a seat button.
	To get off of them the seat.
	Or, for example, all of these new... Have you noticed these new announcements on the... Obviously, you don't go to London very much, right?
	There's a lot of announcements on the Tube.
	There are posters on all the Tubes saying, staring and touching someone is an offence.
	And, oh, you must stand on this side of the escalator if you want to walk up.
	You must stand on this side.
	We didn't used to have those nitpicking announcements, those posters.
	Sort of a Wellian way of micromanaging everyone's behaviour.
	And they're basically defunct because all of them are written in English.
	And they shouldn't be written in English because the majority of people that don't do that are not English.
	Specifically, on the escalator, the amount of people... I get the Elizabeth line a lot.
	It's connected to Heathrow Airport.
	And I happen to know if they're grabbing a suitcase, they're probably not on their way to work.
	They stand on the side you're meant to walk up.
	And even if people are sort of looking at them and sort of expectantly going, sorry, can I...
	Don't move.
	No consideration.
	Maybe from a somewhat different direction, I'll slightly push back on this.
	I generally agree, but Jane Jacobs, she wrote a book about the life and death of great American cities and within this book she describes a scene where I'm hoping I'm not going to butcher it completely now, but basically where a parent is, you know, a child is unruly and basically the mother drags the child into the car.
	And she kind of describes how the entire surroundings, right?
	The guy who runs the butcher shop and says everybody was looking what was going on.
	So everybody kind of was saying, okay, is this like genuinely the mother taking care of the child or is this a stranger dragging another child from the street?
	And I grew up in a small town.
	I still go there on occasion.
	I have more privacy in Vienna in the large city than I have in my small hometown.
	But I admit that sometimes I like that lack of privacy because I know if I would fall down the escalator, most likely I would know a couple of people around there and I know somebody would help me.
	I'm not so sure if that would be the case in Vienna.
	Now again, I don't want to play one against the other.
	But going back to what you said, because I agree with what you're saying, but of course We have become so, maybe not private, but we have become so isolated from each other that in order to maintain a resemblance of order, then the state has to jump in.
	So if I can no longer trust, if my kid would play in the street, or I don't have any, but Carl, if your kids were playing in the street and you can no longer rely on the fact that all the parents in the neighborhood are kind of watching out for each other's kids, then at some point you're probably going to call for the government to do something about it.
	That's exactly what it's about.
	Friendship, basically.
	Agreed.
	And this goes back to, again, Conor, you're absolutely right.
	And this is why migration is such an important topic.
	If you can alter, this is not an evolution of...
	Countries and cultures change, but what we experience in the West is not an evolution, it's a transformation.
	It's top-down organization.
	Exactly, precisely.
	If you infuse so many, quote-unquote, foreign individuals, if you want, that kind of cohesion starts to fizzle away, that starts to break down.
	And this is the other kind of insidious thing.
	And this is, I guess, why so often governments potentially are in favor of it.
	Because as the kind of natural conditions of social life, where we kind of look after each other, as this breaks away, the government has to step in.
	What does the government need?
	It needs resources, more bureaucrats, more focus groups, more...
	More NGOs, more rules, more CCTV cameras.
	So these reinforce each other.
	As society, or community, that's a better word, as community retreats and is replaced by anonymous society, who becomes kind of the overarching organiser?
	The state.
	And we see this, right?
	This is why the state grows everywhere.
	I just wrote a piece on the European Conservative that came out this morning.
	I just read it this morning.
	Well thank you very much, yeah.
	Go and read it, it's good.
	Harrison Pitt edits it and he's on our show a lot.
	So what happened was, as Patrick Deneen and Yoram Hazony have written pretty eloquently, the sort of concentric circles of family, faith, community, congregation, cultural and historical identity, and nation, Yes.
	form like a Russian nesting doll that keeps you very safe from naked state power.
	And so if you are dislodged from all those because of the antagonistic relationship that the liberal state has with culture and nature, and you're born anew as like the self-creating liberal man, with nobody bearing down on your ability to enact your will, you exist at the behest of the state and their ideology.
	So you end up being like the homeless man wandering around an American city like Austin, itching for drugs and getting clean edels from the state with no one relying on you, no one who loves you, but no one that you are obligated to go towards.
	And this is what we're basically saying here.
	It's like the social contract engenders your right to be inconsiderate of other people.
	Yeah.
	And that's the whole reason that she's bothered about this is because she doesn't know the people around her.
	Precisely.
	This is a very English way of dealing with cities.
	The English are not natural city-dwelling folk, actually.
	Normally we live in little villages and you've got the Karens who are running around in everyone's business.
	But that's fine, because you're exactly right.
	It makes you feel like you're in this kind of web.
	That surrounds you and you're safe in it, you know, you're protected.
	And this is the way that the English developed the ability to live in large concentrations without knowing the people around you.
	Okay, we've all got the same level of propriety.
	We all know that, you know, that fellow's, you know, reading his paper or something.
	I don't want to disturb him.
	He's busy.
	But then I don't want him to disturb me.
	So the breach of the rules she's complaining about is that English propriety dealing with a bunch of strangers.
	Like I said, it's not that way in the villages, but of course it's going to be different.
	I think.
	But it's just remarkable how, to me, how the Guardian reading class feel it.
	Like, she feels this enough to go write this article.
	Like, this is interrupting her daily life.
	This is making her life unpleasant.
	And yet, it's just people.
	It's just those people who talk on the train.
	There might be COVID sufferers here.
	I hate COVID sufferers.
	No.
	Like, that's the least resolution you could possibly go on.
	You know, anyone would be able to triangulate this onto other characteristics or other behaviours or attributes or something like this.
	But you don't know.
	It's just this general, broad, universal problem.
	I don't get this when I go back home to, you know, Wentworth or wherever, you know, wherever she's from.
	She doesn't get it then.
	It's only when she's in the big city and she doesn't know why.
	I don't get it with my own family.
	They're more than considerate enough.
	So, The conclusion we've reached is essentially, don't think that the entire world acts like you.
	People are not blank slates.
	They tell themselves cultural stories, and sometimes those cultural stories don't contain consideration for others, and we need more Karens to enforce the global minority standards against the global majority.
	The problem is that the Karens have got no pull over the global majority.
	They only have pull over their own people.
	Although I did get Karened by an Icelandic woman once.
	I was traveling back from America and I was late to get on the plane and she was like, come on, everyone's waiting for you.
	I was like, oh God, I'm so sorry.
	But it's because she could tell that I would be responsive to that, right?
	You know, and so it is.
	Sometimes I know that many of your viewers and listeners are also by now annoyed by this topic, but it's just, Every time when you think these things cannot get crazier, they get crazier.
	And I just, it was, I think two days ago in the Telegraph, there was this headline, um, telling your Japanese colleague that sushi is your favorite dish is not racist.
	Judge, judge has decided.
	Thank God.
	So then I said, you know what?
	Better to sit in the subway, plug in my ear things, you know, have my huge newspaper, because if nobody sees me, I cannot accidentally do or say something racist.
	You can't be smacked by the stone tablet to answer racism.
	I mean, I know that you can no longer distinguish the kind of yellow press from the serious press, right?
	20 years ago, this would have been a joke, right?
	So I told my Japanese colleague I like sushi and now he's suing me for being racist.
	Yeah.
	That must be a joke.
	No longer a joke, my friend.
	Like, this is really happening.
	Thank God the judge came down on the right side of history.
	Let's assume you say, you know what, Ralph, wiener schnitzel is my favorite meal and I drag you into court.
	Mine's bratwurst, sorry.
	Buy me a drink first, fellas.
	But would you be sure that you would win the case?
	I mean, would you?
	That's the thing.
	I wouldn't be sure.
	Exactly.
	Like 20 years ago, that's ridiculous.
	Like the judge will say, are you insane?
	Get out of my court.
	But now, no, no, no.
	And on that note, with Clown World, we'll go to your comments.
	A couple of compliments right at the top for Ralph.
	Grant Gibson says, always love when Ralph joins the podcast.
	Thanks, Grant.
	And Andrew Miller, I was 10 minutes late.
	We do our best, right?
	We're living through civilizational decline.
	I'm sure the Romans felt the same way.
	Yeah, literally half the building just lost power this morning.
	Don't know what happened.
	Came back and whatever.
	We've got a black woman on it.
	I'm sure she's going to fix it for us.
	Ten dollars.
	Sean487.
	We are going to end up in court.
	You're missing the answer.
	Look to Alex's program in the state where corporations propose law.
	The congressmen and senators would put forth those proposals with a comma change.
	Elites were slaves.
	Yeah, they're just bought off.
	Yeah, they draw off legislation on their behalf.
	Yeah, shock.
	It's atrocious.
	Yeah.
	Sean again, the study from Stanford showed oligarchs were listened to 98% of the time, the electorate 0% in proposing laws.
	Look it up.
	Yeah, there's been a bunch of studies actually.
	I saw literally the electorate gets a 0% of what they want.
	Yeah, I'm not sure.
	I mean, I can't think of... The only thing I can think of in recent memory is Brexit, actually.
	And they did everything they could to ruin that and make sure that that was a punishment rather than something that was liberating to this country.
	But literally, and that was only because they had no goddamn choice, you know?
	It's like, okay, well, if we're put into a referendum, oh no, you know, it's come out the wrong way.
	Well, in their hubris, they thought they would win.
	Well, yeah, they thought they would win.
	Farage went to bed thinking, we might be lost, lads.
	Yeah, well, I did.
	I thought it was going to be over, and I was just like, oh.
	Oh my god, we won.
	What does that mean?
	Well, it means the global liberal order hates you now.
	They're going to do everything they can to destroy you now.
	This is what winning looks like.
	Indian Somalians milling about.
	Brilliant.
	Neo-Unrealist.
	Do you mean to tell me Farage and Reece Mogg never had that conversation privately together before How They Might Save Britain?
	I'm astonished Mogg seems surprised to hear Farage's position.
	This is what I'm saying.
	Agreed.
	It's absolutely been backroom conversations.
	I mean, for the GB News parties and Farage's birthday party and the like, Trust always shows up, Priti Patel, and there are obvious pre-existing relationships before it goes to air.
	But Mog did seem genuinely surprised at Farage's frankness.
	Yes.
	In that, where Farage was like, well, you're traitors and I don't really want to save you.
	It's like, okay, friend.
	Thanks very much.
	Anyway, see you at the Red Lion later.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	George Happ has an interesting proposal.
	The Tories in reform should join forces, and so they can be destroyed together, so the true right-wing nationalist party can rise from the ashes.
	They've proven there's no fixing of either of them.
	I mean, it is a shame, because there are, again, some good people within that vehicle.
	There are loads.
	Ben Habib!
	Ben Habib's very good.
	And not just that, all the people on the lower levels as well, all the activists.
	A lot of them are just really good people.
	It's like, I'm sorry, man.
	I know loads of, like, the Tory staffers and the Tory base.
	Some of them that work for MPs who watch this show.
	There are some MPs that watch this show!
	Same with the reform types, where it's a bunch of the UKIP people.
	When I was in UKIP, man, you meet all these people, they're all rock solid.
	Really good people just doing the best they can.
	And they get totally sold out by the leadership, and it's just like...
	Events loads of reform candidates have kept coming up to me saying we're sorry what happened about Bowmate like we don't think it was right either.
	So yeah the leadership is absolutely the problem.
	I'll read the next one.
	Hero Sunny Chaban sends a $20 soup chat saying even one immigrant a year is too many.
	The UK needs a minimum negative 200,000 a year preferably negative 1 million.
	Yeah, but this is the thing.
	I hate hearing the phrase net zero immigration.
	It's like, no, because that would keep it exactly as it is now.
	No, immigration has to be a net negative by a long way for it to become a livable place again.
	I mean, literally, just for the housing market alone, just for the amount of cars on the road, the amount of money we have to spend on the NHS, just all of these things.
	Millions of people just have to go home.
	You could cap it and link it to intermarriage for a couple of years.
	If someone marries a British person, fine, they can have citizenship.
	But if they've come here with a bunch of dependents to be a student for four years, then we'll just stop that because in four years' time they'll have gone home.
	I mean, literally every single year, about six or seven hundred thousand people just leave.
	So this is why, like, you know, I always point out to, like, extreme right-wingers and stuff.
	I'm like, look, we don't need to do anything crazy.
	We just need to stop the inflow.
	The outflow is happening, even as we speak.
	It's just the Conservatives are like, yeah, more, more, more.
	And it's like, And have an honest conversation about it.
	The British, and this cannot ever be stressed enough, the British and the Europeans are not generally hostile towards migration.
	They're hostile towards a specific kind of migration, mass migration, especially from people that have vastly different cultural backgrounds and who are, by the numbers that are finally coming out, who are economically not a benefit.
	It goes back to what exactly, apart from the moral preening and virtue signaling, is the actual benefit towards for the British people, for the European people of the kind of migration we currently have.
	Because the thing, like people are saying, oh, so you don't want the Harvard neurosurgeon coming to London, right?
	Nobody in London or in England thinks when they think about migration, about the Harvard.
	Everybody knows.
	Oh, not the neurosurgeons.
	Boatloads of neurosurgeons coming across!
	Precisely, and this is what bothers me, is because there is a long history of migration and most people are very welcoming, but it has reached a point where it's only kind of a net negative.
	And this is, as you said, this is just maddening.
	And there's no thought to sentiments with it either, because I mean, like, Everyone's happy when someone likes your culture, right?
	It's the most flattering thing in the world when someone says, oh, I really like going to this country because I really like the culture there.
	Because that's the person that you think, okay, well, they've got a good intention, they've got a good will, they're going to come, they're going to do the right thing for the right reasons in this context, right?
	And so that's not the problem.
	But that person has taken upon themselves a kind of burden of obligation, right?
	And so they're concerned about your opinion.
	of them in your country and so yeah you feel okay well yeah come and hang out with us you know come sit down but that's just not happening that's just not happening we're getting millions of people who are just utterly i mean indifferent at best cavalier about this at worst and out downright insulting and it's like you know that person should go why should i have a house guest stay if they track mud in the carpet and don't thank me for dinner exactly yeah and it's it's just the eternal way but anyway nero and realis says the mostly peaceful house of peace is not peaceful i'm shocked shocked
	um basically yes oh uh sophie live oh Oh my god.
	Global majority people.
	Thank you.
	For the longest time I have said stop calling them minorities.
	This is why we win.
	We call them all minorities when they are not and the word is loaded to make them sound like a weak, oppressed one.
	I'm using that from now on.
	Thank you.
	Well, I'm glad I coined the phrase.
	Go out and spread the meme, I suppose.
	Anyway, right, we're ticking past half past, but Ralph, thank you very much for joining us.
	Thanks for having me!
	Your Twitter is in the description, etc.
	We'll be back on Lads Hour in just under half an hour, with Ralph as well, arguing with digital women.
	So, that'll be fantastic.
	A vision of the future for many people.
	Hopefully more successfully than with our real women.

▲