Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 23, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:09

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #921

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	good afternoon folks welcome to the podcast the load seaters for thursday the 23rd of may 2024 i think uh Today I'm joined by Stelios and Calvin and we're going to be talking about the general election announcement, what Nigel Farage might be doing and what is really behind leftism.
	So let's just get straight into it and then we'll talk about other things in a second.
	Rishi Sunak came out and decided to announce a general election and everyone's wondering why?
	Why now?
	What exactly does he hope to gain?
	But before we go into it, go and check out our merch store, uk.shop.legacies.com.
	It'll redirect you to a local area wherever you are.
	And go and get Island Magazine issue number one.
	It is now available for pre-order.
	We've had over a thousand pre-orders already because the thing is gorgeous and packed with unique articles you will not find elsewhere by the leading right-wing thinkers of our time.
	We're really thrilled with the success of this already, and we think that everyone would like a copy, especially as the pre-orders will only be open until the middle of next month, roughly, and then they'll be closed, and then you won't be able to get it ever again.
	We're not going to reprint it.
	It's going to be an artifact of this time and place, so go and get it now.
	There is also loads of other merch on the merch store, which is brand new, which you should check out because it helps support us because, of course, we've been demonetized on YouTube.
	And just another quick thing, we've obviously been putting loads of great stuff on the website.
	For example, Connor did an interview with Stefan Molyneux, the much maligned, unfairly maligned, commentator who was just cancelled a few years ago for no good reason, as far as I can tell.
	But there's something else you'll want to know about what Connor's been doing shortly.
	So anyway, The Conservatives have been deeply down in the polls for a long time now.
	In fact, ever since Rishi Sunak took over.
	And Sunak has been saying things like, well, we're going to be part of the greatest comeback in political history.
	He said this in April.
	The greatest Labour comeback in political history.
	Well, yeah, quite possibly.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	Quite possibly.
	1997 at least.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	It's going to be worse than 1997, shockingly.
	And so yesterday, Rishi Sunak came out and called a general election.
	Very peculiar.
	Very peculiar.
	Love this imagery though, don't you?
	It's fantastic.
	It's like the end of a depression.
	You know, the rain's coming down on him.
	He's like, please, please vote for us in this coming election.
	He knows it's over.
	He knows it's over.
	That's exactly it.
	Pathetic fallacy.
	I have the impression, and a lot of people think that this is ridiculous, that they want to lose.
	It's hard to think that they don't want to lose.
	They're trying so hard to lose.
	He announced it for the 4th of July, which is an unusual date.
	For people in America, you'll be thinking, well, hang on, that's our Independence Day.
	Yeah, but in Britain, it means nothing, to be honest.
	Nobody in Britain cares about the 4th of July.
	As far as people are concerned, that's just when they're planning their holidays and going out and enjoying the sun.
	And so there are lots of people who are upset about this, because summer elections are actually very uncommon in Britain, because, of course, most people want to do things during the summer.
	It's the one time of year we actually get some half-decent weather.
	So, I don't really want to waste it on a political campaign.
	Does that mean they're banking on people coming out, turning out?
	Well, yeah, they're banking on people going to music festivals and being out of the country and stuff like that.
	People are just going to stay home, Rishi.
	No one wants to vote for you.
	Even his own team doesn't want to vote for him at this point.
	It's sad.
	It's pathetic, actually.
	It's genuinely pathetic.
	And there's this kind of like Hitler in the bunker mentality with it, where it's just like, Rishi, everyone, everyone is outside looking in.
	Very few people on your side going, no, we can hold this, guys.
	No one thinks that.
	I'm not even convinced that he thinks what he says.
	I don't believe anything he says.
	Yeah, and he's got this incredibly insincere tone if he says anything.
	Again, like a CBeebies presenter, which just doesn't make sense.
	Smarmy.
	Yeah, but also, again, sort of like a middle manager, a branch manager coming into the room and saying, hi guys, we're up 6% this quarterly.
	God, are we 6%?
	Imagine that.
	No, we're up 0.05% or something like that, actually.
	up 0.05% or something like that, actually.
	You know, 6% would be incredible.
	But anyway, so the thing that everyone took away from this, I mean, he had some generally platitudinous statements in his speech where he says, oh, well, you know, since the pandemic and the furlough, the war in Ukraine, who do you trust?
	It's like, well, I trust the conservatives to destroy the country.
	And I also know that Labour want to destroy the country.
	So I don't really see what kind of choice I have in this.
	And he said that he was proud of what his government achieved, including on NHS spending.
	What?
	Line go up.
	And education, so... Really?
	Yeah, nothing terribly good, but the thing is... So we've got kids being trans left, right and centre, not being able to tell their... Schools don't tell their parents what's going on, grades are going down, bad behaviour's going up, and he's proud of this.
	NHS waiting lists going up.
	Right.
	Lots of money being wasted on it.
	Oh, unbelievable amounts of money.
	And these are his achievements.
	I was like, OK, that's impressive.
	That is impressive.
	But the thing is, no one cared about any of the things he had to say, because he went outside and gave his statement.
	And I mean, apart from looking generally wretched... Showing that when we work together, anything is possible.
	Our economy is now growing faster than anyone predicted, outpacing Germany, France and the United States.
	And this morning it was confirmed that inflation is back to normal.
	This means that the pressure on prices will ease and mortgage rates will come down.
	This is proof that the plan and priorities I set out are working.
	I recognise that it has not always been easy.
	Some of you will only just be starting to feel the benefits, and for some, it might still be hard when you look at your bank balance.
	I'm sorry, I take it back.
	It's not smarmy, it's just corny.
	It is, but you've got to kind of admire the fact that They start blaring Tony Blair's anthem at him, and he didn't even pause, he didn't flip, so it's like, you know what?
	I've got a script that I'm gonna read, and I'm gonna read it.
	Another thing is that he says anything is possible if we cooperate, and apparently no one could have an umbrella there.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And so, I mean, one of the things that people who aren't necessarily British political aficionados might not know is that Things May Only Get Better, or Can Only Get Better, is a song by Dee Reen in the late 90s that Tony Blair basically used as his new Labour anthem.
	Turns out that's not true.
	Things got dramatically worse, beginning with Tony Blair onwards.
	And there's a dramatic irony in this, that the Blair capture of the Conservative Party is kind of bookended with this.
	You know, the destruction of John Major's cabinet and government in 1997 begins with that, and then it ends with the destroyed Conservative Party that is completely the product of Blair's era.
	And Rishi Sunak is in all ways the kind of man that Blair wanted to be in charge of the country.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And what's really interesting is the sort of zombie Blairite Keir Starmer is now going to thrash the Conservatives so thoroughly Blair's victory over British politics entirely is complete.
	There's never been such a phenomenal victory as what Tony Blair has had over the past 30 years.
	What a mastermind.
	It is incredible.
	It is genuinely incredible.
	We'll come back to Tony Blair in a minute.
	It's a shame he used his power for evil.
	Yeah, it's a shame that he's literally Satan incarnate.
	You know, you've got to admire the hustle, right?
	So you might be like, well, where did that music come from?
	Of course, it was Steve Braves, Stop Brexit Man.
	To be honest with you, this was quite clever and funny.
	And okay, well done, Steve.
	Loathe as I am to give you any props, but okay, that works.
	But look, if you're going to make a major announcement outside Downing Street, well, first of all, you don't have to do it outside Downing Street.
	You can do it inside, especially if it's raining.
	You can do it inside.
	Notice that they actually have an umbrella.
	Right, but if you're going to do it outside, first of all, get an umbrella.
	Second of all, make sure that the street is clear of people like Steve Bray.
	Yeah, I mean, they did ban him from Parliament afterwards, but it's too late then, isn't it?
	That's the Tories all over, isn't it?
	It really is.
	Oh, the horse has bolted.
	Quick time to close the stable.
	That literally put that on the gravestone of the Conservative Party.
	And so yeah, you're not the only one who's like, why did they do this?
	You know, they've got a multi-million pound media room inside Downing Street, and he stands outside with Steve Bray trolling him without an umbrella, without even a coat on.
	It's almost like the media team was saying, how can we make him look like poor and miserable?
	How can we make him desperate?
	He's incredibly sad.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And then, I mean, this was, I genuinely wasn't sure that this hadn't been photoshopped.
	Is this legitimate?
	I think it's legitimate, yeah.
	Because I looked up a bunch of other photos of other times from media outlets and he is genuinely that miniature.
	Someone's trying to make him look stupid.
	Well, he's certainly accomplished that.
	He looks like a fool.
	Yeah.
	And that's not me being rude.
	The setup of this is stupid.
	Yeah.
	He looks diminutive, weak.
	This is supposed to be our leader.
	Yeah, exactly.
	This has been done on purpose to him.
	Right.
	And it's not like anyone really feels that the Conservative Prime Minister is in charge of the Conservative Party either.
	And I can't help but wonder if this is someone on the back end, whoever is in the Conservative Party actually pulling the strings.
	And this is a genuine question of who is this person?
	Because I read Nadine Doris's book, The Plot.
	You've read it?
	Good, good.
	I have read it.
	And she says that there's a cabal with Gove and various others.
	Gove at the head of it.
	But then in addition... Or Dougie Smith.
	Well, yeah, he's one of them, yes.
	But in addition to this, there's a shadowy man who's not Dougie Smith.
	He is.
	No, no, no, no.
	She says... No, for legal reasons, she refers to Dr. No.
	Yes.
	Dr. No is Dougie Smith.
	Are we sure?
	I'm saying that on the podcast right now.
	Right, okay.
	Well, allegedly, Dr. No is Dougie Smith.
	Dougie Smith can come for me if you want.
	I guess.
	He is the shadowy figure behind our government.
	Right, right, okay.
	Because she definitely delineated between the two in the book.
	Yeah, she did.
	Probably for...
	Yeah, for very sensible reasons that I should probably do myself.
	Yes, and you should actually.
	But I'm alleging.
	Yes, it's Dougie Smith.
	But the point is, there's clearly something going on.
	And this is what Liz Truss has been saying a lot recently.
	You can see there that that's Connor interviewing Liz Truss, which will be out next week.
	So if you want to go and see what she had to say to us, do that.
	She's all conservative now, isn't she?
	Yes.
	And so she, uh, there were a bunch of interesting revelations that came out of this, uh, that I'm not going to reveal now again, come and sign up to the website and see that next week.
	But one interesting thing that she had previously said was, um, that She doesn't feel that she was in control.
	She wasn't.
	She was the Prime Minister, but she didn't hold the levers of power.
	And so it was in her.
	I mean, she said this was some politics live or something like that, where she had said the Conservative Prime Minister can be removed, but the governor of Bank of England can't.
	So this shows you where power really resides in Britain.
	And so if you think about that, well, who was the one making him do this?
	This wasn't necessary, this wasn't in any way required of him.
	He could have done this from inside, which he in fact did afterwards, but we'll get to that in a second.
	Because then you've got a round of delusional, absolutely delusional bunker mentality conservatives who are just like, right, okay, now I have to go on TV or LBC and be like, do you think you can win this election?
	And this is just such a hilarious exchange.
	Do you seriously think you could win this election?
	Absolutely.
	Really?
	Absolutely.
	Really?
	Because it's such a preposterous thing to say.
	It's totally out of touch.
	I mean, they have to say that.
	They can't say, well, actually, I don't think we can, no.
	Otherwise why run?
	I guess.
	I guess that they've got to say it, but it just looks, again, look at the guy's face.
	It's just also embarrassing.
	Yeah.
	Secondhand embarrassment.
	Exactly.
	And there's just the looming specter of Tony Blair laughing like a Machiavellian genius over all of it.
	He's destroyed you all.
	Yeah.
	Can't you see this?
	And again, you'll want to watch the Liz Truss interview we've got next week.
	Again, not going to spoil anything, but you'll learn something about Tony Blair.
	But what I don't get about Liz Truss is why would we vote for her again when she couldn't do it the first time around?
	Well, it seems that it's just not her fault.
	Sure, but it won't be her fault next time, will it?
	That's true.
	But that's the point.
	It's not Rishi Senak's fault either because he's not in charge either.
	He's obviously a puppet.
	Well, these people need to get dodgy people like Dr. No off of CCHQ's payroll.
	They need to fix the candidate selection process so that they get some actual conservatives in their party.
	And then they need to have a vote of no confidence in the people that they do have in.
	They need to clean house.
	They would have to.
	I don't think they're going to.
	No, they're not.
	What you're going to get is apparatchiks like Janet Daly in the Telegraph.
	Rishi's speech showed his tactical strengths.
	Starmer will be deeply worried.
	Are you mad?
	Gosh.
	Do you think Starmer's worried about an election?
	No, he's begging for one.
	He's been saying call an election over and over.
	He doesn't have to do anything.
	This is the worst part about it.
	He will stand there like the robot that he is and win.
	Exactly, which is exactly what he did.
	I mean, he's been begging for one.
	He's been desperate for one.
	And it's just, I mean, I'm going to subject you to Keir Starmer talking.
	Thank you.
	Tonight, the Prime Minister has finally announced the next general election.
	The moment the country needs and has been waiting for.
	And where... That's enough.
	Did you see when Craig McKinley came back to Parliament?
	He'd been amputated his legs and his hands.
	He sat there and everyone else was like, yeah, giving him a round of applause.
	Keir Starmer stood there like emotionless.
	What is wrong with you?
	Pretend to be a human for five minutes, Sir Keir.
	But what's interesting is that this is a moment the country needs and has been waiting for.
	No one's been waiting for it.
	Everyone's totally disillusioned with politics.
	The vote to turn up in the next election is going to be staggeringly low.
	Obviously, I'll watch the entire speech.
	It's an insanely boring managerial speech with basic Labour talking points that no one believes.
	He says, oh, it's going to be a new spirit of service, country first, party second.
	Oh, yeah.
	I used to love them.
	I used to go out campaigning every day, every night.
	I used to live off that political energy and I just can't be bothered.
	I have no interest whatsoever.
	It's dead.
	It's absolutely dead.
	I'm not so certain that they have zero power.
	Who?
	The prime ministers.
	And I say this not because I don't think that a lot of the criticisms are accurate.
	I'm not saying they don't have zero power.
	I think they cultivate it because when people are criticizing them, they're going to say, well, it wasn't me.
	Well, the thing is they never actually pull up whoever they say and use them as a shield.
	Yeah.
	So they always try to try to worm them.
	But I'm not saying they don't have zero power, but where it matters, where it's substantive, they're clearly not in control.
	You see this, I was going to bring this up, but you see the conservatives, I think it was Jonathan Gullis or someone like that, who tweeted out, oh, we're getting immigration down as if they are subject to the global tides of immigration and there's just nothing they can do about it.
	It's like you are theoretically the absolute executive branch of the United Kingdom.
	Parliament is sovereign.
	You could put it into legislation that the sky was green if you wanted, and we'd all have to go, well, Parliament has declared it.
	And the idea that you can't just cease handing out visas by the millions is preposterous.
	It's just preposterous, and pretending like you're at the... So, who is in the way preventing you doing it, is the question.
	But, um, but anyway, so Rishi Sunak, uh, then put out, uh, this, which again was watched because you can see why just he's not even hateable.
	He's not even detestable.
	He's just really annoying.
	I've just come back in from calling the general election and I wanted to explain to you why.
	Our economy has now grown faster than France, Germany and the United States.
	And this morning we received the welcome news that inflation has returned to normal.
	What does that mean, inflation has returned to normal?
	Now this is sign that our plan and our priorities are working.
	Now I know it hasn't always been easy and I know you're only just starting to feel the benefits.
	But this hard-won economic stability was only ever meant to be the beginning.
	And that's why I've called the election.
	So he's fixed the economy is what he's saying.
	Economic stability?
	What?
	Stability is something you have to measure over a period of time.
	Right.
	You can't just be like, right, okay, well, so yesterday was really high, today is not really high, therefore stability.
	That's not what stability means.
	But again, who's he pitching to with this presentation?
	It feels like he's pitching sort of like, you know, 40 year old wine aunts who have been emotionally dependent on him or something.
	But it's like, I think that's a really narrow constituency, Rishi.
	You know, I don't think that's very many people at all, but basically it's preposterous nonsense that no one believes.
	And if you're capable of doing these videos from inside, why didn't you?
	Who made you go outside?
	Anyway, so why a general election?
	Well, he says, because economic stability was only ever meant to be the beginning, which is why I've called the general election.
	I don't get it.
	So you haven't got to where you need to be, so why are you calling the election now?
	Do what you wanted to do.
	Exactly.
	And the thing is, you didn't actually have to call the election now.
	He's actually got a lot more time.
	He can have another six months or so, if he wanted.
	So why did he do it?
	Well, Sky thinks it's because a bunch of letters of no confidence were coming in, and this is why he was forced to call a general election out in the rain.
	Again, it doesn't explain why he's out in the rain.
	No, sorry, but I want to say, because we have the same thing in Greece sometimes, a lot of elections are announced before September, because people are generally speaking happier when it's summer and when they're going out.
	And then they start paying taxes and stuff.
	Yeah, do it before tax season.
	Yeah.
	So I'm not resentful against the state.
	Um, but yeah, so they, they basically, uh, an internal revolt in the party, um, letters to the 1922 committee.
	Dan Wooden apparently spoke to, uh, senior Tory sources, but apparently a bunch of them were submitted.
	And so Synack thought he would try and save himself by calling an election, which is remarkable because that would imply that he ever had an electoral mandate from the public that he can call upon, which he didn't, obviously.
	Uh, and so there are now MPs who are also Trying to revolt against Rashid to stop having an election.
	They want to rescind the election.
	Because apparently this isn't a done deal necessarily.
	Although in reality, I think this is obviously... He's already asked the King to dissolve Parliament though, hasn't he?
	Yeah, he's already formally asked the King to dissolve Parliament.
	So that could be undone.
	Some furious Conservative MPs are working on a plot to call off the election.
	One Tory rebel MP tells me he believes several more letters of no confidence will go in.
	And another one said, today has been an absolute disaster, but the election is not irrevocable up until the point of the dissolution of Parliament.
	When the Ritz are moved to begin the contest, it can still be aborted.
	In other words, if enough Tory MPs were clearly going to lose their seats, probably around 300 of them, in this already utterly shambolic campaign right to Sir Graham Brady tomorrow, the election could still be revoked.
	That's interesting.
	So that might be worth looking into.
	So when you lose an election, and you have a certain majority, you get a certain kind of golden handshake.
	And I don't know if that's dependent on a certain time period.
	Quite possibly.
	But who knows?
	Because they're going to lose their seats.
	I think they're worried about how much money they're going to make or lose.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And I thought we'd just turn back the clock four years very briefly, just to remember, who else are they going to run?
	They have no one else.
	I mean, just to be clear, this is what it looked like four years ago.
	Conservatives on 54%.
	So, Rishi Sanak has lost them 30% of the entire electorate in his time.
	Since the Night of the Long Knives, as it were, in the Conservative Party.
	It's so infuriating because they could have done so much.
	Boris couldn't do much because Rishi was obfuscating as the Chancellor, and then the Civil Service are obfuscating, they won't do anything like the Rwanda policy, and then you've got Dr Noel, whoever that is, behind the scenes puppeteering, so everyone is getting in the way.
	No one can get anything done.
	Yeah.
	14 years.
	Not a single thing has been done.
	Well, no, no.
	I mean, things have been made deliberately way worse, actually.
	The housing market's in shambles.
	The streets are atrocious.
	The NHS is failing because of the conservative immigration policy.
	But this is just...
	So who would they bring back?
	I mean, it would have to be Boris.
	Obviously, I don't want Boris back because of numerous reasons I'm not going to bother wasting your time in now.
	But this is not inevitable.
	The conservatives have done this to themselves.
	And so naturally, people are like, wait a second, this just doesn't make sense.
	They're at 22% in the polls.
	Why call the election months ahead of when you need to?
	It makes no sense at all.
	And so lots of people, because of Andrew Bridgen, have been saying, well, We may well actually be already at war with Russia.
	Andrew Bridgman was a Conservative MP who was kicked out of the party for his positions on Covid and vaccinations, and he says we're actually at war with Russia now, but we're not going to tell people until July or August.
	Who knows?
	I have no idea, right?
	He's saying the whole thing in Parliament's a pantomime.
	Again, he's going to have a lot more direct knowledge of this than any of us, because he is an MP, and he's one of the few who's decided, okay, I'm going to step out of line here and say, guys, I think we need to talk about a few things.
	And he got kicked out for it.
	He got punished.
	I'm sure they would have got rid of him as an MP if they had the option to do so.
	And so that's one theory that's going around.
	Another one is that they're going to try and rush through the British Bill of Rights.
	Or some other Rwanda Bill.
	I mean, Rishi Senak has come out and promised, oh, you see, days after the election, the Rwanda deportation flights will start going, like Charlie Brown with the football and Lucy pulling the football out.
	It's like, are you serious?
	No one believes you.
	No one believes you.
	And so something else is obviously happening here.
	The problem is we just don't know what that is at this moment.
	I'm sure it will come out eventually in someone else's book.
	But yeah, so that was just the total public humiliation of Rishi Senak.
	That is going to lead to the dream goal of zero seats for the Conservatives.
	I do think they're going to lose about 300.
	That's what the polling implies.
	And we'll probably do an election night stream just to cheer on every time the Conservatives lose a seat.
	Because this is what traitors deserve.
	Anyway, let's talk about the potential saviour of Britain.
	Well this is it because there is an option.
	You said Boris Johnson might be the only person who could win an election.
	There is another person!
	There is another person!
	There is!
	Before we do, Islander Magazine issue number one is available.
	You can still pre-order on the shop which is uk.shop.noticeeaters.com.
	Get over there.
	Now, Nigel Farage has come out this week and said, well today, and said I have thought long and hard as to whether I should stand in the upcoming General Election.
	As Honorary President of Reform UK, I am fully supportive of Richard Tyson's leadership and urge voters to put their trust in him and Lee Anderson.
	I will do my bit to help in the campaign, but it is not the right time for me to go any further than that.
	Important though, the general election is, the contest in the United States of America on November the 5th has huge global significance.
	A strong America as a close ally is vital for our peace and security.
	I intend to help with the grassroots campaign in the USA in any way that I can.
	The choice between Labour and the Conservatives is uninspiring and only reform have the radical agenda that is needed to end decline in this country.
	What radical agenda would that be?
	What does short reform stand for?
	Basically the same, but five years ago.
	Right.
	I mean, Karl, I'll let you say what you think before I break it down, because I know you've got some words to say about it.
	OK, well, the first thing is, well, if it's in July and the American election is in November, why not do both?
	Right.
	What's stopping him from doing both?
	And if there was ever going to be a time when Nigel Farage, who I'm a big fan of and I highly respect his political career, or at least the things he has achieved.
	I mean, I was a big supporter of Brexit.
	If there was ever a time when he was going to literally flip the board, and make himself the leader of this country.
	It's now.
	Yeah, this is the time.
	What do you say?
	Now is not the time.
	If there is ever going to be a time, this is it for him to make an impact.
	There's never a better time.
	Which raises the question, is he really waiting for a time or is he waiting for something else?
	Because, I mean, yes, he is right that the elections in America will have huge global significance.
	It would be nice if the right-wing populist Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was able to lay his Uh, endorsement on Trump, but obviously Farage doesn't think he can do it.
	I think that's what this is.
	I think he doesn't have it in him, which is a real shame because I think that Farage has got a lot of goodwill with the electorate still and with the right kind of campaign and Farage is a superb campaigner, he could pull it all up.
	Pull it all up by the roots.
	Go, now's the time.
	Now is the time.
	We're doing this.
	We're going to save Britain from Labour and the Conservatives.
	He could get out there.
	He could be campaigning.
	Millions across the country would see it.
	And I think it would resonate with a lot of people.
	And for some reason, I'm going to guess he's being paid handsomely to just go and campaign with Trump instead, which is the easier thing to do.
	But it is, I think, something of an absconding of one's duty.
	I think he is possibly the only person on the right who could make a difference in this coming election.
	And I won't get to the reasons why yet, that I think he's not doing it, but I think it's a shame.
	Stelios?
	No, I think it's right.
	Most probably he is expecting labor to govern and do bad things and then to come to the fourth.
	But I think that statements like these don't help because people are going to remember this statement and they're going to raise the considerations that you raised.
	That you had the opportunity, you had a fight, you didn't engage in it as you should.
	So that is going to reflect negatively on him in the future, assuming he wants to come back in the future.
	I'm seeing a lot of comments saying turncoat already.
	And it is confirmed.
	Isabel Oakeshott said Farage will hit the campaign trail for Reform UK.
	I mean, what's that going to do?
	If Richard Tice is still the leader, Farage coming out and holding an umbrella every now and then with him is not going to do much for him.
	Because one thing they seem to fail to understand is, I realise that formally we don't vote for Prime Ministers, but informally we absolutely do.
	It's getting more and more the case, absolutely.
	If it wasn't Tony Blair, Labour wouldn't have got their landslide win.
	If it wasn't Boris Johnson, the Conservatives wouldn't have got their landslide win.
	If it's not Nigel Farage, they aren't going to win.
	And because it was Theresa May, we didn't get a win.
	Exactly, yeah.
	We barely scraped through.
	So, like, we can pretend all we want that it's, oh, well, you know, we vote for... No, no, no.
	That's not how it works.
	And I've said it many times before, I like Richard Tice as a person.
	As a politician, he is rubbish.
	He's just not got what it takes to be the leader of reform.
	Nigel Farage has it, but he's not willing to do it.
	We saw Richard Tice put out a statement himself saying, delighted to have Nigel's help during the election campaign.
	Good for you, mate, but it's not going to do you any favours.
	It never works.
	Vote for this guy that is in the place I should be in.
	Yeah.
	Why?
	No, it's not going to work.
	Pretty much, yeah.
	Let Richard do all the hard work and I'll just pop in every now and then and show my face.
	But Farage cancels his GB News show for the election to free up time to campaign.
	So I first thought, okay, maybe he doesn't want to give up the day job because GB News pay him handsomely.
	GB News need Farage much more than Farage needs GB News.
	And so they're clinging on to him.
	But I thought maybe he doesn't want to lose that.
	But he's clearly given up his time at GB for the campaign.
	So it's not the TV thing.
	So why not yourself?
	If you're going to go out and campaign anyway, just do it.
	Just find the most Brexit place in the country, which is going to be like Bolton or something, where it's like 75% Brexit.
	Just go down there and be like, Labour and the Conservatives have betrayed you.
	Labour's going to take us back into the EU.
	The Conservatives are evil and useless.
	I'm Nigel Farage.
	You all know who I am and you all know what I stand for.
	Let's get this done.
	He's been campaigning in South Thanet for like two decades.
	They know him down there.
	They love him down there.
	He'd have a good shot, much like Richard's been in a couple of key places that he thinks he can win, that you've got to put the groundwork in, but he's done that.
	Yeah, he's already got that.
	The way I'm looking at it is that all these sort of ropes across the country that he's laid out and he just needs to grab them and pull them taut, you know, get everything moving.
	You can just flip this whole thing over.
	The thing that makes it so painful is that so many people are seeing this.
	There's so much demand for it.
	There'd be so much goodwill as well.
	So I want to go back to the beginning of Farage's story to try and get a better picture of where we are now and it might make a bit more sense into why he's not doing it.
	So let's start at the beginning.
	Local elections, Nigel Farage hails results as a game changer.
	Back in 2013, when Nigel Farage, well let's go back a bit further actually, in 2006 he put a coup d'etat in place, he took over the UKIP party.
	took the leadership from them and said we're going to shift from eurocentrism from federalism or from being against them to being against mass immigration.
	He made it less EU focused while still being EU focused but bringing in the issue of immigration to the forefront which has been the campaign ever since.
	So UKIP had a big shift in 2006 and then six or seven years later in the local elections he absolutely stormed it He took over I think how many the numbers on here 140 seats so he won 147 council seats that's up 139 from what they previously had.
	And just sorry to think just think of Tyson the latest local elections two seats.
	Yeah compare those things so this made the UKIP party all of a sudden the fourth biggest party in the country.
	An electoral force.
	Right to be reckoned with so this is 2013 So there's still seats from the Tories, from the Lib Dems, but not necessarily from Labour.
	Labour also had big gains that year which shows that the working classes were starting to rise up and say we're fed up of the establishment, we're fed up of the way things are going and that pattern has continued to some degree.
	So the right were being united by Nigel Farage and by UKIP and even the far right.
	So the BNP lost their council seat which would have gone to UKIP as well.
	That's significant.
	So then the next year, 2014, we had the European elections.
	Again, you can see from this table here that the UKIP party stole everything.
	They got the majority in the EU Parliament for the United Kingdom.
	So that meant there were 24 seats specifically for the UKIP party.
	More than Labour, more than Conservatives, and more than all the other ones combined.
	By 2014 UKIP is a massive, massive party on the right or populist to be reckoned with.
	And then the next year, 2015, we had a general election.
	Conservatives did well, Labour did well, but UKIP came in as third, the third biggest party in the country.
	So now it's not just an international thing, it's not just a European Union thing, and it's certainly not just a local thing, it's a general, it's a national party.
	This is a serious thing.
	This is what parties like the Lib Dems dream of.
	12.6% of the vote, so that's a massive part of the vote share, but then if we go down, I'm sorry for using so many BBC links today, but if we go down to the table we can see that did not convert to seats.
	They only got one seat, which was of course Douglas Carswell, a good Conservative politician.
	This showed the problems with First Past the Post, the electoral system that we have in this country.
	It showed that we need, it's rigged, we needed change, we needed reform, and so going forward from this point on, from 2015 onwards, that also became a consideration of UKIP.
	Not a major one at that point, but it certainly would become more of a consideration for Nigel Farage.
	May I note something?
	Yes.
	It says there in the votes, they nearly got four million votes.
	Yep.
	They have one seat.
	Yeah.
	Whereas the ASEAN Unionist Party had 115,000 votes and got two seats.
	It's like, tell me the system is rigged without telling me the system is rigged.
	Yeah.
	How can four million people vote for you and you get one seat in parliament?
	The Lib Dems got two and a half million, they got eight seats.
	Right.
	But it's about distribution.
	It is.
	But it's not distributed fairly, some would say.
	And so the next year, so this is year after year after year, we're seeing this rapid growth, like it's really becoming a power.
	We have the EU referendum, and of course... We won.
	We won.
	None of us expected it, or many of us didn't expect it.
	Yeah, I didn't think we were going to.
	No, not in a million years.
	I worked for Vote Leave at the time, I was out on the streets campaigning.
	I did not think we would win.
	I thought we'd make a good impact, we'll show people we're serious.
	Even on the night, Nigel Farage conceded halfway through the night.
	Did he?
	Yeah.
	Came on TV and conceded.
	And then we won.
	And there are of course many conspiracies in Nadine Doris' book about were we supposed to win?
	Did Michael Gove and Dom Cummings actually want to win?
	Exactly!
	But the British people won this!
	So that's 2016, Farage leaves UKIP after this, thus destroying the party and the momentum and just throwing them to the dogs and calling them, at the time that he left, essentially calling them Islamophobic.
	I already like you, Kip Nigel, you don't need to advertise them to me!
	But what would be the problem if they were?
	So look, he's distancing himself from Tommy Robinson, a great soldier for this country, distancing himself from Gerard Batten, a man that you have a lot of high regard for.
	Absolutely.
	And distancing himself from Islamophobia, which, as we know today, is important.
	And if we'd have been fighting against Islamism or the Islamification of Britain back then, maybe we wouldn't be in such dire straits today.
	But he started tearing the establishment line.
	It's starting leaning into the sort of Blairite consensus, which is very strange, because you're outside of that, surely.
	Or should be.
	Did he not leave the scene after the Brexit referendum?
	He did for a while.
	Yeah, for about a year he left the scene and he left the party, like I say, he left it to the dogs.
	Incredibly unhelpful for the cause, unhelpful for the country, I would say, but certainly unhelpful for the party.
	So at this point the party is concerned with immigration because he introduced the concern of immigration and now he's saying, well, not that immigration though.
	Let's keep the Mohammedans coming in.
	We're not racists.
	Idiotic, foolish take.
	And so then, of course,
	Brexit doesn't get over the line and he becomes concerned as many of us were at the time that Brexit wouldn't happen even though we won the referendum and so he takes over again this time he took over the Brexit party and the mainstream media and Wikipedia and such will tell you that it was an amicable agreement between Farage and Catherine Blakelock I've spoken to her personally it was certainly not amicable he came in and stormed the front and took over as he is known to do but again he
	took hold of the momentum in the country everyone's saying this is not fair it's not right we won we want to see it fulfilled and so he gets a few Tory donors makes the party what the UKIP party was he essentially stole the UKIP party and rebranded it to the Brexit party and said we'll put 650 candidates across the country we'll stand in every seat against the Tories who are clearly not interested in Brexit any more than the Labour Party And so we're going to change politics for good.
	And this is when he introduced the idea of reforming the electoral system and said, well, the first part of the post isn't working.
	We need to replace that with proportional representation.
	We need to have a clean break in terms of Brexit and negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but also saying we need to defund the BBC.
	So it's becoming broader than just the EU and broader than just immigration.
	It's becoming an actual political party.
	The populist political party.
	All of the genuinely indigenous British issues that people really believe, like this is what made him so popular in the first place, he could have just continued on like this.
	He could have.
	And interestingly this time around with his coup of the party he made sure there was no membership.
	So there was no power dynamics there, he didn't have to struggle against anyone.
	Fair enough.
	He owned it as a benevolent dictator.
	Fair enough.
	Right?
	And so all the people that put their money in to support the Brexit Party were supporting the idea of contesting seats across the country.
	And I was one of the people who was standing.
	I was standing in Broxtow against Anna Soubry.
	God bless her soul.
	Yep.
	Loves the gin, that one.
	Didn't win her seat then?
	No, she didn't.
	She lost it and she didn't lose it magnanimously either.
	I commiserated her afterwards.
	She was not very nice.
	Very bitter.
	But she deserved to lose because she deserted the Conservative principles that she was elected on.
	She was a Lib Dem.
	There are loads of Lib Dems in the Conservative Party.
	She was one of them.
	Absolutely.
	And so at this point, the Brexit Party gets the momentum, gets the 650 candidates, and then Farage says, well actually, We're not going to stand in Tory seats.
	And stood 317 of us down, myself included.
	We had no say in the matter.
	It was just, no, you're not standing anymore, actually.
	We're going to let the Tories win.
	Imagine a political party that says, no, we don't want to win.
	That's not a political party.
	That is crazy, actually, when you think about it.
	I suppose in Farage's defence, what he would say is, well, Boris was also committed to the Brexit dream, and so it would be irresponsible of him to try and overthrow that and instead give The win to the Remainers, so... But then that defeats the purpose of the party existing in the first place.
	Sure, but he's saying, well, on a tactical level, if we both try for the same constituency, we split the vote, allow the Remainers to win, and then we lose Brexit.
	But all that was true when he took over Brexit Party.
	Sure.
	Another way to look at it would be that some parties are not meant to win, they are just meant to be parties in coalition.
	I don't know if that's an objective of political parties in our system, but I can understand in Europe they have that, you know, because they have PR.
	I don't think any political party in this country is ever set up with the idea of being in a coalition.
	Like, their point is to get Brexit done, to solve immigration, and to reform the political system, which of course was a major concern that they dropped.
	Was there not a coalition between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems?
	No, we've had coalitions.
	But those parties both wanted to win, is the point.
	Yes, okay.
	And it wasn't a comfortable coalition either, you could tell.
	And so my question is, what was he promised?
	Why did he stand us down?
	Was he promised a peerage?
	Was he promised that Brexit would get done in a certain way?
	I don't know what the promise was, but the fact that he stood us all down was his second betrayal after the UKIP betrayal.
	So two betrayals in a row.
	What's actually really frustrating about this as well is the Conservatives should really have just absorbed the entire Brexit party into the Conservative party.
	Should be Lord Farage, absolutely.
	He should have been... Right, recognised the efforts that he put in.
	Exactly, and they should have essentially gone, yeah, we were wrong on the issue that you had to go outside of the party to campaign on.
	We're meant to be the populist, respectable, decent party for Britain, and, you know, we apologise.
	Just, you know, bring them all into the party, absorb the whole thing, and then just change away from Blairism and towards Faragism.
	And that didn't happen.
	It wasn't reciprocal.
	I was banned from the Tory party for a year after this deal was struck.
	Like me, Farage was always banned as well.
	No, he was welcomed back, or he is welcomed back.
	Recently, yeah.
	And some of the high profile members were welcomed back, but they told me because I stood for Brexit I was not welcoming the Conservative Party.
	That's mad.
	Yeah.
	Because I showed Conservative principles.
	Anyway...
	Nigel Farage leaves the door open to rejoining the Tories.
	So now we come to 2023, last year, and he starts flirting with the idea of, actually, I could become a Tory again.
	Which is what we were just saying.
	The idea that he doesn't need to be in opposition to the Tories, he could be one of them.
	Which some would say is what was happening in 2019 when he stood us down.
	And he went even further than saying I could potentially rejoin.
	And Rishi Sunak said yes, you'd be welcome with open arms.
	And a number of other people at the Conservative Party conference were saying, yeah actually, you know, come and join us.
	Who was it?
	Pratip Patel he was dancing.
	Pratip Patel yes and Liz Truss.
	So people on the right of the Conservative Party were saying come on in Farage and he was enjoying it.
	He was loving it at conference.
	Oh yeah.
	Well that's an old photograph.
	I thought there'd be one here of him with the kids, all the young people gathering around him.
	He was their idol.
	And he went further to say, actually, I will be Tory leader by 2026.
	So not just to say I'm going to be in the party, I'm going to take over the party, which he has a habit of, a pattern of, so it is feasible.
	If anyone could do it, it is him.
	And maybe he is just biding his time here, because I mean, he did say, well, the time isn't right.
	Let's assume a sort of positive plan for Farage is, yeah, I'll go out and campaign with reform to help destroy the Conservative vote share, right?
	So they're not going to win, but they could crush the Conservatives vis-a-vis Labour and make sure the Conservatives get basically the lowest ebb arrive at the lowest ebb they could arrive at and then farage might join them become the party leader because he's going to be the only popular politician in the entire goddamn thing yeah and then after five years of sunak look at the state of the country i'm the glorious savior nigel farage running at the head of the conservative party
	and you've got to vote for me so like michael gove's plan he wants to destroy the conservative party to take it over yeah so it could work it Possibly campaign for Trump, and if Trump wins, receive Trump's help to become leader of the Tories.
	It makes a lot of sense.
	Trump has very little pull in England.
	It's a very dangerous political game when there is an opportunity, like you said, for him to get active now and to make a difference now, but maybe he doesn't want to make a difference from the outside.
	Maybe.
	He wants to be a part of the establishment rather than against the establishment.
	Which brings us to what is his objective?
	What are his goals?
	I want to show a little personal video because when Lawrence Fox got sacked from GB News for saying something that people could perceive as misogynistic or slightly offensive, Dan Watson also got suspended for not challenging him firm enough and I got suspended and sacked for saying that if you're a free speech channel you should stand for free speech.
	This was Nigel Farage's response.
	As for GB News, look, you know, Lawrence Fox said what he said.
	Calvin Robinson said what he said.
	Free speech is one thing.
	It doesn't mean just gratuitously lobbing grenades around the place.
	Free speech also comes with a degree of responsibility.
	And I thought, you know, Ava Evans is a left-wing journalist on show.
	I work with her at LBC.
	Very capable lady.
	Don't underestimate Ava Evans.
	She's bright.
	You know, how he mentally made the connection between her not thinking a Minister for Men's Mental Health was necessary to I wouldn't want to... It says more about his brain than it does about the rest of us in this room, I would suggest to you.
	I thought it was deeply, gratuitously offensive, unnecessary, missed the point.
	And do you know something?
	The point about GB News is we will only succeed as a team.
	And that means we need team players.
	Those guys were not team players.
	And I put it to you that the only person in this that wasn't a team player is Nigel Farage.
	If Lawrence Fox, Dan Wharton and myself get suspended over a free speech issue and we're working for a company that purports to be in favour of free speech, my suggestion would be someone with so much weight behind them as Nigel Farage should be the one standing up saying, wait a minute, are we doing the right thing here?
	To be a team player is to be on the side of the free speech advocates, not on the side of the company shutting them down.
	I personally agree with you in principle, but I actually think he does have a point here.
	I think that what Lauren said was unnecessary, and I think it should be within the bounds of reasonable discourse.
	He's just saying, well, I wouldn't want to go on a date with her, I wouldn't have a relationship with her.
	And he was being funny, he was just having a joke.
	But I can also see it from Farage's perspective, where he's like, look, if we're trying to be A serious force within the Blairite paradigm, which isn't a free speech paradigm, which is the context that we're in, then you have to be on your guard at all times.
	And he's saying, well, Lawrence Fox throws grenades, and don't get me wrong, that's why I like Lawrence.
	But I can see from his perspective why he would be like, Sure, we can all be frustrated, as I was at the time, and made it very clear that Lawrence should not have said it how he did, but he's lumping me in with that and saying that these guys are not the team players, where it's actually what they're doing.
	Well yeah, I don't think you did anything.
	They're feeding the crocodile, and now they're suffering the consequences of that, and Ofcom are coming for them, and they have nowhere to stand.
	And also it's one thing to say that, you know, you require a disciplined speech of your member of a group and quite another thing to cancel.
	Yeah.
	I think the cancellation was excessive.
	Yeah.
	So some other kind of punishment would have been acceptable, you know, some, you know, any say, cause I mean, Lawrence probably was out of line, fair enough, you know, but.
	He, but he is right.
	Like if, if a serious political effort is going to be made, then you don't want people throwing grenades because like he says, you're part of a group.
	And so everyone becomes liable for any grenade that you throw.
	So he is right in that it's just, he's not putting it across very well, frankly.
	I just think he's not a team player in his interest, in his own best interest.
	Which is why he's not standing right now, because it would be good for the country, but not necessarily good for him.
	And he wants to be a part of the establishment.
	He wants to be the Prime Minister and or the leader of the Conservative Party, rather than in the opposition or kind of having to put the hard work in.
	And there is the major issue of what counts as a grenade?
	Yes.
	So... Yeah.
	I guess we'll leave that there.
	Yeah.
	Nigel Farage.
	Right.
	Okay, so action and rhetoric differ, and it's very important for us to know the difference and be able to detect propaganda.
	And I want to Talk to you today about the difference between the progressivist rhetoric and the progressivist agenda, what the agenda is really for, behind all the rhetoric.
	But before we begin, we have some news.
	We have a wonderful magazine here that my colleagues at Lotus Eaters have created.
	Oh yeah, it's The Islander.
	Yeah, Islander.
	My essay is the first one in there, it's very good.
	Definitely, give that a read.
	It's titled If The Situation Was Hopeless, because nothing's over, nothing's done, we're just at a low ebb at the moment.
	Sargon at his optimistic best?
	I am optimistic.
	I'm not as optimistic as you.
	I think the UK is.
	I think where Farage is right actually is there's no political answer to what's going on in the UK and that actually America will be the last stand for what we call the West.
	There's no political answer yet but things have been worse in the past.
	They doubtless will be worse in the future.
	Nothing's over.
	We must return to Christ.
	Right.
	I want to share with you my theory about Identitarian Leftist politics and then show you how it actually plays out and how people are actually speaking and recreating it.
	So, let's say I wrote this last April.
	I said, Identitarian Leftist politics separate people into groups with incompatible views of what constitutes peaceful coexistence.
	Tell them the disagreement with their perceived interests is an existential threat to them.
	When these incompatibilities become felt, invent a common enemy.
	And the common enemy is the Western native population of each Western country.
	And I want to show you how this plays out.
	Now, I want to talk to you a bit about Ann Applebaum and two tweets she shared yesterday.
	Now, one thing to say is that if you write a book, about the USSR and you criticize the USSR.
	Whatever else you're saying, you have a place in my heart.
	That doesn't mean I can't criticize you and it doesn't mean I cannot think you can be horribly mistaken and also in dangerous ways.
	And she is sharing something that I think is unbelievably misleading.
	So she says, everyone should read Project Over Zero's report on LGBTQ scapegoating.
	It's an analysis of how this tactic has been used in authoritarian campaigns around the world.
	And she's carrying on here.
	LGBTQ scapegoating is not random.
	It is not a natural consequence of polarization or unexpected backlash to right advancements, but rather a strategy to deepen divisions and erode democracy.
	Okay.
	Right.
	So I think that this is horribly misleading.
	And I have a response underneath, and I tell her, you know, there can be no democracy without dialogue, there can be no dialogue with hate speech laws, especially when they're ultra-subjectivist, and the cancel culture they have generated is being used to silence people from actually expressing their views.
	And also there is this lie that is being propagated that the LGBTQ plus community has a uniform view of what constitutes peaceful coexistence.
	It does not.
	Imagine them having a uniform view on anything.
	Yes.
	Yes, and that is the issue because when people give just a few minutes of thought to understand that these are the problems, these are problems and this isn't a community that has the proper amount of harmony as that the rhetoric of progressivists suggests.
	They become cancelled and they become marginalised.
	And the whole thing's kind of artificial anyway, it's not an actual constituency.
	No.
	Exactly.
	What do they really, you know, do the lesbians and gays really feel like they're on the same side?
	Right.
	What does the LGB have to do with the T?
	Well, yeah, but just what, you know, I mean...
	Do lesbians and gays actually like each other?
	No.
	I've met many that didn't seem to like each other.
	Anyway.
	There is a report here by the Over Zero Project that tries to link a decrease in democracy and democratic institutions with the LGBTQ scapegoating or what they refer to as LGBTQ scapegoating.
	I want to show you that how literally What is being written here is first and foremost a projection.
	Whatever degree of truth it has for some people, it's even more true for them.
	For the people who have written down this report, the people who are propagating this Progressivist Rhetoric.
	Now it says, This report explores the connection between two escalating crises, the systematic targeting of LGBTQ communities and democratic backsliding worldwide.
	It examines how the rhetorical, political, and physical attacks targeting the LGBTQ community are, in addition to a critical rights issue, a central component of the authoritarian playbook, cloaking themselves as culture wars, politics as usual.
	We will talk in a minute about the authoritarian playbook because it raises some very interesting questions.
	It says, LGBTQ scapegoating is not random.
	It is a strategy to deepen divisions and erode democracy.
	So basically what they're saying is that...
	Oh, good.
	Sorry.
	This wasn't launched on wider society as an attempt to deepen divisions.
	No, of course not.
	Yeah, so basically they constantly separate the population in groups of oppressors and oppressed, and then they are projecting by saying that, well, being critical of
	uh the LGBTQ progressivist agenda uh is to deepen divisions and turn you into Mussolini apparently and to talk about divisions that aren't there or in fact there are let's see just a bit here it says this report provides a framework for better understanding LGBTQ scapegoating identifying its political goals and distinguish it from politics as usual that's going to be interesting so it says
	The six goals of LGBTQ scapegoating are to stigmatize, to mobilize a base, to win elections, to polarize, distract and normalize political violence.
	So weird, because I wouldn't have thought the LGBTQ community was actually an election winning strategy.
	But I mean, in the modern era, I guess it kind of is.
	A lot of the American Republicans are very much running on that.
	Well, I guess it is, yeah.
	One thing to notice here is the concept of the tyranny of the minority.
	And a lot of people think that talking about it is a bad thing, that we absolutely should talk about it.
	And it's not a thing to be shunned, as it is regularly shunned by progressives, but it's just fairly simple.
	When you have political parties that take the majority of the population's support for granted, that leaves you a small grey zone of swing voters.
	One of the ways to carve That zone is to appeal to groups.
	So if, let's say, that gives disproportionate amounts of power to the groups that belong to the swing voters because the parties that try to appeal to them, they take most of their voters for granted.
	They're the only ones that are genuinely sort of politically active.
	Yes.
	Because the other ones are just foregone conclusions.
	Yes.
	And this is also what is interesting to see when people talk about uniparties and parties that, despite their major differences, they have similar agendas.
	And even if they don't, they end up pushing forward the agendas of groups, of minority groups, because they think that these groups are going to win them elections.
	Let's see here from this full report.
	So I'll just show you some stuff here.
	If we can go to, well, could we go to page five, please?
	Possibly not.
	Possibly not.
	Anyway, I can tell you it talks about in page five.
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	Now it says the presentation organizes insights about a growing international crisis, the global scapegoating of LGBTQ people.
	So they're talking about an international crisis.
	I imagine that the level of LGBTQ scapegoating varies from country to country.
	Yes.
	And there it says, here's what we found.
	LGBTQ scapegoating is strategic, used to achieve political goals.
	It is not random, not a natural consequence of polarization, but a strategy to drive polarization.
	Okay, but that's what LGBTQ is itself.
	This is the funny thing, isn't it?
	All of this, they're outlining their agenda.
	There's no self-awareness.
	This is what we've done and now they're doing it too.
	How could they do that to you?
	It is global, not US specific.
	It is part of the I wonder why.
	I wonder why it's not just you.
	It is part of the authoritarian playbook eroding liberal democracy worldwide.
	This kind of rhetoric isn't actually democratic if you think about it, even if you don't like democracy.
	Democracy requires dialogue.
	You can't have dialogue with hate speech laws where everything is just penalized.
	Or because it's out of the authoritarian playbook.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Is there anything more authoritarian than telling people they can't say something?
	No and it says there democracies with civil rights and individual liberties are called liberal democracies with elections but not civil rights and individual liberties are called illiberal.
	The question is for whom and what counts as a civil right?
	And also yeah this this this just well you either have civil rights or you have no civil rights and something that's not how it works.
	Yes, and also it says here to care about democracies, to care about LGBTQ scapegoating.
	I would say that to care about democracy and also to care about your country, let's put it this way, is to care about the people of your country, irrespective of what group they fall in.
	It seems to me that this progressivist agenda is Definitely talking about LGBTQ scapegoating, but they're very okay.
	They have zero problem.
	Actually, they're actually driving it with scapegoating the people who don't belong into the LGBTQ agenda.
	Let's say the natives of each Western country.
	Apparently, there's no problem with Yeah, they're scapegoating them.
	Everything is just a problem of people from these countries.
	Anti-normative, isn't it?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah.
	This is exactly what they did to the majority population who were just enjoying their lives and getting on with things.
	Yeah.
	It says here, 18 years of declining freedom.
	Queer scapegoating is occurring amid a broader democracy crisis.
	In 2024, Freedom House marked the 18th consecutive year of declining global freedom in It says LGBTQ people were targeted to varying degrees during several decades, but could there be a causal relation between that?
	Because the actual promotion of the progressivist agenda is eroding people's liberties.
	So, it's not exactly a wonder why these two things are related.
	They're not the only reasons that lead to the erosion of liberties, but at least in the Western world, they're the main reasons.
	Yeah, but I hate this such abstract framing that really is insufferable.
	I mean, it presumes to start with that ultimate freedom is an ultimate good, which I don't agree with.
	So actually, maybe if freedom has gone too far, then a declining amount of freedom might actually be a good thing.
	For example, if, say, New York or wherever has, oh, you can have abortion up until the point of birth, And someone who isn't a monster says, you know what, guys?
	Actually, I'm not sure murdering babies when they're literally viable and about to be born is quite right.
	We'll have a discussion about the fetus and the things later.
	But I think when we get to the point where it's literally about to come out and the only thing that separates it from being a baby with its own rights and something that the woman can just choose to have killed is literally the passage through the canal.
	A few pushes.
	Then we've got a different thing.
	So actually taking that away.
	OK, yes.
	Oh, no.
	Freedom's declining.
	Good.
	Good.
	Fewer babies being murdered means freedom of climbing.
	That's okay, because that means that ultimate freedom actually wasn't a good thing, and having a sensible, even middle ground was probably better than just allowing people to do whatever the hell they wanted.
	You're right, but in this context I don't think there are fewer freedoms.
	I think in the LGBTQ community there are more freedoms than there's ever been.
	Sure, sure.
	But just in this context, I hate this.
	Oh, well, there's fewer freedoms.
	Well, maybe that's a good thing.
	Maybe it's not great to be ultimately free.
	I think I agree with Calvin because they were talking about liberties, but I do think they have in mind what you have in mind.
	They talk about ultimate liberty, but it's just for them.
	So what is interesting here, we have the authoritarian playbook.
	I want to ask you, I want to invite you to ask yourself whether the left progressivist circle is actually recreating the authoritarian playbook that they have.
	So they have seven key tactics.
	Let's go one by one.
	Number one, politicizing independent institutions.
	The BBC, Ofcom.
	I've been reliably informed by Carol Hanisch and all of the other progressives that came after her that the personal is political.
	There is nothing that is not political.
	So it's politicized already.
	So no one's politicizing independent institutions.
	They're all politicized.
	And this was the orthodox left-wing thought for the last 70 odd years, right up until this moment, it seems.
	Also, let's just mention academia.
	It is meant to be an independent institution, but it's completely leftist-run.
	But a lot of leftists don't like talking about it.
	And there's a scene that a lot of you may know.
	The great Roger Scruton had a debate with Terry Eagleton on Intelligence Squared.
	And Terry Eagleton was saying that, you know, the right just has conquered universities.
	Roger Scruton told him, literally, I'm the only right-wing person in the university.
	Well, I found they usually acknowledge it, but they don't want to face up to the consequences.
	So before I did any media stuff, I was a teacher.
	I used to do teacher training.
	I used to do diversity training.
	And I get them all in the room and say, we're doing some diversity training.
	And then I talk about 75% of academics being left-leaning and why that might be a problem.
	And then they'd get cognitive dissonance.
	They'd hate it.
	They'd recognize it, but they wouldn't want to do anything about it.
	Not this kind of diversity training!
	Yeah.
	We don't want to be more diverse in that way, wouldn't we?
	Yeah.
	75%.
	That's in the before.
	Yeah.
	In the before, because now it's way more than... That's only seven years ago now, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So number two, spreading disinformation.
	Yeah, okay.
	The left has never said anything wrong.
	All I'm saying is that Russia was definitely funding Trump.
	Yeah.
	And let me define woman for you.
	Number three, aggrandizing executive power.
	Just think of it this way.
	You constantly have the criticism that in right-wing circles there is always this appeal to an emergency that justifies the erosion of civil liberties.
	Well, how is the climate thing working in this case?
	In exactly the same sense.
	There's an emergency crisis.
	Governments have to act.
	WHO treaty.
	They have to erode people's liberties.
	So again, they are doing the first three things.
	Now, quashing dissent.
	Oh yeah.
	I don't know.
	We even need to explain.
	We even need to explain.
	Has anyone seen any protests?
	Any hate crime laws?
	Yeah, they're just everywhere.
	Like the YouTube terms of service, you know.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Hate speech laws all across the board.
	Now, number five, scapegoating vulnerable communities.
	Shut up, Incel.
	Number six, corrupting elections.
	Number seven, stoking violence.
	Right.
	Yes.
	Anyway, so... Don't punch a Nazi or anything.
	Yeah.
	And let's move to page 18, which is the last one.
	And I want to show you here something that is interesting.
	They are talking about vulnerable communities.
	That it is a tactic that is used into, in order to, excuse me, sorry, number.
	That was interesting though.
	Yeah, you will go.
	Sorry, I wanted to show this, that I had a cognitive dissonance.
	It says, this presentation focuses on one part of this playbook.
	It says, scapegoating vulnerable communities.
	And what I want to say this is that a lot of the progressivist conceptual machinery is trying to portray all these groups, the minority groups as vulnerable, as if vulnerability is not something that could characterize the general population.
	Yeah, in what way are these communities vulnerable?
	Yes, and they are talking about the scapegoating them as being a problem, but they systematically blame everything upon everyone else.
	And I want to show you this clip here.
	Yeah, it's gone off.
	This clip from the Oxford Union debate between Winston Marshall, Mumford & Sons and Nancy Pelosi.
	I'll show you about a minute from it.
	I think it was absolutely stellar.
	Populism is not a threat to democracy.
	Populism is democracy.
	Words have a tendency to change meaning.
	When I was a boy, woman meant someone who didn't have a cock.
	Populism has become a word used synonymously with racist.
	We've heard ethno-nationalist.
	We've bigot.
	We've whole billy.
	Redneck.
	We've deplorables.
	Elites use it to show their contempt for ordinary people.
	This is a recent change.
	Not long ago, Barack Obama was still president.
	He took umbrage of the notion that Trump be called a populist.
	How could Trump be called a populist?
	He doesn't care about working people.
	If anything, Obama argued, he was the populist.
	Something curious happens.
	If you watch Obama's speeches after that point, more and more recently, he uses the word populist interchangeably with strongman, with authoritarian.
	The word changes meaning.
	It becomes a negative, a pejorative, a slur.
	To me, populism is not a dirty word.
	So definitely check this debate, because he was absolutely magnificent.
	And it shows a lot when the people who are claiming to be pro-democracy are systematically quashing dissent when it comes from the people they claim to represent.
	And I have a good example here that I want to show you and remind you of.
	To show you exactly, this is one of my favorites, Helen McEntee, just before the Irish referendums, she said one day before, on the 7th of March, one day before the referendums, I hope you will take the time to vote on Friday, and I hope you will vote yes and yes.
	I will be voting that way, and when I do so, I believe I will be voting for a more modern, inclusive Ireland.
	Our constitution matters.
	It matters that its language and its contents reflects the Ireland we are.
	The Ireland we want to become.
	The obvious question is, when you have these results here, who is we?
	Not us, not the ordinary folk.
	That's exactly the point, isn't it?
	Populism is evil and right-wing, but democracy is based on majority share.
	That's the point of it.
	And so the only people on the other side of this must be a minority of elite, usually managerial types, who think that they should be given executive power over everything, regardless of what the majority thinks.
	Yeah, they don't want a tyranny of the majority, they want a tyranny of the minority.
	Yeah, which is what most tyrannies are.
	Right.
	And now we're going to talk about the constant victimization of that community and the constant demonization of people who don't belong to that community.
	Right.
	Or the, what's it called?
	The normative?
	Yeah.
	So, if you just look at the debates that are being had within members of these communities, you will see that a lot of them have directly opposed views of what constitutes peaceful coexistence.
	Members of some communities say that in order for me to be respected, I want A, B and C, and other members of other communities that belong to this Circle, they say that in order for me to be respected, I want the exact opposite from A, B, and C. So they're absolutely diametrically opposed.
	And here comes the place where we see two tiers in wokeness.
	I've said tier one is the wishful thinking tier.
	It's the Eurovision audience tier.
	People will just say, okay, why can't we be friends?
	All of us, let's just hug each other.
	All of that and all problems are going to go away.
	And the other is the more Machiavellian and social engineering type that actually, to be honest, they also don't care about the members of these communities.
	Well, it's the hippies versus the communists, isn't it really?
	Yes, exactly, exactly.
	Here, Jeremy Corbyn says in the Council of Europe, there is no LGB without the T. When was this?
	That was... Oh, it's a recent one.
	It's a recent one.
	But now the question is, why, if people are members of that community, why do they need Someone like Jeremy Corbyn to come and tell them that unless you support the entire agenda surrounding that community, you're not a member of that community.
	I wasn't thinking that.
	I was thinking that the LGB have an issue with their sexuality, the T have an issue with their body, what do the two have to do with each other?
	But your point is more interesting.
	Which one is Jeremy Corbyn?
	And if he's neither of them, why has he got anything to say on this?
	Well, what people like Jeremy Corbyn will say, I think, is that all of them have to be supporters of the agenda.
	And to the extent that they are not, they are brainwashed by the evil Westerners.
	And we have a really good tweet here by Freya India.
	A culture that rewards victimhood isn't compassionate.
	It's cruel.
	Compassion is not rewarding suffering until it slides into self-indulgence.
	Compassion is not belittling Gen Z until we lose belief in ourselves.
	That's an interesting thing because a lot of the rhetoric of progressivism is about empowerment.
	It's about just being yourself and empowering the individual.
	But there's an interesting question.
	Whatever you think about the idea of individual empowerment, my point here is different, is that how do you empower people when you're actually making them incredibly fragile, non-resilient, and you foster a mentality of victimhood?
	This is, to be frank, this is the Machiavellian progressivists actually taking advantage of the tier one wokeists, who are maybe naive enough and maybe operate more on the level of sentiment.
	Because if people are members of these societies and they sort of want individual empowerment and be feeling a bit freer and stuff like that, how is habituation into feeling a victim going to help them?
	And what is interesting is that this goes constantly in almost everything.
	And I'll show you something that personally I found it a bit funny.
	It says here, from UCLA School of Law Williams Institute, same-sex couples more vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change.
	Right.
	Again, victimhood all around, even when it comes to climate change.
	What's their argument?
	Okay.
	No, we don't need to go there.
	They live frequently close to the sea, and apparently the sea turns you gay.
	Right, okay.
	Well, something's doing it.
	Yeah, and Billboard Chris is saying, checking in on my gay friends, you haven't overheated.
	Be careful this summer.
	It's ridiculous.
	And I want to talk about Biden here.
	He gave a A speech to black men who graduated, and he was literally trying in their graduation day to remind them of how the whole country is systemically racist against them.
	And there's a really good tweet here by Christian Watson.
	Instead of a message of empowerment and hope, those who occupy the holds of power, institutional and political, constantly sell Americans hopelessness and nihilism.
	But it's not even selling it to America.
	It's specifically targeting black Americans.
	I covered this on Monday to tell them literally you are incapable of getting ahead in the same way a white person is because America is systemically stacked against you.
	You're gonna have to work 10 times harder and America will still hate you.
	So good luck.
	He's admitting his racism.
	It's not even that.
	I mean, let's assume that he sincerely believes it.
	It's just an evil thing to say to young people who have just graduated.
	Like, hello, I'm here to demoralize you.
	Wasting your time.
	You'll never succeed because you're black.
	Yeah, so I want to end by going back to my tweet and say that the identitarian leftist politics has these stages.
	You separate people into groups with incompatible views of what constitutes peaceful coexistence.
	You tell them that disagreement with their perceived interests is an existential threat and you make them fragile psychologically and not able to take reality at face value and become citizens that countries need.
	When these incompatibilities become felt, invent a common enemy.
	And I think that this is exactly how the progressivism behind the rhetoric works.
	Right.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Okay.
	Grant says, is the Islander Magazine going to be an annual, semi-annual?
	I've pre-ordered issue number one, but I want to know what I'm in for.
	It also looks really well printed.
	It is.
	Have you given any thoughts how future issues will look?
	Is it going to be cohesive design or perhaps the same image, different color palettes?
	Well, Grant, I don't want to spoil anything there, but of course it's going to be very aesthetically minded.
	It's going to be quarterly, so every three months we will produce a wonderful new issue.
	It is gorgeous, by the way, and the articles in it are fascinating.
	I know because I wrote some.
	But no, it's really good.
	But there is going to be a piece of design and theme to each issue that the whole thing will be revolving around.
	The first one is revolving around the concept of the return of the king and the lack of legitimacy in our political system.
	Well, that's what I said towards the end of the segment.
	best thing for the uk is a complete and total implosion of the tories and the electorate being subjected to the cancer that is labor and their marxist agenda slash allies for them to wake up from their stupor then farage can step up and restore what is left of the country well that's what i said towards the end of the segment that is a possibility that farage is playing the long game on that yeah possibly Maybe.
	Maybe.
	We should just tell us.
	Yeah, exactly.
	We should just say it.
	Because then at least people will be like, yeah, no, good point.
	That's actually going to work.
	And then you might actually just get a load of conservatives going, yeah, no, we're actually on board with this.
	Let's get this done.
	But, you know, playing coy about it.
	It's the dishonesty of politicians that gets on our nerves quite often.
	The thing is, the media would pick up on it and go, Nigel Farage says this, great, tell the country, tell everyone in the country, because that's probably what the country is actually wanting to hear at this point.
	But playing coy on it makes it look like you're just thinking, I'm going to get myself money by going out and supporting Trump, and I'm just going to shrug up Britain.
	Sorry, right, did we have video comments?
	I'm just going to check.
	Okay, Tech Heresy says all the Tories need to do is do what they said during the election.
	That was the genius of Trump.
	He campaigned to do a thing, he was elected, he did the thing, then he pointed and says, I did it like you asked.
	I know, he's building the wall.
	That's all he needs to do, build the wall.
	To be fair, that's what Boris Johnson wanted to do, what was in the manifesto.
	He was obsessed about getting his manifesto pledges through.
	Of course, everyone else around him had other ideas.
	But wasn't Boris responsible for choosing those people around him?
	To some degree, yeah.
	But majorly, no.
	Because a lot of them are through CCHQ.
	So the whole 2019 intake, they're all new people.
	So you can only pick from what you've got, right?
	Good point, good point.
	Ramshackalotta, woman, I'm aware at this point, says, I can't vote for Labour, I can't vote Conservative, I can't vote Reform.
	I'm planning on writing Enoch Powell at the bottom of my ballot.
	Sound.
	I'm going to cross-taste that.
	I might do the same thing.
	With the departure of Hamza Yusuf and the massive losses in the May elections, it was clear to all the Tories that no one was coming to save them.
	So Rishi jumped instead of being pushed to save himself from a coup.
	Quite possibly.
	And the thing is, it's not like Rishi cares.
	Didn't his personal wealth go up by like £200 million or something?
	So now he's worth, what, £750 million or something?
	He's clearly a man who has no political ambitions.
	Like, he doesn't want to achieve anything.
	He just wants to be in the position.
	Yeah, and just to have it on his name, I suppose.
	Thomas says, you know exactly why he's announced the general election, Kyle.
	Our purchasing power is diminishing at a lower rate than previous rate.
	It's as good as it gets.
	And if that fails, he'll be in time to bug out to California in order to avoid the coldest British winter in a decade and prepare for his Ivy League university sencure.
	Well, it's entirely possible that that is the case.
	But I mean, literally, this is literally as bad as it is.
	In Britain, the standards are so low.
	Like, I saw Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats retweeting, Ha!
	Look at our Liberal Democrat candidate.
	He's wearing a coat.
	Oh, gosh.
	Let's watch the video comments.
	Recently, my wife and I visited Switzerland, and we went to the beer park in Bern.
	They are beautiful animals, but you can tell why they require two fences and a layer of glass to keep them from us.
	Excellent.
	Thank you, Ron Swanson.
	Yeah, lovely, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Wouldn't want to meet one in the woods.
	Would you rather meet a woman?
	Let's go to the next one.
	It's just a quick note for when Kyle said he could beat a koala bear.
	Kyle mate, I'm sorry, a koala would rock your shit.
	What?
	Imagine walking through the bush in the middle of the night because that's when they're active and it's darting at you and it sounds like this.
	A demon.
	And a predator.
	That's what I sound like when I'm running.
	No way!
	One good punt, I reckon.
	Or a good kick.
	Yeah, I could take that.
	way i i get one good punt i reckon one good kick yeah yeah i could take that let's go for the next one africa does have some fun stories if you know where to look For example, in Ghana there are tales of Anansi the spider god, who does all sorts of tricky things like stealing balls from tiger.
	Now tell me, wouldn't that make a great video game, stealing the testicles of a great big tiger?
	Not sure how much longevity it has though.
	Is there another one?
	I recommend watching badly acted research film intros on YouTube.
	One of the best ones I've come across so far is titled Best Ever Gay Research Film Intro.
	There's a moment in that video where one of the guys actually corrects the other's grammar.
	Just watch it.
	It's glorious.
	I thought he was going to show us a clip.
	Okay, is that the last one?
	No, there's another.
	Alright, let's talk about modern food quality.
	Here we have two pieces of meat, and it seems like they're cooked differently, but they're not.
	They were cooked in the same pan for the same amount of time on the same heat.
	So the one on the left was bought from a grocery store, and the one on the right I got at a local farmer who grass-fed the cows.
	So, it kind of gives you an idea of how our great-grandparents and before used to eat quality food, and these days we don't really unless we seek it out.
	So, so true.
	That's a great point actually.
	You can see literally the quality of the cooking as well.
	It's not just the quality of the food, it's the poison in the food.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, that's exactly the point he's making.
	Who knows what hormones the one on the left has been fed with.
	I love cooking myself.
	Yeah, I do as well.
	Buy local.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Support local industry.
	It's more expensive, but you get what you pay for.
	Yeah.
	You know, meat shouldn't be as cheap as it is.
	That's the thing.
	I do love a good steak.
	Yeah, me too.
	But, you know, I appreciate that I'm going to have to, I should be paying.
	Yeah.
	Because you can get a steak from Tesco for like three or four quid away.
	It's like, you know, you know, something dodgy is going on.
	You know, the prices for things are that low.
	But no, it's not that I'm in favor of high price or whatever, but you know what I mean?
	Let's go to the next one.
	That's a good one.
	We won the war!
	We won the war!
	Two World Wars and one World Cup!
	We will not be controlled by foreigners!
	Britain will never be defeated!
	Victory!
	Yep.
	That's a good question.
	You know Rishi Senak allowed a quarter of a million Indians to come and settle here last year?
	That was an Englishman.
	Or related.
	Well, who knows.
	But if that was an Englishman ruling India who allowed a quarter of a million Englishmen into India, people would be saying, well, hang on a second.
	I don't think there were a quarter of a million English people in India when India was part of the British Empire.
	No, I think it was 100,000.
	So yeah, isn't it wild?
	We've been colonized.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	That's probably what I'm going to say at the Tommy speech.
	Anyway, North FC Zoomer says, no, how will Rishi complete his zero seat strategy?
	What if they get one or two seats?
	That means they will still technically exist.
	Yeah, well, we'll probably do an election night live stream on the 4th of July.
	And we will be sad every time the Conservatives win a seat because they don't deserve any.
	Beg Your Hero in fact says zero seats.
	Zero seats.
	Bald Eagle sends a super chat saying Farage has become controlled opposition.
	I bet you a gold membership that his campaigning in the US is to sow dissent in the Trump supporter ranks by supporting more do-nothing rhinos to be voted in.
	I hope not.
	I should hope he'd give Trump appropriate support.
	No, yeah, I think he wants a crusty job in Trump's administration.
	Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if that was what he was angling for, actually.
	I mean, to be fair, it could be worse.
	Trump's chosen worse people in the past.
	This is true, it could be worse.
	So, you know.
	Lord Nerevar says, Farage isn't personally standing.
	Honestly, I no longer trust the man after the UKIP debacle and his flip-floppiness since Brexit.
	Endless respect for him with the achievement of Brexit, but ultimately the man is a politician.
	Yeah, that's fair.
	I'm wary of going excessively hard against anyone who is on the right just because I see it happening a lot and it just builds bad blood.
	I know what you mean.
	If he or people close to him only hear criticism from the left, they'll move to the left to combat critics even though it doesn't work.
	Yeah, that's fair.
	I've just got, I'm wary of going excessively hard against anyone who is on the right just because I see it happening a lot and it just builds bad blood.
	I know what you mean.
	And I don't want to, you know, bring poison into the system.
	But what if the person is the poison in the system?
	Well, that is the issue.
	But I don't think Farage is the poison.
	Well, what he did to UKIP, what he did to the Brexit policy... I agree, I agree.
	But I think that, you know, this was... Well, he's a politician, and so he's made what he believed to be savvy political manoeuvres.
	Well, you know, I don't like... Which is fine, if the political manoeuvres are for the best interest of the country, rather than... The best interest of Farage, yeah.
	And I'm more than happy to accept that they're fair criticisms of Farage.
	Anyway, Colin says, I'm also actually concerned this will be the last general election.
	It actually means anything.
	Any future elections will be for the British economic area seats to rubber stamp the body of the European Union empire.
	Yeah, that's a genuine worry.
	Do we actually care about democracy, though?
	We don't have any democracy anymore, but do we care?
	Well, I mean, no one's being represented.
	There's a very small collection of bureaucrats in Westminster that are being represented by the British political system.
	So it's hard to say that it is a democracy at this point.
	I think people are feeling that.
	I actually saw a thing on the government website by the Conservatives about political disengagement from democracy.
	It's like, well, why do you think?
	You know, what did Rishi Sanak commission this, did he?
	The person no one voted for, nobody wanted.
	Well, I mean, above him, isn't it?
	WEF, WHO, UN, EU, NATO.
	What say do we have, really?
	I mean, again, I don't want any spoilers from Conor's Trust interview, but there are some serious things you need to watch in that.
	We'll put them out on Twitter after it's done.
	She's being advised by people that you should think wouldn't be allowed to advise her.
	But again, we won't carry on.
	The Crusader says, on the subject of the PM not having real power, it's the same in America.
	Remember one of Putin's interviews where he bemoaned the inability to actually talk to someone in the West who had the power to actually get things done?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And I think that's one of the reasons why Trump was such an upset to the system, because he was struggling against like the mesh of interests that usually hold them in place.
	The Shadowband sends a $25 soup chat saying Stelios has me thinking democracy was a mistake.
	Democracy would be a fine idea if we had it.
	It would be actually perfectly fine for us to be able to choose our own leaders and say no we like that guy we're going to put him in charge and the majority have voted for it and so superb.
	I'm still not convinced.
	I think there's definite advantages.
	I mean, he's not the head of state, which is actually good.
	I would hate to have presidents.
	But it depends who the majority are.
	If the majority are the native population, then perhaps democracy can work.
	But look at London, for example, the majority having a voice isn't necessarily a good thing.
	Well, absolutely true, but I was presupposing that we had a majority British.
	But even with that, we have politicians who have a short term in office, so they're invested in, what, five years of their own position, whereas if we have a monarch or a benevolent dictator, they're looking at the bigger picture.
	That is true, but then you've got, there are a slate of criticisms of what can happen with that, which are all valid.
	I have two things to say to this, but maybe it's the wrong time, but I think that... You want an agathocles style tyrant?
	No, I want to say that traditionally speaking, all the democratic Experiments that are known in history, they had a uniform culture.
	So when we're talking about just not having borders and just anyone in the planet being able to vote on something, that defeats the purpose.
	And this works with all forms of popular government, also with republics.
	There is a stress on civic nationalism right now that just is completely being demonized.
	Ethnic homogeneity and successful republican and democracy experience.
	Bull Eagle says for $2, absolute freedom versus freedom with sensible restrictions.
	That was the original fight in Assassin's Creed.
	Assassin's Creed equals freedom, Templars equals control freedom.
	So Geralda, I see the Templars were right.
	Well, that's the issue really at the bottom of it.
	It's like freedom from what?
	Yeah, this is a faith question.
	True freedom is submission actually.
	Sounding a bit Mohammedian?
	No, true freedom!
	Because the devil says that actually true freedom is freedom from everything, right?
	The freedom to do whatever you like but that's actually freedom, that's slavery to sin because that's just life without limits and submission to God, taking away from your own desires and wants and needs and focusing on someone greater is the actual freedom because you have the boundaries that he sets to live within.
	Well, on that note, we've run out of time, but in half an hour, Calvin will be back with the Common Sense Crusade.
	So go and sign up to listseas.com, and of course, enjoy that.
	And we'll see you then, and the podcast will be back tomorrow.

▲