Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 24, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:54

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #943

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Conservative Party's unending desire for treason has led to your people's future being shrouded in darkness.
	With nothing left to satiate its hunger for treachery, it has turned to the one thing it has yet to destroy.
	The Conservative Party itself.
	Many thought it impossible.
	After persisting through so much deceit and duplicity, it seemed like nothing could bring about its demise.
	But now, with the support of so many, the Conservative Party brand is broken, reduced to a runaway train, with no brakes and zero seats.
	After nearly 200 years, when the clock strikes 10 on Thursday the 4th of July, the traitorous project known as the Conservative and Unionist Party of the United Kingdom will finally come to an end.
	The greatest enemy of your people will be vanquished forever.
	And the best place to watch this truly historic moment unfold is on lotuseaters.com.
	Good afternoon, folks.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus East for Monday, the 24th of June.
	That was Rishi Sanak obviously endorsing our election night Lotus Easter stream.
	It's going to be amazing.
	It's going to be a long night but it will be a really good one.
	We're going to have some great guests and it's going to be a lot of fun.
	But today, I'm joined by Bo and Stelios, and today we are going to be talking about whether Nigel Farage is in fact right about Ukraine, whether the Conservatives themselves have suffered a collective stroke because of their propaganda, and why Sadiq Khan hates the English flag.
	So I suppose we'll begin.
	Right, yeah, I thought I would talk all about Ukraine today and that Nigel dared to voice a sort of dissenting view on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
	They're not happy about it, are they?
	No, right, yeah, the Uniparty, the Party of Davos, whatever you want to call it, do not like that.
	No.
	You know, Nigel isn't in line with their view.
	And I wonder if we can have, because he's touched on something a bit deeper really, is whether we can have a conversation, by we I mean the Western Hemisphere really, or at least Britain.
	Can we have an actual grown-up, reasonable, nuanced conversation about the thing?
	Because that is exactly what the Uniparty don't want you to have.
	They want you to have the very, very low resolution I don't think there was ever a conversation, to be honest.
	modern day Churchill, i.e. perfect.
	And Putin is the modern day Hitler, i.e. the root of all evil.
	I don't think there was ever a conversation.
	Right, no, no.
	It was just you're supposed to go boo, you're supposed to go hooray.
	So there's lots of different, I suppose you could call them power centers in the world, You know, the Central Committee in Beijing is one.
	Yeah.
	You know, the Kremlin is another.
	And America is one, whether it's the White House, whether it's actually really the State Department in conjunction with the Pentagon.
	You know, the State Department, the bureaucrats there and the chiefs over at the Pentagon have got a certain line, certain world view.
	And it seems Britain, for a long, long time, since the war, World War II, more or less, nearly always, just gone along with it.
	Not always, of course, there are examples.
	We didn't see eye to eye on the Falklands, for example.
	No, no.
	Or they didn't help us out in the Suez and things.
	But usually we do whatever we're told.
	We're told what we're supposed to think on foreign policy, and we go along with it.
	And the line is, is that Zelensky is... So, of course, if we play this little clip, if anyone remembers this... Have I got control of the mouse?
	Stumpson, are you doing it?
	I'm not doing anything.
	Stumpson, you do it.
	So, yeah, if you remember this, there's Pelosi and Kamala in full sycophant mode.
	This is awkward.
	Okay.
	Anyway, and then they give him an American flag in return.
	And if you stop that, you don't need to see any more of that.
	It's not quite as bad as the Canadian Parliament, where they had an actual Nazi war criminal to applaud.
	My enemy is my friend, taken to truly absurd lengths.
	Even if he literally served under Hitler.
	How many times does the West or America have to, do we have to go through this thing that my enemy's enemy is my friend, regardless of the blowback years later?
	You know, like the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, or being friends of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, being friends with Gaddafi when it suited us.
	I suppose it's realpolitik, isn't it?
	I mean, it's just, it is what it is.
	But how many times do we have to be sort of forced to back a certain party at one point, when it's clear to me, and this is kind of my take, that There are no goodies in the Russia-Ukraine thing.
	It's not that Zelensky and Ukraine are the goodies and Russia and Putin are the baddies.
	Now, a lot of people will immediately say, ah, you're a pro-Putin apologist, you're an appeaser of the Kremlin.
	Well, no, no such thing.
	No such thing.
	I can be not in favour of sending endless money and men, and Ukrainian men, to their deaths and not be on board with Putin.
	If it helps, I don't find that the allegations of being pro-Putin have any teeth to them at all.
	I'm totally indifferent about Russia.
	If anything, I feel kind of sorry for it.
	Russian history is awful.
	It's just a cavalcade of terrible things.
	I mean, like, World War II for Russia was really bad.
	26 million dead.
	That is shocking, you know?
	That's more like an eighth of their entire population, a sixth of their entire population or something.
	That was unbelievable.
	And so it's just like, okay, it's just a land of suffering and it has been for a thousand years.
	And the main issue that we seem to have is, and all the charges against Russia are just basically, you're insufficiently liberal.
	And it's like, well, duh.
	Like, why would they be liberal?
	Anyway, I've got no particular care about Russia.
	It just doesn't come up in my thoughts until they're like, you love Putin.
	No, I just hate what you're doing with my money.
	One thing to say here that is independent of the discussion, Bo, you're raising, is that one of the reasons why Russia has had such a past is because they were very autocratically led.
	Sure, but I mean... You could say, I mean... I think it's a lot more to do with, like, geography, really.
	They're kind of trapped between two great worlds, you know, can be invaded from both sides, so you end up with that kind of culture.
	Certainly it's a history of suffering, World War II alone.
	Tens of thousands of villages wiped off the map, millions of casualties.
	And of course, the war in the East, in World War II at least, raged across what is modern Ukraine.
	There were two or even three big battles of Kiev.
	There's no particular distinction between the types of history Ukraine and Russia have had.
	died were killed.
	So yeah, the history of Ukraine, not even touching on the Holodomor.
	The history of Ukraine is one of terrible, terrible misery. - There's no particular distinction between the types of history Ukraine and Russia have had.
	That's the thing. - It's like when Tucker, again, had the temerity to actually speak to Putin, Putin took the narrative back to the 9th century.
	Yeah.
	And I actually did a video with Apostolic Majesty.
	I don't know if we can just click on the... just to show that.
	Yeah, I did over two hours, two hours twenty-odd, talking to Apostolic Majesty, who is a fantastic mind, one of the best read people I've ever come across.
	And we talked for well over two hours.
	Just about taking the narrative back because this is what the Uniparty want you to think is that history started in 2014 when there was that coup in Kiev.
	Good things happened at that point and it's all been good until right now or until 2022 I think it was.
	It's just mindless aggression from the Kremlin against poor little old Ukraine who didn't do nothing wrong.
	And Putin is a new Hitler type thing.
	Yeah.
	So if... Let's see what Nigel actually said.
	If we can click on that Channel 4 News, quote, disgraceful comments link.
	That's one of the first ones.
	Second one there.
	There you go.
	And just... Was that the one?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	If we could just play this.
	A stoic Vladimir Putin lays a wreath this morning in a ceremony to commemorate the Nazis' invasion of the Soviet Union.
	It came just hours after Nigel Farage claimed it was the West who provoked Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
	A consequence, he said, of the EU and NATO expanding eastwards.
	I stood up in the European Parliament in 2014 and I said, and I quote, there will be a war in Ukraine.
	We provoked this war.
	Of course it's his fault.
	He's used what we've done as an excuse.
	But we provoked the invasion of Ukraine.
	Yes, and very interestingly, once again, ten years ago when I predicted this, by the way I'm the only person in British politics that predicted what would happen.
	This isn't a new argument from Nigel Farage.
	Here he is in the European Parliament in 2014.
	And the moral of the story is if you poke the Russian bear with a stick, don't be surprised when he reacts.
	I talked about it, actually, as a matter of social justice.
	But by breakfast time today, it was Rishi Sunak being forced to react, once again, to headlines created by reform.
	After meeting with members of London's night-time economy, he wasn't holding back.
	What he said was completely wrong and only played the... Sorry, sorry.
	Meeting with members of London's night-time economy?
	During the day.
	No idea what that means.
	Yeah, probably not the most respectable of people.
	In other words, in Putin's hands.
	This is a man who deployed nerve agents on the streets of Britain, who's doing deals with countries like North Korea.
	And this kind of appeasement is dangerous for Britain's security, the security of our allies that rely on us, and only emboldens Putin further.
	Keir Starmer wanted to talk about justice for the Windrush generation today, but also found himself wading into this row.
	Farage's comments about Russia and Ukraine are disgraceful.
	Are they?
	I've always been clear.
	That Putin bears responsibility, sole responsibility, for the Russian aggression in Ukraine.
	And I think- Okay, hang on, sorry.
	So- Well, I was gonna- I was gonna go through each one of their response after if we just- Oh, sorry, okay.
	Anybody who wants to stand to be a representative in our parliament should be really clear that whether it's Russian aggression on the battlefield or online, that we stand against that aggression.
	That's standing behind Ukraine, but also standing up for our freedom.
	Another eye-catching photo call for Ed Davey.
	He wanted to focus on environmental issues today, but joined in the chorus of condemnation.
	Vladimir Putin and Russia embarked on an illegal invasion of Ukraine.
	They are killing hundreds of thousands of people, some innocent civilians, and it is absolutely appalling.
	And it's Putin and Russia who are to blame for this.
	No one else.
	No one else?
	And I strongly support the efforts that Britain has made to support the Ukrainians.
	I wish we'd done more, actually.
	Okay, Andy, you can finish up there.
	So I thought we'd go through... So that's what's been in the news cycle for a bit.
	Just to be clear, that really does display the Uniparty, the liberal consensus on the entire subject.
	A chorus of condemnation!
	No, no, we all completely agree that we've never done anything wrong and Russia is entirely evil.
	It's like, oh well, if it's that simple then, thank God, funnel more men and materiel to Ukraine so more people can just die in this war.
	And we don't need to think any further on the issue.
	Yeah, endless, just the decisions they made for you at the State Department and the Pentagon, just endless men and materiel.
	Yeah, it's pathetic.
	So I thought we'd go through what Sunak, Starmer and Ed Davey said there, at least briefly.
	So Sunak actually made probably the most salient points.
	I'd like to reiterate here, I'm not pro-Putin or pro-Kremlin.
	Yeah, we don't need to give that any, we don't need to dignify that.
	Putin is an ex-FSB killer.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	He does assassinate people, including like journalists and stuff.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so Sunak mentioned the Skripal affair, or the nerve agent thing.
	Yeah.
	Okay, that is really bad.
	That's absolutely terrible.
	Yeah, I mean, Scripple was a sort of a complete traitor and double agent.
	And so in the Kremlin's mind, he needs to die.
	Obama drone-striked an American citizen without any congressional oversight.
	Right, yeah.
	Or legal comeuppance.
	We'll send the SAS to Gibraltar to kill people if we need to.
	Like, this is what states do.
	Yeah.
	Israel will send someone to Norway or whatever to kill someone on the street if they need to.
	They'll do it.
	Okay.
	They'll do it.
	Also, let's not forget Litvinenko.
	That wasn't NerveAgent, that was actually Polonium.
	So, Putin's not a good guy.
	Okay, we don't need to... But anyway...
	The idea of appeasement.
	It's like what's happening in Eastern Ukraine isn't the same as like the Sudetenland or the Rhineland or annexing Austria that Hitler did and things like that.
	It's just not the same thing.
	Stahmer said that Putin bears sole responsibility.
	That's just simply wrong.
	It takes two to tango.
	It's not like one morning he decided there's complete peace and harmony in Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine.
	I know.
	I think just because I'm a psycho, I'm going to invade it.
	That's just not what happened.
	But also they weren't addressing the point because Farage said that it was Putin's fault, although he was provoked.
	No one addressed this.
	They all reacted as if he said something quite different.
	As if he said it's not his fault.
	Deliberately misunderstanding what you're saying.
	Or as if he was justified in doing it.
	As if it's a good thing that he's done it.
	Of course it would be the West that would provoke Russia in such a case, because the EU and NATO and the US are trying to exert influence upon that part of the world.
	It's what Farage said there about poking the Russian bear, don't expect it not to react.
	Of course that's true, of course that's... Just like in the playground, if you keep poking someone then they throw a punch at you.
	What a disgraceful thing to say!
	I remember seeing a clip of Putin a long time ago talking about NATO.
	He said, look, if you treat me reasonably, if you stop trying to take the mickey out of us, we'll treat you reasonably.
	But you don't seem to be doing that.
	You're painting me into a corner here.
	Well, the whole issue is that the Western, and I really mean that this is the liberal philosophy on the way that history works, doesn't recognise the legitimacy of non-liberal states.
	And so we are turning ourselves conveniently blind to the idea of spheres of influence.
	And this was well understood during, say, the Cold War with the Cuban Missile Crisis and things like that.
	No, you can't just have Soviet missiles on America's doorstep because that is a security threat to the United States.
	And it was well recognized.
	For example, if Mexico was like, you know, we think about we want to join the Russian Federation.
	You think America would be like, oh, well, I mean, you know, they voted for it.
	Well, they just voted for it, guys.
	They all decided no.
	Bollocks, right?
	Russia has a sphere of influence and Ukraine is directly in it, and it's a prisoner of geography in this regard.
	It's never going to not be in Russia's influence.
	And so the fact that we can go, well, they just joined the EU.
	It's like, look, you can't pretend that there aren't competing polls here.
	Like, axes around which power revolves, that is the case.
	And it is the case that the Russians are going to look at this and go, well, this is encroaching literally up to our border.
	We have to respond in some way.
	That's what Farage is saying.
	It's going to look provocative to the Russians.
	Now, I'm not Russian.
	I don't care about Russia.
	I have no sympathies for Russia.
	It's just anyone with any kind of understanding of how states react to these things will know.
	I'm about two thirds of the way through rereading the history of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides.
	For no particular reason.
	I just love reading it.
	And it's becoming very, very stark that this is what is the case.
	I mean, this is why the Spartans declared war on the Athenians.
	The Athenians were amassing a great empire in Greece, and they were like, well hang on a second, they're taking our allies.
	Our allies are feeling threatened by the expansion of the Athenians, and so it was the growth of Athenian power that led the Spartans to declare the war, as Thucydides puts it.
	And it's very much the same sort of thing here.
	It's the growth of NATO power and reach and influence that has caused Putin to think, right, we have to do something now.
	A red line has been crossed.
	I have to also introduce something else in the equation here, because many times we hear about, you know, how the West is very short-sighted and non-Western countries have a long-term planning on the level of their leadership.
	But you could say that in some cases it This is not necessarily and always an argument against Western countries, because there's another argument that I've heard.
	I mean, I'm no geopolitical expert, but it says that, well, Putin had more than 20 years in power.
	And he had two decades to exercise good influence into the countries that are under the sphere of influence of Russia, and he didn't.
	And a lot of them want to join the EU.
	Now, obviously, some are going to say, no, they are planned.
	It's just the planned leadership and stuff.
	But at least when it comes to Ukraine, the Ukrainians, I know they hear Russia and they just go mad instantly, like bulls.
	But, you know, Yeah.
	So there is that idea of spheres of influence.
	It's a very sort of Cold War thing.
	That's why I think the State Department and the Pentagon are sort of still wrapped up in this idea that the whole world should fall into spheres of influence and things.
	Well it does whether you like it or not.
	Right, yeah.
	And so if you listen to the Tucker-Putin interview or the Bodade Apostolic Majesty interview, you'll see that What we call Ukraine, or the area around Kiev, does go back centuries and centuries and centuries.
	They're sort of almost more Russian than Russian in a way.
	It's sort of the Kievan Rus' and... The Cossacks as well.
	Well, it's extremely complicated.
	You've talked about it for over two hours and still it's sort of reasonably opaque.
	But the point is, is that of course Kiev comes under the influence of Moscow.
	Yeah.
	There's no way around that.
	But Russia have been our strategic enemies firmly since the 18th century.
	There's the Great Game and all that sort of thing, and of course the Cold War.
	Another way of looking at this is just reverse it.
	What interest and claim does America have to Ukraine?
	Why does NATO have any interest in Ukraine at all?
	Well no, so this is another part of my take, is that Ukraine is being used as just a playground for the bigger powers.
	Sure.
	Just a play thing where all sorts of espionage and shenanigans and skullduggery go down both sides, using it as just a way to try and attack each other, of course.
	And the last thing that either of them seem to care about are the lives of Ukrainian people.
	Absolutely.
	We're more than willing to give them as much money and material as it requires.
	And scupper peace deals.
	Yeah, and literally Boris Johnson just dove in front of the peace deal and prevented that from happening.
	But the thing that drives me crazy about this is what is the purpose of getting Ukraine in NATO?
	What is the purpose of it?
	Why do we want that?
	And the only answer seems to be extending the liberal hegemony.
	That seems to be the only answer.
	To put pressure on the Kremlin, yeah.
	To continue the sort of manifest destiny of liberalism to conquer the entire world.
	Because NATO is such a Cold War thing, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as a riposte to the Warsaw Pact, that everyone will, if Stalin, in the first instance, was going to try and take over all of West Germany and the rest of Western Europe, there needs to be some sort of grand coalition in place to push back against that immediately.
	NATO.
	So it's sort of left over, it's a Cold War remnant, that's how I see NATO.
	Well, no, that's exactly right.
	That explains why it's such an ideologically driven bloc, right?
	So we are the Western liberal powers, and we have rendered the opponents to be illegitimate.
	We, of course, do this on a selective basis.
	We don't do it for Saudi Arabia or something like that.
	You know, when it's convenient, we just render you totally illegitimate, and then we're completely justified in doing whatever we can against you.
	Whereas this is not like the old world view, which has been presented by Nigel Farage.
	Nigel Farage looks in terms of peoples, national managements, governments, empires, states, operating, and so you don't really, it's not really about passing judgement on a rival state.
	It's a lot more of a value-neutral assessment.
	Say, well, if you take these actions, then that state will undoubtedly take this action, because it will be in their interest to do so.
	Whereas the liberal says, well, but what about gay rights in Ukraine?
	It's like, sorry, that's not the issue.
	That's not what we're talking about.
	That's an inappropriate moral judgment at this point.
	The question is the management of power between great nations, and that's the frame in which Nigel Farage is speaking, not the moral opprobrium of liberalism.
	I really don't think, though, that the US state wanted to exercise influence on Ukraine for gay rights.
	I think it's what you said before, but if we are going to apply the CDDs on the issue, it's not about gay rights, it's about increasing power.
	Yeah, but that's a part of their power, that's how they express their power.
	They absolutely are concerned about gay rights in Ukraine.
	There are going to be people in the US State Department who will literally bring this up in meetings.
	It's about moral legitimacy for action.
	But you are also right that there's going to be a huge amount of corruption.
	I mean, we know that the Americans are going to be deeply involved in various corrupt enterprises in Ukraine.
	If I could just draw it back to Nigel and the news cycle in Britain.
	You called it a sort of a value neutral thing from Nigel Farage.
	Absolutely, I'd characterise it more as just being honest about reality.
	That seems to me what Nigel is doing and that's exactly what they don't like because if you remember Starmer said basically said anyone who stands in Parliament sort of must stand against this aggression.
	Must we?
	Yeah, must we?
	Anyone who stands in Parliament must be in favour of World War 3, for gay rights in Ukraine, to make sure that there's no investigation into Biden's dealings in Ukraine.
	You shouldn't be allowed in Parliament unless you tow the State Department's line, and the State Department is the American version of the Foreign Office basically.
	So that's sort of scary, absolutely scary.
	Ed Davey called it an illegal invasion, well I mean it's just crazy now.
	Unlike the legal invasion of Iraq that we undertook.
	Exactly.
	Invasions are generally illegal.
	He seemed terribly upset that lots of people were getting killed.
	Didn't seem to care about Russian people getting killed.
	Russian soldiers' lives don't count for anything.
	Look at the framing.
	It's an illegal invasion, as if there is some rule of law adjudicated by a neutral arbiter of the nations of the world that declares good invasions and bad invasions.
	And this is the problem I have with just the Western liberal consensus on everything.
	Everything is presupposed.
	No, we never did anything wrong, we're always in the right, and our opponents are just insane, barbarous murderers.
	And therefore, we can just demonise them to our heart's content.
	And any amount of trying to have a rational look, a fair, value-neutral look at the situation, renders you to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
	It's like, no, that's ridiculous.
	It's childish.
	It's very deliberately low-resolution.
	Yeah, but it's childish and wildly ideological.
	But isn't there a question whether there are just wars and unjust wars?
	I'm not saying there are not just wars and unjust wars.
	The problem is that's a valued question.
	And so you have to say, well, who holds the value?
	Because I mean, Putin will definitely find that what he's doing to be a just war.
	Even if I don't.
	So Ed Davies has to apply some sort of neutral, transcendent, liberal rule of law that just doesn't exist, and pretend that, well, we're completely on the side of good, even though we've done things that Putin could rightly say, well, was it a legal invasion of Iraq, what's it?
	And we'll be like, well, I mean, by our laws.
	But he might not agree.
	I'm sure Saddam Hussein didn't agree.
	It's a fiction that we're trying to live within, that we assume everyone is somehow morally forced to agree with, which they're not.
	Jack Straw did get a very ambiguously worded UN resolution to allow... Oh, well... He cares about UN resolutions!
	The last thing Ed Davey said, which I wanted to pick up on, was he said, it was a direct quote, no one else is to blame.
	Like, wrong Ed, wrong!
	That's just wrong.
	History didn't start in 2014.
	So I thought, well, very quickly, I was going to dunk on Nick Robinson at the BBC there, but I won't bother.
	Everyone knows, sort of, what he is.
	It was interesting to note that, actually, Richard Tice, side note, Richard Tice and Nigel Farge seem to have very different views on it, because... Well, yeah!
	Just a quick thing here.
	You can be pro-Ukraine and still a realist about how things have come about.
	As in, you know, I'm an Englishman so I always root for the underdog.
	I don't have any particular sympathies for Russia.
	different anyway that's interesting tonight well just just a quick thing here you you can be pro-ukraine and still a realist about how things have come about as in you know i mean i'm i'm an englishman so i always root for the underdog you know i you know i don't have any particular sympathies for russia i imagine what the ukrainians themselves are actually physically going through is hell on earth you know I mean, like, I've seen the footage of drones killing Ukrainians and Russians, and I'm like, that is just the worst.
	I'm not anti-Ukraine.
	I'm anti-Zelensky and anti-the Ukrainian government.
	I'm not anti-the Ukrainian people or your average Ukrainian conscript.
	Absolutely not.
	Not in a million years.
	That would be mad.
	That would be weird and mad.
	And so, as you can see, he's bringing medical supplies from the UK.
	That's actually a good and noble thing to do.
	In that way, you can be pro-Ukraine, but the Ukrainian state, which is deliberately refusing to negotiate with Russia because of the backing of the United States, that's the problem.
	So I thought we could quickly, for anyone who's forgotten or is quite a few years ago now, who isn't old enough to remember, sort of the run-up to it, how it happened, that it wasn't just pure mindless aggression from the Russians and that no one else is to blame other than it's come out of, literally just come out of the mind of Putin.
	I mean, how far do you go back?
	So if we talk about maybe 1991 when the Soviet Union fell apart.
	1027.
	That's too short-sighted.
	We should go back to the 9th century.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But if you say when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, and Ukraine sort of becomes its own thing again, but by sort of 2004-2005, sort of the politics of Ukraine, the Orange Revolution there, and there's the two victors, aren't there?
	Victor Yushchenko, who's sort of the pro-European one, who got poisoned.
	Putin tried to poison him to death and it failed.
	I just had to go with a rough face because of the poisoning.
	Yeah, I know the guy.
	They tried to poison him and he just about survived.
	And there's the Viktor Yanukovych.
	So anyway, there was a back and forth there.
	It's like the two Spider-Mans pointing at each other, isn't it?
	Good God.
	There was an actual sort of legit battle for the hearts and minds of Ukraine and both sides, let's be perfectly honest, both sides, both the Kremlin and DC, had their fingers all over, their intelligence and their special services and all sorts of things, all over it.
	And there was a back and forth for years, well between 2004-2005 up to November 2013 into January-February 2014 when things really kicked off.
	That whole period is a back and forth where it seems legitimately millions of people in Ukraine wanted to join Be closer to Europe and cut ties with Russia, but also a big chunk of people, especially in the east of Ukraine, consider themselves more Russian than Ukrainian.
	So a real, a genuine battle for the hearts and minds of people.
	Just to be clear, wasn't it Vladimir Lenin who created Ukraine as a political entity that we understand it now?
	Right, yeah, so if you want to go back that far, yeah, Lenin made the political calculation that they should be given some autonomy, yeah.
	Sure.
	But the fact that this was a conglomeration of ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians, and not, like, clearly drawn borders, means that perhaps a revisitation of that settlement might be worth looking at, considering that seems to be the core of Putin's support in Ukraine are ethnic Russians?
	So just to say because time's ticking on just very very quickly say between about 2010 and 2014-15 there was a real back and forth between the two victors over who's going to be president and some of them won legit elections or some of the elections were considered to be fortified one way or the other.
	Yeah I'm sure they were free and fair.
	And in the end the pro-Russian Let's call up some of the left wing journalists.
	Hello, do you think America would ever do something funny in Ukraine?
	of ousted him, whether with the connivance of the Americans.
	Sure, they had nothing to do.
	Let's call up some of the left-wing journalists.
	Hello, do you think America would ever do something funny in Ukraine?
	No, I didn't think so.
	There is a clip of John McCain in Kiev.
	Can we play that clip real quick?
	So the idea that history started when Putin invaded is obviously wrong if you play this.
	People of Ukraine, this is your moment.
	people of Ukraine this is your moment not all the Ukraine skates a wash moment this is about you no one else Is it?
	As an American politician in Ukraine.
	This is about the future you want for your country.
	This is about the future you deserve.
	Anyway, don't you just pay more, you get the idea.
	Sorry, I know I keep butting in to extend the length of this, but they gave exactly the same sort of speeches in Afghanistan.
	And one thing that I guess Ukrainians should really think about is, how long is America's attention really going to be on us?
	You know, like, again, apparently if Afghanistan has anything to go by, about 20 years.
	And then you're trapped as a prisoner of geography next to the Russians forever.
	Having a fair settlement would be better, I think.
	Well, the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House have all said it will be there as long as it takes.
	Yeah, they said that in Afghanistan.
	And then after 20 years that collapsed, they fled, and they left the Taliban with billions of dollars in weaponry.
	You can see how Putin, if you are going to have a value neutral judgement, you can see how Putin sees that there's maybe some sort of coup in Ukraine, a pro-American coup, and they keep making noise about joining NATO.
	You can see how it's just a provocation.
	Well, it looks like American imperialism to the Russian mind.
	Right.
	Because they don't think of terms of rule of law and stuff like that, they think of terms in power politics.
	And if Americans seem to be pulling the strings in Ukraine, then they'll view that as just another manoeuvre in the great game.
	So this is what Nigel's talking about, is that we provoked it.
	We, the West.
	There you go.
	And, of course, history didn't start with this.
	It goes back and back and back and back.
	I mean, it's literally like anything, anything like this.
	If you have a powerful nation who is interfering in what are the sort of satellites of another powerful nation, And their politicians were to go and speak there.
	I mean, this is like Alcibiades being Argos.
	The Spartans are going, like, what are you doing in Argos, Alcibiades?
	That's right on our doorstep.
	It's nowhere near Athens.
	What are you doing here?
	And this provokes the second half of the... Sorry, I'm not going to go on Thucydides rant.
	I don't mind, but I'm sure the audience will.
	But this is the point.
	People are representatives of the place they've come from, whether you like it or not, and that's what's being perceived in the old world view of international relations.
	So just the idea that Putin is the sole aggressor...
	Any dissent from that view is disgraceful.
	Yeah.
	It's just nonsense.
	It's a cult mentality.
	And it doesn't make you a Putin apologist.
	It doesn't make you a pro-Kremlin partisan to say or think that.
	No, it's childish.
	It's just being reasonable.
	It's just looking at reality.
	And so the very last thing I'll say is that I did write an article about this pretty much bang on two years ago.
	Where I basically said that.
	In it I explicitly say, once again, Putin is not a good person.
	He's an FSB cynical killer type.
	But yet I don't support Zelensky.
	He's a czar by any other name.
	What do you expect out of Russia?
	OK, so Nigel did nothing wrong.
	He's actually just expressing a reasonable view.
	A salient old world political analysis that is accurate.
	And if we were sensible and not liberal ideologues, we'd try and come to a fair settlement and arrangement with Russia on Ukraine.
	Nigel is not in hock to the State Department and the Pentagon.
	No.
	Great!
	Yeah.
	Oh, he must be in hock to Putin, though.
	I really don't think he is.
	I think he's just a normal chap.
	It's not our war, just like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
	Britain's got no dog in the fight between Russia and Ukraine.
	We should not be involved in it.
	And I just want peace.
	I don't want World War 3.
	We've seen them putting out the adverts that now feature white guys.
	Oh, do they really?
	Your military recruiting adverts have white guys in them.
	No, I'm not going to war for Ukraine and American imperialism.
	It's really sad that loads of Ukrainian civilians and soldiers are being killed.
	It's tragic.
	But we don't care at all about how many Russians die.
	No, I don't want either side to be throwing lives away.
	The drone striking of just individual Russian soldiers fleeing through a field is awful to watch as well.
	But anyway.
	Okay, we'll move on.
	Yeah.
	So let's move on to something a bit more jolly than the tragedy that is Ukraine.
	Have the Conservative Party had a collective stroke?
	Or just gone brain dead entirely.
	No, no, no, no, because that would imply no action can be taken.
	Okay.
	They're brain dead.
	They can't take any action.
	But I think the Conservative Party have genuinely lost their minds, sort of Fetterman style, lost their, you know.
	I shouldn't laugh.
	But like they've genuinely just gone, I mean, I feel kind of bad for them.
	Rishi Sen has called the election and they're like, OK, what are we campaigning on exactly?
	And so whoever runs their social media team is just like, well, I mean, we'll pull out all the old conservative canards then, I guess.
	We'll say that Labour will be bad at these things.
	And yet every time it's like literally Sideshow Bob stepping on the rakes and smacking them in the face.
	So I thought we'd just go through it, just see how unbelievably bad the Conservatives' online social media campaign has been.
	Right.
	So as you can see here, you've got like they've tweeted out this.
	Have you got a problem with Britain's roads?
	And they're like, yeah, we fix it for you.
	So let's let's watch this.
	I think you'll agree with me.
	There's a problem with Britain's roads and you know what it is?
	Oh, it's somehow the Labour Party, is it?
	The Labour Party.
	Right, okay, first things first.
	You're the government.
	You have been for 14 years.
	Could have overruled any of this stuff, like you did with the gender nonsense in Scotland, right?
	You could have overruled it.
	All of this was done under a Conservative government, even if you've got devolved powers.
	And three, the roads are atrocious anyway.
	Like, no, it's the guys talking about, oh, the quality of the roads, and they bring up, like, Labour 20 mile an hour limits are you les?
	It's like, hey, they're really not the major problem that I have.
	I don't live in Wales, I don't live in London, so they're not my problem.
	My problem, and my stream deck has stopped working now for some reason, my problem is the fact that the UK's roads are terrible, they're absolutely atrocious, and they have been for years.
	This is from 2018 on the BBC, where they're like, thousands of miles of the UK roads are atrocious.
	It's like, yes, yes they are.
	And where's the worst?
	It's in Surrey.
	The worst roads in the UK are in Surrey, somehow, right?
	And Tory Stronghold.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Not just Tory Stronghold.
	100% Tory.
	100% Tory.
	100%.
	Oh, right, okay.
	100%.
	Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, Quasi Quarteng, right?
	This is like the cabinet, Dominic Raab, Chris Grayling, cabinet stronghold of Surrey, worst roads in the country.
	It's like, why are you tweeting about roads if your record on this is so bad?
	Like, why would you just, again, step on the rake, whack you in the face?
	Why?
	And Surrey's a lovely area, why would it, it's a rich area, why would it have such bad roads?
	The councils on Labour?
	I don't know.
	Even if they are, and I doubt that they are.
	I didn't check the councils, I doubt that they are.
	Even if they were, that's no excuse.
	You are not only the government, you are the MPs of those locations.
	You can go and get those fixed, and you should, but you didn't.
	It's pure gaslighting, isn't it?
	That would imply a level of comprehension and a level of strategic thinking that I just don't think the Conservatives are capable of at this point.
	I really think they've had a collective stroke.
	So the next thing, don't let Labour put our reduction of inflation at risk.
	Who was in government?
	It was you.
	You caused the inflation.
	It wasn't just anyone in the Conservative Party.
	It wasn't like they can go, well, that was my predecessor.
	I'll blame someone else for that.
	No, it was Rishi Sunak who did this.
	Rishi Sunak?
	Are you sure you don't see things from a short-term perspective?
	We could go centuries ago instead.
	Well, we can compare all of this to centuries ago.
	So let's go back about three centuries, right?
	In England in the 18th century, if you debased the coinage, if you messed with the money supply, that was a death penalty, right?
	You literally got hanged for that.
	Now, people might be like, yeah, but the bloody code was too far.
	Yeah, but maybe not on that issue, right?
	Because interfering with the money supply was interfering with everyone's wealth.
	As you can see here, look at what happened in 2020.
	Oh, that's right, furlough.
	Oh, that's crazy money supply addition.
	That only goes up to 2021 as well.
	So for people, for the conservatives, like we're getting inflation under control.
	That's like literally someone coming in, ruining your house and being like, okay, well, I'll tie it up for you.
	Oh great, great, you're not going to get any props from me for doing, for fixing the mess you created.
	I thought biodynamics was a good thing, it looks like, that chart seems to suggest not so much.
	Well, I mean, you know, it would suggest, and even like the Independent were like, well, you know, Sunak's not getting credit for the, in the polls for the inflation drop, and it's like, because you did this.
	I'm giving you no credit for this.
	You did this.
	Again, another rake.
	Smack.
	Straight in the face.
	Don't know why you did it.
	And so the next one, and this is one of my favourites.
	As a small business owner, this particularly galls me, right?
	Small business, big tax.
	Be careful!
	The Labour Party are gonna really affect your small business.
	Oh, shut your mouths!
	Shut your mouths!
	Nearly 400,000 small businesses closed under the Conservatives because of the lockdowns.
	That didn't have to happen.
	You could have handled these things in any which way you wanted, but you chose lockdowns.
	And 400,000 people got their businesses closed.
	You left open the big businesses, though.
	You left open Sainsbury's and the supermarkets, the banks, all this sort of thing.
	All these things all did fine, but it was your regular high street small business that got whacked.
	They weren't allowed to open.
	Even though, in retrospect, maybe about concentrating people was bad for the spread of the virus or whatever, who knows?
	Unbelievable.
	Why would you try and stand on that record?
	Yeah, small businesses need to keep closed for the sake of public health, but the borders will remain open, absolutely wide open.
	We'll get to the wide open borders in a minute.
	Sorry, this is just... Right, so the next thing, oh, let's talk about food security.
	Oh, you won't get eggs that were laid in the UK, oh really?
	And the farms will be in trouble.
	We're protecting food security, say, the Conservative Party.
	The Conservative Party is currently, I mean they stopped subsidising the food production in the UK, right, because of course it used to be subsidised.
	It was the Agriculture Act that was passed in 2020, again.
	Like, not even in history.
	You know, if it was like, well, it was done in 2011 or something, I'd be like, well, okay, maybe it's not these guys' fault.
	No, this was in 2020.
	This is just a couple of years ago, right?
	And so what this does is updates the way that agriculture is funded in the UK, and they've got the Path to Sustainable Farming An agricultural transition plan from 2021 to 2024.
	And so what this will be is the main tool for delivering improvements to water quality and biodiversity.
	Key elements of the government's 25-year environment plan.
	And so what does that equate to?
	What does that mean?
	That means that the government will literally pay farmers not to farm.
	Right, so this, what all of this is, and you saw the Welsh Government rolling out something very similar.
	The Welsh Government took it too far, the Conservative Government didn't take it as far, but what that means is taking areas of farmland and making sure they are rewilded.
	So they're creating biodiversity, which is, of course, reducing.
	In Wales, I think they want like a fifth of farmland to be rewilded.
	But in the UK one, we don't have a target.
	But what they have is, well, if you leave areas of forest land for birds or you put like extra, like double spaced rows so that can grow and stuff like this, whatever, you know, I don't know how it works.
	But the point is they're trying to reduce the amount of farmland that is actually farmed.
	And it's like, okay.
	And then that leads to food security, I guess.
	Even though we only produce half the food that we consume anyway.
	So it's like, okay, so food security is nonsense.
	But then in 2022, they decided, you know what?
	We're just going to pay you to leave farming.
	We're going to give you a lump sum amount of money if you leave the profession of farming.
	And it's like, that is bonkers.
	We're actually paying farmers to just give up farming.
	Why would we do that?
	Well, the answer is diversity, actually.
	For some reason they want to get peasants from across the world to instead farm their own countries to come and farm our countries even though we have farmers in this country.
	I don't know why.
	So again, it's all part of the plan to replace us demographically in our own ancestral homeland?
	Well, that's not what they would say.
	They would say, well, it's about representation in farming.
	Because the Conservatives are a left-wing party.
	They're totally on board with all of this left-wing nonsense.
	Speaking of left-wing nonsense, let's go to net zero.
	Oh my god, Labour will pursue net zero!
	No matter the cost to families, they're gonna hike up your bills!
	It's in your manifesto!
	This is your manifesto for 2024!
	Grr!
	You're a net-zero party!
	Don't be like, Labour are net-zero, be careful!
	You're net-zero!
	Only the difference between Labour and the Conservatives, and this is one of those really stark going-the-speed-limit examples, Labour are like, we're gonna be net-zero by 2030, and the Conservatives are like, pfft, that's atrocious, it's 2050 we're gonna be net-zero, actually.
	Net-zero is unironically Tory policy, but by 2050, not 2030.
	It's the same policies just with slower steps.
	Yeah, it's literally the same policies.
	They've got loads in here as well.
	It goes on and on and on and on.
	It's going like net zero, net zero, net zero.
	So that was a Labour policy.
	What are you doing?
	What are you doing?
	The way the Tories are running their campaign is as though they assume you know nothing and are stupid.
	And woke up yesterday out of a coma.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's literally, literally how they run.
	It's like being punched in the face repeatedly and they're saying, if you vote for us, we'll punch you slightly softer in the face.
	Careful, that guy's going to punch you in the face.
	It's like, look at all these bruises, man.
	You know?
	OK, so let's go to the next one.
	The taxes!
	Oh, are Labour really going to raise my taxes?
	I'm really afraid of that.
	I am actually afraid of that, but, I mean, high taxes have just become a normal feature of life, haven't they?
	Look at that!
	Oh, Keir Starmer's gonna get in your wallet!
	It's like, Keir Starmer's gonna get in my wallet!
	You know?
	There's nothing left in my bloody wallet!
	And again, this keeps going.
	Highest taxes in history under Labour, Highest taxes in history.
	What, like we're paying now?
	Like, we're paying now under the Conservative Party, right?
	Currently, the tax burden is 37.7% of national income.
	A third, more than a third, of everything the entire country owns, er, earns, goes to the government.
	And it's like, careful of that Keir Starmer, he's going to tax you.
	It's like, I can introduce a swipe of libertarianism.
	I feel like taxes are a type of state-sponsored theft.
	That's what that is.
	I think this is a kind of a vague boundary, right?
	So obviously there is a necessary amount of taxation to make sure the state can do things like protection and police and things like this, right?
	Evil statist!
	I think there is an argument for it.
	But there's a sort of Cerritos paradox here that at some point the grain of sands becomes a pile and now when we get to about, you know, nearly 40% taxation, yeah I think that's probably theft.
	You're just stealing.
	From me at that point.
	An overly powerful state, centralised state.
	Yeah.
	Clearly.
	Yeah.
	Obviously, it was only during World War II that the taxes were as high as or higher than this, which isn't very surprising because it was a world war that we're engaged in.
	We're not engaged in a world war.
	Why are our taxes at such ridiculous amounts?
	You realise that's our money?
	I mean, again, I don't want to get all libertarian about it, but it is my money you're stealing, you thieves, right?
	So, what about the NHS?
	Under Labour, the NHS won't be safe.
	The Labour Party is the only party that's ever had an NHS budget cut.
	So, hello, base department?
	Cutting the NHS budget?
	What are you doing?
	I want the NHS budget cut!
	Under the Conservatives, the DEI managers ballooned.
	Millions and millions of pounds are spent on DEI managers who get 140k a year, if not more.
	One of them is 230k a year.
	What are you talking about?
	I mean, literally, we can just look at the budget over time, which is just here.
	I mean, OK, no end in sight, just a continuous trend upwards.
	Apart from the COVID, well, there's a sharp jump upwards for emergency funding, which is no end in sight.
	There's never going to be a cut.
	It's like, what are you talking about?
	This is all done by the Conservatives, all done by the Conservatives.
	And all you can do is make Labour sound like a good choice.
	Would having, importing a net 700, 800,000 people, a million people plus year on year, that wouldn't affect- We'll get to that.
	That would it?
	Surely it wouldn't have any effect.
	We'll get to it, because obviously that's the reason.
	But it's just, I, just shut up.
	You know, a budget cut for the NHS would be a good thing.
	Next thing, right, what about crime?
	God, if there's one party that's weak on crime, it's the Labour Party, isn't it?
	Labour opposes stop and search.
	They're going to take tasers off the police.
	They're going to basically allow criminals to run riot in the streets.
	Not like the Conservative Party, who literally made it basically legal to shoplift under £200 worth of goods.
	And have destroyed the police by having all the woke initiatives in it.
	Yes, indeed.
	But that's, again, happened all under the Conservative watch.
	But they're like, well, that was devolved, you know, London, Labour police have done that, blah, blah, blah.
	And caused criminal damage on Whitehall with no repercussions as long as you're holding a Palestinian flag.
	Yeah, but when they sign... literally do this, right?
	So the £200 threshold was introduced in England and Wales in the Anti-Social Behaviour and Crime of Policing Act of 2014.
	So they literally put it in themselves, right?
	And so basically what this means is that they are...
	Telling the police not to bother investigating shoplifting under £200, right?
	Obviously, this is bad, because it's going to cause more shoplifting.
	I mean, this is what the BBC, a couple of years ago, were like, well, hang on a second.
	The shoplifters were all like, we don't get punished.
	Like, nine out of ten times you get away with it, and you're not bothered about the consequences, because the worst, it seems, is four months in jail for this woman.
	After doing it over and over and over, a couple of months in jail.
	Well, it's a very direct assault on the very principle of the rule of law.
	Yes.
	100%, right?
	The only people in favour of that would be Agents of Chaos.
	Yeah.
	The Conservative Party, right?
	And so last year, you know, Chris Phillips is like, no, no, no, I'm going to tell the police they do have to investigate it, actually.
	Right?
	Because shoplifting offenses ignore the little COVID drop there, obviously, when all the shops are closed by the Conservatives.
	Obviously, thieves can't do as much shoplifting.
	There's still 50,000 incidents of shoplifting, even when everything was locked down.
	But don't worry about that, right?
	But for the first time ever, over 100,000 for the first quarter.
	So 400,000 instances that they know of that have happened in a year.
	So...
	Any sort of breakdown of the types of people that are doing these shoplifts?
	Well, yeah, well... Are you allowed to notice any patterns there?
	Who cares, right?
	Only economic ones.
	Yeah, purely economic factors.
	You need to be taxed more, so more money is given to crime-ridden communities.
	And so you had the chairman of a bakery going on Times Radio and being like, can we treat shoplifting as a proper crime, please, under this Conservative government?
	If that's not too much hassle, I do actually think we're at the point where we need to treat shoplifting as theft and see it as a proper crime and prosecute it.
	It's like...
	Again, people, Victorians used to send people to jail for months for the smallest of thefts.
	They were really hard on theft.
	I mean, in the 18th or 19th century, you could be deported to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread.
	Exactly.
	But now, the Conservatives now are just like, well, I mean, less than £200.
	Is it really a crime?
	It's like it kind of adds up when you've got 100,000 of them going on, just saying.
	I'm no mathematician, but that strikes me as millions lost by shops who have done nothing wrong.
	Right, and so they're like, oh, don't vote for Labour, because you'll get Keir Starmer and he'll be soft on crime.
	Keir Starmer's a maniac!
	Right?
	My problem with Keir Starmer isn't actually that he's going to be soft on crime, to be honest.
	This is from a book that Max here has been reading, right?
	Keir Starmer, I think it was during the 2011 riots, Keir Starmer found a guy who was a 22-year-old Portuguese man who had not participated in the riots, but was walking past a ransacked ice shop, ice cream shop, when he got himself a scoop of ice cream.
	Starmer jailed him for 16 months and then deported him back to Portugal, which, don't get me wrong, Great!
	I'm totally in favour of!
	But like, night and day difference!
	But also, don't investigate or prosecute... Jimmy Savile, grooming gangs, or anything like this, right?
	Yeah.
	I'm not saying that Keir Starmer doesn't have his blind spots, but when a guy steals an ice cream from a shop, you can guarantee that he's going to jail and then getting deported.
	And that's all I ask, really.
	Thankfully, I suspect reform will be far less forgiving for shoplifters as well.
	And so, all of this, just constant rake in the face, rake in the face, rake in the face.
	But then we've got this looming giant rake that's coming down on the Conservatives.
	I have no idea why they put this out.
	I have no idea why they put this out.
	Don't wake up to this on the 5th of July.
	It's bizarre, isn't it, this?
	Unbelievable.
	So for anyone watching, it is someone rolling out the red carpet to the illegal boat invaders.
	A big welcome sign scrawled on the beach.
	And the inference is this is what you will get if you vote Labour.
	Yeah.
	Ironically, this is the Conservative Party policy.
	This is unbelievable.
	And honestly, I nearly burst a blood vessel when I saw it.
	In fact, I mean, you know, I've given them a nice ratio there because this is literally their plan.
	This is literally their policy, not even their plan.
	This is what they've done.
	We had a migrant hotel just over there.
	Well, two next to each other.
	Yeah, yeah, full of channel invaders, right?
	This 8 million a day, 5.5 billion a year, the total amount ballooned to 5.4 billion, because the Conservatives would just bring them in, and they would send the Coast Guard out to collect them, and then they would bring them in safely, put them in hotels, using your money.
	Give them a spending allowance.
	I would have put them in jails.
	I would have put them in armed camps.
	They'd be like, well, it's costing you 2 billion a year to hold these armed camps, so yeah, I know.
	But that's only because, you know, the fleet to deport them isn't ready yet.
	Maybe they were talking about the red carpet.
	Maybe it's going to be expensive on its own.
	Maybe, but it's usually different.
	People like Catherine Blakelock or Ann Widdecombe talk about, yeah, you'll be interred until you're deported.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, you've actually invaded the country illegally.
	You shouldn't be here.
	You know you shouldn't be here.
	Why did you think coming here was going to be a soft touch?
	The reason why people hate this so much, the reason why zero seats is a thing now and why it's so infuriating is that your average adult that's got their own mind, the thing you hate the most, right, is being lied to or being treated like you're a... Being disrespected.
	Being treated like you're a child or that you're stupid or you've got no memory.
	That's what people hate more than anything else and that's exactly what this is.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I totally agree.
	I mean, like, I dislike Keir Starmer, obviously, but he's not acting like he isn't what he is, you know?
	The Conservatives are just flat out lying about their own record, about, you know, your expectations, about what they've done, and I just can't stand it.
	I mean, like, okay, let's say you spent 5.4 billion in 2023-2024 putting the migrants up in four-star hotels for some reason.
	I don't know why you'd do that, but okay, mental.
	At least you can be like, well look, we just don't want to be rough on them as we mass deport them or something.
	No, no, 5,000 people, 5,000 legals got deported.
	There were 25,000 in total who were told to leave, but 5,000 actually got physically deported.
	Great.
	Wonderful, wonderful.
	And so then we get to the very crowning turd on the cake, which is the Conservatives trying to make a claim on their record on immigration, right?
	So you've got, say, James Cleverley here being like, by the way... Here are three ways that Labour screwed up the UK's immigration system before.
	One.
	In 2004, Labour were sending out search parties to find more migrants to come to the UK, according to Peter Mandelson.
	Two.
	In 2016, Labour's Shadow Home Secretary said that under Labour, immigration had been too fast.
	And yet, in 2015, she was saying that every county council in the country should take 10 more migrant families.
	And three, in 2020 Keir Starmer said he would bring back freedom of movement, making border control completely impossible.
	Border control?
	What the hell is that?
	When was the last time we saw any border control, James?
	Are you out of your mind?
	Yeah, exactly.
	The idea that conservatives would even try to run on border control and lowering migration is preposterous.
	I mean, even during the pandemic, as you can see here, net migration was still positive.
	Still 150,000 net in when the entire country is locked down.
	I mean, what were those migrants thinking?
	We've arrived in Britain, nothing's open.
	No one's on the streets.
	The government's telling us we have to stay in our houses.
	Why the hell have I come here?
	You know, 150,000 of them turn and be like, right, this wasn't what I was expecting.
	They're like a weird Soviet police state.
	But no, welcome to modern Britain under the Conservative Party.
	But then, of course, after the pandemic, you can see they're like, right, okay, we need to crank open the borders now, lads, to 1.2 million for last year and the year before.
	It's like, Just, it's never happened before.
	More people have come under the Conservative government than have ever come at any point in history.
	Like, it was something like the entire immigration into England between 1066 and like 1997, they have surpassed.
	It's mad.
	It's absolutely madness.
	And so the idea that they'd be like, oh well, you know, careful, Labour will open the borders.
	My brother in Christ, that's you.
	You are the Labour Party.
	Zero seats.
	Zero seats.
	A crime of unprecedented magnitude.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I have to write a book to explain the betrayal on this.
	But no, just stop posting on your social media.
	You're terrible at it.
	Everything you post is just a rape to your own faces and you deserve the zero seats that you're going to get.
	One last thing, if I could add to that, which is a little bit conspiratorial, because there's no proper proper full-blown evidence for it, but it is sort of almost inexplicable.
	A lot of people have been saying, you've described it as like a stroke.
	It's almost inexplicable why they're Why the Tories are being so bad at trying to get themselves re-elected.
	Do you remember when Obama came and visited, out of the blue, came and visited Rishi?
	Yeah, what was he doing?
	Hanging around.
	It feels like, and again there's no proper evidence for this, but it just feels like he sort of had a message from the party of Davos, from the WEF overlords, whoever it is, saying it's time to call an election and throw it.
	We want Starmer in now.
	We see a window of opportunity where Starmer, our other puppet, our backup puppet, can get a massive majority.
	And that's better for us now.
	So call an election and throw it.
	Yeah, the Uni Party stays in power forever now, which is why it's so imperative to vote reform, frankly.
	So we've got to make sure that Farage can get somewhere.
	Nigel for PM this time round.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Make it happen.
	Right.
	We're going to talk about safety and distraction.
	A lot of people are distracted now by Euro 2024.
	And it's important to remember tomorrow England will play with Slovenia at 8 o'clock.
	Euro 2024.
	Make sure you don't add to an increase in domestic abuse and violence which can increase during these competitions.
	As much as 38% if the national side loses.
	Keep the game clean.
	It's a beautiful game for a reason.
	To be fair, that is a legit thing that happens.
	Yeah.
	Is it?
	Yeah, when football teams lose their matches, domestic violence goes up.
	Is that right?
	Is that real?
	Yeah.
	I've never heard that before.
	Is it actual domestic violence or just, I'm just mad I'm taking the TV controller and smashing the table kind of thing?
	Reports of domestic violence do actually go up.
	Okay.
	So keep calm and watch soccer.
	So we have here... It's football, not soccer.
	Okay, how do you want me to call it?
	Football.
	Okay, so England won Serbia here 1-0.
	Okay.
	The next match with Denmark wasn't particularly good, I've heard.
	It was a tie, 1-1.
	The next one with Slovenia is tomorrow.
	So here you have some stuff here to watch.
	And if you want to get distracted by it, but remember just be stoic and don't unleash your inner hooligan.
	But there is someone who is trying to spoil the fun, someone who is distracted by the English flag, and someone who is particularly concerned about the events and people watching football, and that is Sadiq Khan.
	This is the worst time of year for him, isn't it?
	In England, flags everywhere, Sadiq Khan seething.
	Yes, so apparently there's a problem with black cab drivers and their choice to hang the St.
	George's flag on them and Sadiq Khan is not having it.
	Here we have Niall Gardner saying that England hating woke Mayor of London, TfL, which is Transport for London, imposes woke ban on cab drivers flying England flag during Euros.
	Oh my god, that just wouldn't happen in any other country, would it?
	It's like, no, you can't fly your own national flag anymore because... No, I'm going to carry on.
	This has a history about it.
	Like we said before, we're not going to just view things from the short-term perspective, but it has a history of at least 25 years.
	Emily Thornberry seething.
	I see here somewhere in the replies there was someone saying, you know, Boris Johnson did it in 2012.
	You're not talking about that.
	But apparently it's happening for a long time.
	Right, right.
	Well, one thing, quick anecdote.
	I used to have a pinned up St.
	George's flag on the seat.
	On the ceiling of my bedroom.
	This is in the 90s when I was a teenager and loved football.
	My whole life revolved around football.
	And I remember getting friends back from school or sixth form college and they would see the St.
	George's flag on the bedroom of my ceiling and be like, snigger a bit and be like, really?
	Really?
	Like you're doing that?
	Yeah.
	And that was in like the mid to late 90s.
	So it's been a long, long time, the St.
	George's flag.
	They've tried to make it synonymous with just being a bigot or a nationalist, assuming that all nationalism is inherently evil or something.
	See, that's my problem.
	My problem is the St.
	George's flag is associated with football.
	I really want to fly it, but I'm not a football guy.
	I don't want people thinking I like football.
	What's wrong with football?
	I'm just not a football guy.
	OK, OK.
	I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it.
	It's just not my thing.
	So just for anyone wondering, when you see me with an England flag, it's because I love England, not because I like football.
	OK.
	I just want to make that clear.
	To add something to what Beau said, I have never heard there being a problem with other flags, like, you know, the flag of Yorkshire or other flags.
	It's just the flag of St George.
	Or the LGBTQ plus flag.
	That's the problem with that.
	June is coming to an end.
	We still have a week to go.
	Let's be patient.
	Okay, we have here an article from the Daily Mail.
	It says, Fury after Sadiq Khan's TFL imposes woke ban on taxi drivers flying England flag during the Euros because it could distract motorists.
	It's a very distracting flag.
	Apparently, you know, the latest version of the rainbow flag isn't particularly distracting.
	It doesn't have that many colors.
	Yeah.
	We need it on the crosswalks, we need it hanging from the buildings, we need it literally painted on the sides of the trains and everything.
	Yeah, no, that's totally fine.
	And there's a question why.
	I think it has to do with possibly motorists having the psychology of a bull.
	When they see red, they just want to charge instantly.
	So, Sadiq Khan's transfer for London has sparked fury after imposing a walk-book ban on taxi drivers flying an England flag because it could distract motorists.
	It's only because Sadiq Khan can't stop grinding his teeth.
	Yeah, TFL bosses said the St George's Cross could possibly cause road accidents in the capital by attracting the attention of motorists.
	That's what I said.
	It has red in it.
	There's too many Englishmen saluting as they drive past.
	Yeah.
	It's obvious nonsense, isn't it?
	Obvious nonsense, but there's a pattern here that I've noticed, because it's good to notice patterns.
	I think that they are constantly talking about safety, and they make this an issue of safety.
	That's interesting, because if you see, wokeness is all about talking about safety and interpret everything as basically victimizing someone.
	That's why they're trying to make this into a It's a harmful incident that could distract people and it could actually cause accidents in the street.
	But no other flag has problems.
	Now, they do say that they sort of ban all other flags, but honestly, no one believes this.
	Last time I went to London, last time almost everyone Has been, who has been to London and has told me they say basically it's full of Palestinian flags.
	Yeah.
	Apparently Sadiq Khan doesn't find that distracting.
	Is it just specifically St.
	George's?
	So could you fly the sort of the three lions, the sort of golden three lions on a background of red?
	Would cabbies be allowed to fly that flag?
	Presumably not.
	What about the Union flag?
	I think the union flag is allowed because it's more an instance of a civic symbol.
	Whereas they're trying to portray the St.
	George's flag as a bad ethnic one.
	Yeah, but the thing is you can easily test this by just flying a gay flag.
	Right.
	They're never going to stop me.
	No trans pride flags here, please.
	It'll never happen.
	Or a Palestinian one or a Pakistani one.
	It's not distracting, even if where you have a pride mural on the street, which is a bit weird, because why would you want your symbol to be run over by cars, stabbed by people?
	It's a statement of dominance, that's why.
	Okay, furious drivers have slammed the new rule, claiming the flags are no more distracting than advertisements painted on cars or lorries.
	And they're absolutely correct.
	So we have here Darren Grimes saying, under England's hating Sadiq Khan's mayorship, London taxi drivers are now banned from displaying English flags during the years.
	And this is only in London.
	So can we just scroll down to the image, please?
	Yes.
	When we win, that's what England's going to look like.
	That's what London's going to look like every day when we win.
	But taxes aren't enough for Sadiq Khan and he wants to find people who do this?
	Right, so I want to show you exactly what is going on here with the safety issue, because I saw that there are flag protocols, and we have here from GOV.UK, flying flags, a plain English guide, and they say flags are a very British way of expressing joy and pride.
	They are emotive symbols which can boost local and national identities, strengthen community cohesion, and mark civic pride.
	Well, there are many flags other than the English one that are flown in London that have nothing to do with civic pride in the United Kingdom.
	You know, just saying.
	And they're saying here, all flag flying is subject to some standard conditions, and they split there into categories, and they say flags which do not need consent.
	They say any country's national flag, and if you look at number three, a flag of any island, county, district, borough, parish, city, town or village within the United Kingdom, basically it has to do with that flag that you see.
	Sorry, can we go down a little bit more?
	Yeah.
	So the flag of St.
	David, the flag of St.
	Patrick, is there a saint missing from that?
	Yeah.
	The flag of St George is not on the list.
	Well, it's the classic thing.
	Scottish nationalism... Totally fine.
	...is something brilliant.
	Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalism... Totally fine.
	...that's great.
	Irish nationalism, of course.
	But English nationalism, I will know that's beyond the pale.
	That's evil.
	But how is it the flag of St George is not on that list?
	Sorry, again, under Conservative government.
	Deep, obvious omission there.
	Yeah.
	Because it is distracting for drivers.
	You need consent to fly the St.
	George's flag.
	Shut up.
	And we have here someone who is actually defending.
	Zero seats, man.
	I wanted to show you, and they're saying basically this is sensationalism at its finest, that, you know, the online ride is victimizing itself.
	And they say, the reality, safety over symbolism.
	Here's the actual detail, which is rather boring when you boil it down.
	The rules are there to ensure that anything attached to a vehicle doesn't block the driver's view or become a projectile in case of an accident.
	This applies to all flags, mascots, and decorations, regardless of their design.
	So who's saying this?
	There is an account here.
	That is the bear, satirical fact-checking.
	I'm just showing, and they're saying basically the right, Tommy Robinson and people all over the place who are complaining are ignoring the safety aspect of it.
	And they're being ironic here, this tweet is sort of sarcastic.
	Anyway.
	Here, being on a PrideRap train, bus or IFS cloud cable, yet apparently these are not distracting.
	I can play this here, but there's some issues, but you can guess.
	We have lots of Pride flags and lots of Pride buses and Pride trains.
	Yeah, that's not distracting at all.
	Yeah, I was a bit distracted with the music.
	Actually, all joking aside, isn't there evidence that police horses, and certain horses, they actually do get spooked by the gay pride colours.
	They genuinely do.
	They also walk more proudly and are more obedient under the England bag.
	It's science.
	Yeah.
	So I did some digging here and I found out that this goes a long time ago, at least 25 years.
	So I found an article from The Guardian that was published in 1999.
	So this is something the Labour Party brought in, is it?
	I bet it is.
	Just saying.
	1999.
	Cabbies protest at England flag ban.
	London's black cab drivers are planning to protest this week at a police ban on their flying the St.
	George flag from their cubs before England's Euro 2000 qualifies against Scotland next month.
	It's the same story.
	But it's not just when it comes to football events.
	We have all sorts of other events across the years that have sparked the same response.
	And again, if you see here, I want to scroll down.
	They're talking about safety.
	You'll see that in the next one, sorry, I missed the thing.
	So, here is in June 2016, a pub owner was told to basically take down the English flag, pub boss told to take down English flags and bunting, and you see here a landlord has been ordered to pull down his English flags for health and safety reasons.
	Yeah, it's a consistent pattern where it's only the England flags and it's for nonsense reasons.
	Yes.
	And they wouldn't demand this of any other kind of flag, they're just doing it because they're trying to immiserate English identity.
	And they're talking about regulars who were completely angered by that decision and they say, you know, where do we live?
	Lynette O'Shea wrote, where do we live?
	England.
	Or somewhere else?
	This is a joke, yes.
	Put more up for the cheek of it, ask them who's this offended because they're clearly not from England.
	You have old people Unfortunately, that's not necessarily true.
	Again, the Emily Thornberrys.
	Perfectly English people, but obviously woke.
	There is a self-loathing domestic enemy within, aren't there?
	And you have a spokesman from Lancashire County.
	What did that spokesman say?
	We're all for people showing their support for their England team.
	It's just that in this case, the bunting has been up over a busy A road and we wouldn't want the landlord or the council to be held responsible if it came down and caused an accident.
	Such an obvious lie!
	But this is also blackmailing.
	They're saying, you know, if people just Have an accident.
	If you have, it's going to be on you.
	Why?
	Because there was an English flag in their vision.
	They never say that about the pride bunting that's up.
	Because of course some fallen bunting is well known to stop vehicles.
	That's what I said.
	I think they have the psychology of a bull motorist.
	So that's why it's distracting.
	They don't like the way that the red is like a cross centered there.
	It's like, you know, just that's where you should aim at.
	I was thinking a bit of bunting falls down into the road and a taxi going 40 miles an hour hits it.
	And it's like hitting a brick wall.
	Yeah.
	We have another case here from 2008.
	Police told man to hide racist St.
	George flag.
	A football fan says police ordered him to remove it from his car because it could be deemed racist.
	That's why I put it up.
	Against which race?
	All other races.
	All of them?
	Yeah.
	All the races?
	Exactly, all of them.
	Yes, if we scroll down a bit, it said, Ben Smith, 18 years old, back then, was pulled over for a routine spot check by an officer who inspected his tires and road tax.
	But the laborer was stunned to be told that a St.
	George flag covering his Vauxhall Corsas Parasols shelf was offensive to immigrants.
	See, this is what I love.
	It's this sort of thing that's a great mask-off moment, right?
	Because someone like Sadiq Khan will be more sophisticated than the regular Bobby on the beat, right?
	And so he'll give you, well, I mean, the flags could come off and cause accidents, so we've just got to take them down.
	And this one instance just happens to be the England flag, and we'll never do anything about the Palestinian flags.
	But the sort of, you know, 95 IQ beat police officer is just like, oh no, it's offensive to immigrants, mate, because that's what his supervisor has told him.
	Right, and it's obviously like, look, you know, just don't say that, but you know, it's offensive to the immigrants.
	We don't want their, don't want English pride in England.
	That'd be, that'd be bad.
	That wouldn't make them feel inclusive and like, this is their land.
	It's like, yeah, well, just racist to immigrants, mate.
	You got to get rid of it.
	Idiot.
	Well done, idiot.
	He initially thought the officer was joking until he was threatened with a £30 fine if he refused to remove it from you.
	Mr Smith said, I honestly could not believe what the police officer was saying.
	And says he wasn't rude about it at all.
	He was just very matter-of-fact about the flag being racist and being offensive to immigrants.
	See, that's exactly as I was saying.
	I wonder, it's a classic thing to say to a police officer, what is, under which piece of legislation, which Act of Parliament am I being fined?
	I guess it'll be maybe like the Race Relations Act or something, I've got no idea.
	The Race Relations Act!
	I've got no idea, it doesn't make any sense does it?
	It's got no bearing on reality really.
	That's not what it's about at all.
	It's just about making sure the English don't feel patriotic about being in England.
	And also, woke governance and, you know, the spirit of woke legislation is all about double standards.
	Oh yeah.
	Protecting groups.
	Yeah, it's all about protecting groups and arbitrarily exercising authority.
	Well, it's not even arbitrary.
	It's reducing the power of the majority for the benefits of the minority.
	From that perspective, yeah.
	But I think what I'm talking about, arbitrariness, is that they completely subjectivize legislation because when they're talking about, you know, looking at a flag being harmful, And being offensive.
	This is just entirely subjective.
	See, can I just give an example of how horses react when they're under the England flag?
	So, a shocking video shows tourists head-butted after standing too close to the Kingsguard horse.
	See?
	When under the England flag, the horses are proud and they head-butt foreigners.
	Right.
	And, you know, just... It's exactly what... I'm just joking.
	No, it's exactly what you said.
	It's just all a double standard raised to make people not feel good about their country and thinking that any kind of national pride is a bad thing.
	And you're right that it's arbitrary in the sense that it's just down to the discretion of some random beat cop.
	And cop and judge.
	To throw out fines as and when he sees fit.
	When in doubt, just plead someone is causing hate and fine them or just marginalize them, completely destroy their social position or whatever.
	Such an intolerant police officer.
	And last thing here we have from Nigel Farage.
	He's saying basically can really hate England.
	True.
	Just obviously true.
	Just a statement of fact.
	Yeah.
	Thought we could end with this.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Well, you know, wave your England flags.
	Right.
	And with that, we'll go to the video comments.
	They all get the money from it.
	You know, I used to think that these people just worked harder.
	But the longer I live, the more I just think there's just too many of them that don't... And they're just throwing shit out the window.
	Of course they're going to litter.
	They're going to litter and they're not going to give a shit at all about the surrounding area.
	This is unscripted.
	I see this every day.
	It's always the same, just groups of people doing the same crap every single time.
	And you expect me not to notice.
	You expect me to just shut up for the good of diversity.
	Now get fucked!
	Sometimes littering is precisely like giving one.
	Literally.
	What?
	They were saying not giving up.
	Oh, right.
	Well, yeah, sorry.
	But yeah, well, I mean, if this was somewhere that you occupied and you knew someone else was going to clean up for you, someone of the Untouchables class was going to clean up, why wouldn't you?
	And ultimately, you don't care if it's cleaned up or not, even if it doesn't really register.
	I mean, there's this, it's whether you were brought up right, isn't it?
	It's whether you were brought up civilized or not.
	Yeah.
	Um, just don't litter for its own sake.
	If you've got a bit of rubbish, you wait till you find a bin and then you put it in the bin for its own sake.
	Don't be a litter bug.
	Remember that when you was a kid?
	It's just rude.
	Yeah.
	Unironically, I was about 30 when I realised, actually, no, like it's all sort of clicked into place.
	It's like, no, that is wrong.
	And I remember times when I was a kid, when I had done it, I thought, oh, I really regret doing that.
	It wakes up the medievalist in me.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	What's this thing like holding the door open for someone, not littering, not spitting, all this sort of thing?
	Being decent.
	And someone said in a segment the other day that, you know, you go to all sorts of places in the third world and there's just giant, giant rubbish piles everywhere.
	Drop a pin into India and then go to Street View and see what you see.
	Because the concept that it's everyone's responsibility not to live in filth, That's an alien concept.
	It just doesn't register.
	Sure, but it's also like, you know, part of being like, I guess you'd call it low-trust society behaviour or something like that.
	It's just, if we all just do the right thing, for the right reason, then we'll have a good country.
	And everyone just agrees with it.
	You know, it was just the national culture.
	The same thing, like in Germany, it's crazy.
	There's no litter on the streets and there's no bins anywhere.
	It's mad.
	So, I mean, normally I take my rubbish to the bin and that's fine.
	And I live in Germany, it's like, you don't have any bins.
	I guess I'll just take it home then, I suppose.
	You know, it's even more strict.
	I think it is certainly a cultural thing.
	You look at Singapore, South Korea, Japan.
	Extremely clean and neat and tidy.
	Yeah.
	It's about how they're raised.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Lads, you may remember a couple of months back there was that jeet on Twitter saying that you could get personal independence payments if you snore.
	Well, I'm sorry to say I've been through the process.
	I've given it a go and I snore like a falcon, but they've turned me down.
	You get zero points if literally all you do is snore.
	Unfortunately, we can't have benefits, so we'll have to do tax avoidance some other way.
	Don't worry, I'm sure that'll change when Starmie gets in charge.
	Or maybe you should have misspelled your surname so it sounded foreign.
	That's good, Sam.
	Mr. Grumble
	Never thinks that anything is ever gonna turn out right. .
	Thing is, I'm not sure that Pete Hitchens is wrong about being a doomer.
	That's the problem.
	I am sure.
	Good.
	I'm glad someone is.
	I mean, he's pretty, you know, there's always a kind of, um, charisma to being a doomer as well.
	Cause it's hard, even if you're wrong, well, I might not be wrong next time.
	You know, it's easy to be a depressant about things, but, uh, I don't, I don't know.
	I just don't have it in me.
	No, no.
	I'm too optimistic.
	I'm a natural optimist.
	When I was growing up, much fiction was influenced by piratical tales such as Treasure Island.
	and he's right about so many things.
	I just don't want him to be right about anything when it comes to that.
	No Denethor poster.
	We're not having it.
	Right, let's go to the next one.
	Captain Flynn.
	When I was growing up, much fiction was influenced by paratical tales such as Treasure Island.
	While I would relish a return of the style, it must be rooted in fact.
	The Black Ship tells the utterly compelling true story of the bloody mutiny aboard HMS Hermione.
	The book describes the vile Captain Piggott, how he pushed his crew to rise up, the aftermath where they tried to hide, and how many of them were tracked down to face trial in the following years.
	Interesting is how justice in the Royal Navy could be merciful to those who variously turn King's evidence, could muster favourable witnesses, or show contrition.
	For the others it wasn't just hanging, but also gibbeting.
	Just want to point out that Norrington was the hero of Pirates of the Caribbean.
	Not even a spicy day.
	Yeah, I love all the stories of sort of the 18th, 19th century high seas adventure.
	What's interesting is there's a kind of dichotomy where it's sort of like modernism encountering the old world as well.
	So you've got like quite reasonable and, you know, the technology is archaic, but the attitudes are a lot more modern for like rule of law and all this sort of stuff.
	They encounter, you know, some savage tribe in Patagonia or something, and it's something totally ancient.
	Yeah, so you get a nice clash of worlds in the frame, in the setting.
	I know it's not Pirates, but you know, I've done some Epochs on Drake and a couple weeks ago did a two-part series with James Cook.
	Yeah, Captain James Cook with the superb Luca Johnson.
	So yeah, it's not the Pirates side of the equation, but still brilliant, brilliant stories.
	Let's go on to the next one.
	Stelios's right-wing derangement segment perfectly describes the tautological Templar.
	Out of your pain, paradise was born.
	I don't know how you survived, but your suffering is over now.
	These men will ease your burden.
	Please understand that like all I have done, this is an act of love.
	I didn't see the segment.
	Basically, I said that it's the presentation of anything to the right of social democracy as far right.
	Oh, right.
	And for some reason, parties who call themselves center-right are playing into it.
	Let's go to the next one.
	A Gentleman's Observations of Swindon, Chapter 7 Throughout the medieval period, farms in the south of Swindon reared sheep, while farms in the north of Swindon reared pigs and cattle, allowing for tanners and wool mongers to operate in the town.
	The town market was on the decline by the 1640s, but a cattle plague in Highworth in 1652 bolstered Swindon's cattle sales, and it was recorded that Swindon held a weekly cattle market every Monday.
	Even though quarries and stoneworkers were the most common occupation by 1701, Swindon continued to rely on markets.
	The first independent shop, a grocer, was set up on Swindon's High Street in 1705 by Robert and Margaret Boxwell.
	It's been downhill ever since as well.
	I like this guy doing these little things.
	Yeah, I love it.
	He's close to us, here.
	Oh is he?
	That makes sense.
	Doing little swings.
	I bought a croffin from him that was absolutely amazing.
	You bought a what from him?
	A croffin.
	A croissant and a muffin.
	Oh, I've heard of such a thing.
	Was it nice?
	Was it good?
	Yeah, very good.
	Does he run a shop, does he?
	Yeah.
	What shop?
	It's every Thursday.
	oh right okay oh right okay i want a cruffin i want to try a cruffin yeah yeah thursday can i get a chocolate chip cruffin i think i think there are ones yeah i'll break my diet for a cruffin um so uh lord narevar says the reason they're trying to cancel farage because he's right and he makes a hell of a lot of sense the average person It's damage control, which is why they're wheeling out Big Boris to fire shots at him.
	What they don't understand is that Boris is widely known to have been a traitor by the general public.
	They cannot and continue not to be able to stop what's coming.
	I think there are a lot of people who do still like Boris, though, on a personal level.
	But again, none of the shots are hitting home, are they?
	No, yeah.
	I must say, just again, a slight personal anecdote, when I was involved with the reform thing, a fair chunk of the ground roots reform people still love Boris.
	Yeah.
	And I would say, er, didn't he put you under house arrest for a couple of years?
	And they would just be, they would just sort of... Didn't he betray the electorate on borders?
	They would just go into some sort of cognitive dissonance thing and be like, no, no, no, he's a great vote winner.
	Yeah, from the Hindu community.
	Yeah, yeah, spies Boris.
	General Haiping says, you crane this, you crane that.
	How many more decades have to pass before the CIA admit they bombed the Nord Stream pipeline live on The View?
	Now, Putin decided, you know, I've got a little knob where I can turn on or off the gas to Germany.
	What I think I'll do is I'll blow up the pipeline instead.
	For some reason.
	So obvious, obvious nonsense.
	It's one of those things that crossed my mind just the other day.
	Nothing provocative about it?
	There's a few things that you're just not really encouraged to talk or think about, like the JFK assassination, like what really happened on 9-11, and the Nord Stream Pipeline.
	I'm just joking!
	The Nord Stream Pipeline is one of those things, isn't it?
	Yeah, I remember when I interviewed that AFD guy, Peter Boehringer, he didn't want, he was almost visibly scared to talk about it, didn't want to... It was probably a bigger deal in Germany.
	Oh yeah, sure.
	It's just one of those, it's just, throw it on the pile of those things that, just ignore, don't look at it too deeply, don't investigate it, don't drill down into it.
	But it's obvious why.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, the North Stream Pipeline was the most transparent thing in the world.
	Biden was like, oh, don't worry, we can do something about this.
	Suddenly it blows up, and the Polish embassy tweets out, thanks, America.
	And Putin's just like, no, I blew up my own pipeline.
	No, of course he didn't.
	There's only a couple of countries in the whole world with any sort of submarine program that could ever dream of doing something like that anyway.
	It's just, it's so obvious.
	So obvious.
	If he didn't want to make money off his own pipeline, he could just turn off the gas supply, because he's the one supplying the gas.
	General Haiping says, every time a Russian warship comes anywhere near Western waters, oh my god, they do not understand boundaries.
	The West building right up to Russia's borders and boycotting all their train, this is fine.
	Yeah, it's insufferable.
	Sorry, we'll do a couple of the other ones.
	Bleach Demon says, it's baffling to see the collective hubris of the Tories.
	Not even Saddam painted the Iraqis as this goldfish brained when he had guaranteed elections.
	Yeah, I know, it's...
	Just really insufferable.
	And Richard points out here, the balls and the conservatives with their retarded adverts and their whataboutisms with regards to labour.
	They have literally sent out invitations with RSVPs to the most undesirable areas of the world saying send us your dregs, filth and criminals.
	As my father is known to say, you can't polish a turd.
	Omar says, I'll never get over the industrial level gaslighting they used to convince us two years of house arrest was a reasonable escalation from, we need two weeks to let the NHS prepare.
	The second they assumed the authority to control our safety, the temporary measures started looking really permanent.
	Yeah, it's mental, isn't it?
	It's absolutely mental.
	It's obviously an exercise in social control and transfer of wealth.
	Nothing to do with public health.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Threadknot sends a $5 soup chat and says, you know what my solution is?
	Act of war, deport them all back to where they came from, brackets France, and declare war on France.
	Need to teach the French to relearn old lessons.
	I mean, just send them back to France.
	And didn't one of the reform guys say, well look, we'll just dump them back there?
	Yeah.
	And if the French kick off about it, then we'll... Benhabib said that, I believe.
	Benhabib was a beast!
	Well, Nigel said the other day... Actually, there's a few things.
	Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
	There's a few things I will say, either on here or tweet.
	And a couple of days later, the exact words are being used... Good.
	...by reform.
	Good.
	Well, I was... I started to talk about sectarianism.
	Yeah.
	And literally a couple of days later, Spicer started to talk about it.
	Anyway...
	This is what memes are for.
	I'm the very first person to say it, but I tweeted about how if it was up to me I would bring our aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales into the channel and use 4-2 commando to send the boats back.
	Yeah.
	And a couple days later Nige said I'll just use the Royal Marines.
	Good idea.
	He doesn't follow me but, and I'm not the first to say it of course, I'm not claiming that, but Yeah, use the Royal Navy and the Marines.
	Isn't that why we have it?
	Stop them.
	Just do that.
	Yeah.
	God.
	Mead says, I would love to see Lotus Eater selling flags in the merch store.
	St George's Cross, Richard Lionheart's Royal Crest on the flag with the lions.
	Just a few ideas.
	Well, we will take it under consideration.
	Henry says, the England flag thing that really annoys me is the nonsense about the mini roundabouts.
	People are spraying St George's Cross onto the white mini roundabouts and the Guardian types are going nuts about it.
	Yeah, but that's a good thing.
	And yet the pride crossings that confuse everyone?
	Totally fine.
	Londoners just re-elected Khan, says Grant.
	They can have him.
	If I were a cabbie, I'd fly a Pakistani flag in protest.
	You might find yourself finding interest from people you don't otherwise want to associate with.
	Yeah, also the Indian nationalist Hindu types are not going to be best pleased with that, are they?
	Yeah, suddenly you've inserted yourself into a sectarian conflict, just without realising it.
	Sectarianism is here to stay.
	Brilliant.
	On that note, we will have to go because we're out of time, but thank you all for watching and we will see you tomorrow.

▲