All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 23, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:31:25
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #985
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Lotus Eater I am your host Connor, joined by Carl and Professor Jonathan Anomaly.
Great to be here.
Hi.
Yeah.
Do you mind giving a short introduction for our guests?
Sure.
I was an American academic for about 15 years, took the kind of PPE program developed here in Oxford, Cambridge, imported it with some changes to Duke, University of North Carolina, Arizona, San Diego, et cetera.
Summer of Floyd created some chaos in the American Academy.
I mean, things were already moving in that direction, but as of 2022, I quit my job at the University of Pennsylvania, moved to Ecuador to help them establish some PPE programs and work with the president, and I now do a little bit of that.
So, I run a master's program in Ecuador, and I also, part-time, am also working with a company that does IVF and embryo selection for cognitive ability, among other things.
Yeah, we're going to be talking about whether or not right-wing progressivism is the answer to low birth rates later, but if anyone wants to know more about Jonathan's career, I recommend watching his excellent episode with our good friend Chris Williamson that came out recently because you're a purveyor of very sensible hate facts.
I think that's a fair thing to say.
Speaking of hate facts, today we're going to be discussing the sort of people that the government want to lock up, and the people that they aren't, the recent epidemics of stabbings in Britain, and who's behind them, and whether or not liberalism can last falling birth rates.
That'll be an interesting discussion.
But before we jump into today's news, as you know it's Friday, and so that means lads hour, and that at three o'clock will be Carl taking us through a bunch of women discovering what modesty means.
Well, Aaron McIntyre had a great tweet.
It was just, you know, every now and again the left will discover timeless wisdom and act like they've discovered Atlantis.
Like they'll reinvent traditionalism.
And this is just one of those times.
And it's quite funny watching the women themselves.
And again, it's like progressive women have had no education from previous generations of women.
Which is remarkable, and so they're just like, well, do I get less attention from men, unwanted attention from men, if I don't have my boobs out all the time?
It's like, yeah, incredible.
It's quite funny to be honest, so that's why I thought we'd do it for Lads Out.
So Carl's gonna be everyone's grandmother, so if you haven't subscribed to the paywall yet, there's still time to do so.
Without further ado...
It's not escaped many people's attention in the UK that there seems to be a two-tier justice system operating.
If you were participating in the anti-immigration riots following the atrocity of three girls being murdered and more stabbed in Southport, the police seem very eager to expedite your trial and crack down on you for everything from looting Alashera Greggs, which is Obviously very not sensible, and we don't endorse that, to putting up some spicy social media posts which, let's be realistic, didn't have any prospect of actually being acted upon.
And that starkly contrasts with the kind of people that they're either Not admitting to prison, or they're letting out of prison.
So we're just going to compare those today.
And I wanted to start off with this video from the Merseyside Police.
I think we'll play it.
The audio is not exactly inviting, but it's worth showing as an example of who the police are going after.
They say, if you took part in the violent disorder, be prepared.
We're coming for you no matter where you are.
Just this violent disorder, not a lot of other violent disorders, we'll see soon.
But I found the caption interesting because it says, Thomas Whitehead, 53, of Pool Street, Southport, jailed for 20 months yesterday.
Why are they doxing his address?
Good question.
Is this meant to send some sort of message to presumably the political opponents of Keir Starmer to not engage in this, whereas other groups are given carte blanche to conduct violent vigilante activity?
And it seems the Home Office are insisting on categorising all of their political opponents as criminals before they've had a trial because this tweet went out.
And it says, more than a thousand arrests related to recent public disorder.
The caption is, these criminals will face the full force of the law.
Now if anyone can spot a problem in this tweet... Normally we establish whether someone's a criminal or not after the trial.
Exactly.
Yeah, the presumption of innocence seems to have been abolished if you are an anti-immigration protester.
But for lots of other crimes, you seem to get away with it.
Now, it's been raised by Lee Anderson, MP of Reform UK here.
He's written to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, saying that she might have actually committed contempt of court here.
Because you can't prejudge everyone that's been arrested as a criminal before they've had their hearing.
So, for people not from this country, you may not be aware that the Labour Party is not usually considered to be full of our best and brightest.
And I've got a thesis that if we were to sit them all down and make them do IQ tests, the average would come out about 90.
And I really mean this from long years of watching these people in public life and public office.
I think this is a sterling example of that.
These people are morons and they don't understand the system that they're in charge of.
Keir Stormer does demonstrate sheer inflexibility any time he's challenged.
I do think there's something deeper going on here too which is related to Nemo Parvini's, you know, boomer truth regime.
There's something, there's a framework now in place in the entire Anglosphere.
We often export it from the US.
I think it probably came from here to us and then we amplify it via Hollywood and the university system and that is that Anti-racism is the fundamental virtue of all Western societies at this point.
So, identifying a racist or someone who appears to be a racist, someone who's in some way intolerant of some group somewhere, is the greatest evil that you can commit.
And so what's really going on here is, this is not about the law per se.
This is about using the force of the state, identifying the evildoers, and getting people to hate them.
You know, this is the kind of two minutes of hate directed at the evildoers.
And even worse, if it was just two minutes of hate, okay, that's terrible.
But it's the force of the state.
But you are absolutely on the money there, because one thing that the sort of left-wing intelligentsia in this country complained about was, well, Keir Starmer isn't labelling them racist fast enough.
He did label them all as racist, obviously, but he didn't do it quickly enough, even though he called them far right on the day it was happening.
Right, and so you've got all these headlines now, I know you're going to talk about some of them, pedophiles being released potentially, or robbers being released from prison, but the worst thing that you can do is to have incorrect thoughts, to think that some groups are different than others, that some are better than others.
Whether you act on those thoughts or not is less relevant than those thoughts.
I mean, that implies some sort of ideological framework.
This isn't even that far.
Because these people are just expressing their own preferences.
Like, we would prefer it if Britain remained majority British.
Because we've been subject to unbelievable amounts of mass immigration in the past 25 years.
And this is a response to that.
They don't have a strong ideological framework where they've thought all of this through.
They're just reacting from an emotional position.
I don't even think they're expressing that desire, and I would agree with that desire, I'm not counter-signalling.
I think at the basest level they're expressing, this is a foreign criminal, he didn't need to be here, girls have been killed and injured because of it, so stop bringing them here in the first place.
And, as Renaud Camus would say, anti-racism being the modus operandi of every nation post-Second World War, they have to buy into the blank slate to prove to themselves that they're not going to mutate into the mid-century Germans, and so they blame the native population complaining about the problem for the reason that the newcomers are committing the crimes, because if the native population didn't assert their cultural and demographic preferences, then the newcomers would just be showered in British values and assimilate into the melting pot.
It's actually you waving your Union Jack that causes second-generation migrants to go and stab a Taylor Swift dance class.
That's the opinion of these people.
I think that's right.
And what you said earlier, you know, this is about emotions.
It's not an overall theory that they have, or it's expressing a certain desire.
And I think that's right.
One theory of politics, sort of academic theory, is the expressive theory of politics, especially in democracy.
So everyone knows their individual vote doesn't matter very much.
It's not going to make a big difference.
Why do people go to the polls at all is the real puzzle.
And my old friend Geoffrey Brennan, who is an Australian economist, had this view of Expressivism.
Why do people do this?
What gets them riled up politically?
And it's basically, they're not trying to achieve goals in an efficient way.
They're not doing cost-benefit calculuses.
You know, who deserves to be in prison?
Who, if we lock up, will reduce crime rates?
It's rather, what does this stand for?
And again, going back to this fundamental post-World War II value, we're standing against intolerance.
This is what this is all about.
Whoever is, you know, put in prison as a side effect, that sort of thing, this is just a casualty in this war against intolerance.
This does have that kind of inquisitorial aspect to it.
I think you're exactly right.
They've decided you are evil.
You are pro-racism, you are evil.
We are good, we are anti-racism, and therefore we have... I mean, we know you're criminals because you were on the streets protesting about this.
We're just going to, you know, find me the man and I'll find you the crime.
We may have also found a crime committed by Yvette Cooper here.
I spoke to Toby Young yesterday at the Free Speech Union.
He's got lots of sign-ups recently because if you put hate facts on social media the government will come for you.
And he said ironically they might have committed an offence under the online safety bill.
Oh really?
Because given their lawyers, given their home office officials, they should have known the distinction between criminal Suspect and convicted and therefore if they've knowingly posted false information online It's led to real-world harms like a chilling effect on the kinds of people that may have vote may have Pleaded not guilty rather than guilty thinking they wouldn't get the presumption of innocence anymore So they could actually be prosecuted under also is announced in some ways of libelous
If the state is calling us a bunch of criminals, but I pled not guilty and I was found innocent, well, you've called me a criminal.
I'm not a criminal.
That would require the individual person's libel to seek a claim in the civil court.
Yeah, I know, but they could do that, surely.
They could do this.
It's actually far more effective to go after them in the criminal court, because this is a law they all passed.
Do it all.
Do it both.
If they're calling you a criminal and you got let off, go and sue them.
Yeah, it would be useful, but it really does bolster, yeah, these people are all thick.
They're thick and they're evil.
It's not just incompetence or malice, it's both.
Now, brilliant.
Some will get far more lenient treatment, of course.
I don't think the Home Office are probably going to be held to account on this.
The people that were at the protests, even if they didn't do anything wrong, will be persecuted for this.
Some people get more lenient treatment, as Neil O'Brien MP has found out in a recent post on his substack.
We won't be subscribing right now, but I reckon you do.
So he broke down some data, as he's wont to do, from the Ministry of Justice, published but buried in 2019, and he found that roughly half of all crimes in Britain are committed by 10% of offenders, 4% of all crimes are committed by 0.2% of all offenders,
And since 2007, there have been 50,000 occasions where people have been spared prison time despite having 50 previous convictions, 4,000 occasions where people had 100 previous convictions for spared prison time, and 315,000 occasions where people were spared prison despite 25 convictions, and that's bumped up to 382,000 if you count cautions.
Can't help but feel that after a dozen convictions, you've got to be the sort of person who feels the law doesn't really apply to them, right?
Yeah, there is a certain category of young, violent, low-impulse control male that you only stop committing crimes by putting them in a box for a while.
That's exactly right, and when you look at crime, it is partly heritable, and criminologists have known this for a long time.
I have friends, Kevin Beaver for example, Brian Boutwell, bio-social criminologists, and they study the heritability of these traits.
Self-control is heritable, psychopathy is highly heritable.
And when you look at psychopaths, they're 1% of the population, approximately.
But there's something like 25 to 30% of the population in federal prisons in the United States.
I assume it's similar here.
And they're the kind of people who simply can't be deterred with moral proclamations or even long-term sentences.
What they need to be deterred by is, you know, in the short run, there's going to be an immediate penalty if you violate this rule.
And if we don't face up to this, We're not facing up to most of the criminals.
You don't even need to talk about group differences here, just talk about individual differences.
These things are highly heritable.
If they're all so solipsistic they can't be reasoned with.
You have to set the risk of their personal safety so high that they don't take the trade off.
And then there's also the heritability of schizophrenia.
I mean, it's a hair trigger, it can be onset by drug use or abuse, but Different groups have different levels of heritability, and this is according to far-right conspiracy theory website the NHS.
They found that most white Britons, white British males, have a 0.3% diagnosis of schizophrenia.
Black men in Britain have a 3% diagnosis of schizophrenia.
So any time that, you know, mental health is blamed for Valdo Callicane stabbing three people, it's like...
Yes.
Is there a predisposition there we can talk about, or is that another hate fact?
I think it's also worth talking about the kind of, I don't know, mood or attitude of the person as well.
Because it's all in good saying, well, listen, you know, in a rational calculation, if you go and do something terrible, then you're going to get arrested, you might get shot or killed or hurt or something like that.
And it's like, yeah, that's all well and good.
But when someone's blood is up and they're, for some reason, in a rage, running around doing something crazy.
I mean, you see videos that come out of the United States all the time of someone doing something crazy, but the other person has a gun and yet they're doing the crazy thing anyway.
And so they get shot.
So it's not even the worry about their own personal safety that is the issue at this point.
It's that people are difficult to manage.
Some people have psychotic spells, as you said, and we need to build our society around that and deal with it.
I'm really reluctant to medicalise these things, right?
Because that puts us on the sort of rails towards the therapeutic state.
Oh, well, if we can just make them understand, if we can just bring them in line with the rest of society.
No, no, no.
If someone's like that, I actually don't want them in my society.
And actually, I don't really want to be around them.
I don't want to therapeutise them into being able to live next door to me.
No, but it is worth recognizing that some of these traits are there for life.
Psychopathy can't be cured, and the best medicine for them.
Maybe we shouldn't torture them, we shouldn't have a retributive theory where we're trying to get back at them, but we should separate them from society.
I mean, if they're doing these things repeatedly, and we know they do, they have like 80-90% recidivism rates.
Probably should keep them locked up.
Now that would be sensible, gents, but have you considered that the prisons are really full, because we keep importing foreign criminals, and we need to lock up these protesters and people posting on Facebook, so instead, the magistrates have been told to stop jailing violent offenders in order to ease pressure on the prisons.
I mean, this is just mad, isn't it?
You may as well just put a sign up that says you are allowed to commit crimes now.
Britain is becoming Arkham Asylum.
Yeah.
Also, you are allowed to commit crimes because, Douglas Murray dug into the statistics, do you know there's multiple police districts that haven't solved a single burglary in the last few years?
I'm not surprised.
Obviously, we are not saying commit crimes.
No.
You're not allowed to commit crimes.
However, the British government has a different opinion on that.
Yeah, we don't want you to commit crimes.
The British police seem to care more about offensive statements online than actual house break-ins.
Incentives matter.
It's pretty simple.
So we had in California, my home state where I grew up, you know, this law in place for many years where if you steal below $1,000, It's essentially couldn't be prosecuted.
There are also laws that protected criminals so that you couldn't call the police on them if you suspected that they were in some unfortunate circumstance, you know, drug addict, whatever it is.
And we saw crime just skyrocket.
You guys have seen these roving gangs in California that go to, you know, Apple stores and just steal a bunch of stuff.
All of this is incentives, and in fact, even leftists in California and San Francisco have now revoked the prosecutor who is responsible for passing some of these things.
So even they have a limit to the appetite that they have for criminality, for tolerating it.
How dare they crack down on these desperate people who are just stealing bread.
From iPhone stores, yeah.
Quite.
A couple of details just from this article to flesh it out.
So one of the country's senior judges issued a listing direction to the managers of magistrates courts in England and Wales.
This isn't legally binding, but it is top-down advice.
Saying offenders who are on bail and likely to be jailed should have their sentencing hearings postponed until at least September the 10th.
The order could affect some of those who have already pleaded guilty to offences during the recent spate of rioting, as well as others facing sentences for crimes including assault.
So not only are violent criminals not going to be imprisoned, but those awaiting sentences for the rioting are going to be encouraged to plead guilty, to hurry up and get their sentence over with, thinking they're going to get a shorter sentence, and they're not going to be held on remand in prison awaiting a judgement.
So this is going to again encourage more people who might otherwise be innocent to plead guilty and get sentences they do not deserve.
From September the 10th, the government will implement its emergency release scheme as well, which is forecast to free, on a single day here, 2,000 prisoners.
On one day!
Just dump them out into the population.
And another 1,700 by October the 22nd.
According to ministers in the longer term, the scheme will free up 5,500 prison places.
They need all that because over 1,000 people have been arrested and about 470 now have been charged for social media posts.
The good news about this is maybe there will be less violence in prison because all of those drug dealers and robbers will be replaced by grannies who are posting on Facebook.
Well, did you see the Sky News crime correspondent who went on and said, I have got it on high authority from someone in the prisons that there will be quote-unquote Asian, Muslim, gangs, which now make up a fifth of the whole prison population in the UK, who will be waiting to give these rioters a warm welcome.
Ah, of course.
So they're just wishing death on their political opponents.
And they know this is happening.
Because this is just a mad thing.
Isn't this exactly what the Soviets did?
Empty the jails of actual criminals and then locked up all of the political prisoners?
Yes, because the premise was that capitalism drove the people under the prior paradigm to be criminals, very Rousseauian of them, and actually the regime dissidents were the ones stopping the utopia being constructed so they need to be thrown in prison.
And of course this also happened in Cuba in the 1980s and in Venezuela just last year.
And of course we, that is people from the United States, get to receive these criminals on boats.
Empty the prisons and send them on over.
The Biden administration has been doing exactly that with the January 6th defendants.
So again, you guys have got a taste of it before we even did.
Now some of these offenders will include this chap, Lawson Natty.
There should be a photo of him in here somewhere.
This benefits of diversity.
He was sentenced to two years and eight months for manslaughter and unlawful wounding because he killed this kid.
Only two years for killing someone.
He had a machete, didn't he?
Yes, he did.
How did you guess that?
How did I know?
So Gordon Galt, who's this 14 year old boy, died in hospital six days after being attacked with a blade in Elswick, Newcastle in November 2022.
The other guy still remains in prison for murder.
I think he got something like nine years.
Galt's mother, Guy on Barrett, uh, went on GB News.
How did he get manslaughter?
You hack someone up with a machete, how can you say manslaughter?
He just provided the machete.
Oh, I didn't mean to kill him.
He was gonna cut down the dense underbrush in Newcastle.
God, I hate this country.
Again, the death penalty should never have been gotten rid of.
Anyway, so this is a Labour MP on the left.
Her name is Chi Onwura and she's a Labour MP for Newcastle-on-Tyne.
She's told GB News that she's actually going to be looking into this.
In her letter she obviously blames the Tories and says that, well actually don't worry there's been misinformation online because this Lawson Natty chap served longer than six months of sentence so that's all fine.
But she's saying, I raised the case for the Ministry of Justice two weeks ago based on press reports from Natty's release and I've been trying to contact Barrett to see how I can support her further.
Still, loads of criminals, violent criminals, are going to be let out.
So this, even if this one guy gets blocked, still thousands more.
Looking forward to that.
Also, what about the people that haven't been let in prison?
A child rapist, Rhys Newman, 33, handed a suspended sentence last December for raping a girl under the age of 14 all the way back in 2005.
Under terms of his sentence, he was ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Registrar and notify police if he went on holiday.
In May, he jetted off to Egypt without telling officers, so he was taken back to court.
Judge Tracey Lloyd-Clark, Recorder of Cardiff, jailed Newman for two months, but suspended his imprisonment for 18 months, and she said, quote, "...if we had been in different times, then it would have been virtually inevitable that you would have gone to custody.
The only reason you escaped immediate custody today is because of the prison overcrowding crisis." You know what?
I know this is going to come across as deeply heartless, right?
I don't care if the prisons are overcrowded.
I actually am really not sympathetic to the prisoners who may have to share a cell with two or three other people.
You can sleep standing up.
Yeah, I don't care.
With the caveat that the laws are actually tracking some sense of justice.
As soon as the laws become corrupt, or they're interpreted in a corrupt way, then we should care.
Prior to this current paradigm.
Yeah, Facebook grannies shouldn't go to prison.
This guy should, basically.
Yeah, the criminal's in prison while they're not comfortable.
Oh dear.
That's the point.
Maybe don't machete other children.
Or sexually assault them.
Or rape children.
That would be a sensible idea.
It turns out there's lots more of these freaks where that came from.
Talk, Alex Phillips, who's doing absolutely fantastic work, she has found at least ten Ten convicted sex offenders, child sex offenders, who have been spared prison.
I'm gonna play a little interview she's done with a barrister here who gives some insight into one of the cases and as to why they haven't been imprisoned.
But they found ten who have been spared prison to make space for the rioters.
It's worth listening to this.
Justifications as to why it's needed.
And I thought, ooh, this does seem really weird.
So I asked on social media, I said, can any criminal lawyer help me as to what's going on?
Because this seems odd.
And crickets.
I didn't get a single response.
So I did a bit of Googling, and I think I found the answer.
At the end of last year, there was a particularly nasty case of somebody who for 13 years had been accessing a Dropbox folder full of the most vile images, including Category A images.
And he was given a 20-month sentence that was suspended for two years.
And the National Crime Agency actually said, this is wrong.
We don't feel good about this.
They worked out that 80% of men convicted for possession of indecent images were not going to prison.
But I think they provided the answer because their director of operations said, look, There are between 680,000 and 800,000 of these men in the country.
We know the prison system was at capacity around July.
I think about 97,000 places.
So the NCA said quite rightly, whatever you think about these men, they're not going to prison because we do not have the room for them.
So I think what we need rather urgently is a discussion about precisely what message we're meant to be sending.
Because we could see with the rioters, the message was very clearly, you are disgraceful, you are disgusting, we will not tolerate this for a moment.
So you will go to prison and to make room for you, we will release about 5,000 prisoners, who I assume may have included some of those 20% of men who were actually convicted.
So I do think if the National Crime Agency is worried enough to raise this as an issue at the end of last year, I don't think the people doing it can just be dismissed, as I'm afraid a lot of them are.
I will release as many child molesters as it takes to get every single one of you rioters in prison, says Keir Starmer.
It's the Mr Waterloo's position.
It really is.
I will kidnap a thousand children before I let this company die.
Yeah.
Let me get this straight.
In response to English girls being stabbed by a second generation migrant, child rapists get to go free.
So it's to free child rapists to imprison grannies who complain about it on Facebook.
Is it this zero sum in this country that you can't just build a new place to put people?
Not that you should be putting Facebook posters in jail, but if there's a shortage... We have 12,000 foreign criminals in this country, right?
We are number one in Western Europe, number two in all of Europe for crimes committed by foreign actors in this country.
We could send them all home tomorrow.
The decision has been made not to.
Remember, our government is literally dumb.
I'm absolutely convinced that 90 is a generous estimate.
And you don't have an Australia anymore where you can just sort of ship people.
Well, you know, we used to do that with America.
We deported criminals to America and then there was something happened.
Yeah.
So we had to use Australia instead.
One last one.
Do you remember the Manchester Airport scrap?
The two Muslim lads who were on CCTV beating up police officers and the police officers have been investigated.
They still haven't been charged.
Another one happened.
There've been three now arrested.
Again?
Two women and a man fighting over a car parking space.
Right.
As you do.
Not charged.
So!
I don't mean to laugh, but it's just so preposterous.
So preposterous.
I look forward to seeing the identities of this man and women, and I'm sure the full force of the law will be brought down on them, as it is for Grandma's posting on Facebook, but not, it turns out, for child sex offenders.
With that, Rumble Rants.
Yeah, Keith says, one thing that really riles me up is how scientific progress is censored by progressivism if the outcome of tests and theory doesn't fit their narratives.
You must have a lot to say about that.
I guess we'll say a bit more later, but you're absolutely right, yeah.
Dogbreath says, I stand by my assertion that Starmer is sending the anti-migrants to jail in order that they may be permanently eliminated by the Mohammedian prison gangs.
Honestly, we're going to do a Hangout talking about this next week, because we've got a lot on this.
And Hewitt says, Well, there is the discrepancy in interactions with the healthcare system that is brought up, and that's blamed on systemic racism rather than certain communities being more inclined to go and talk about that thing than others.
So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that all of the things that you've just been talking about are turning Britain into an absolute charnel house.
Every day, there are multiple stabbings, and have been for the last couple of weeks now.
Things seem to be getting worse, and honestly, I dread logging into Twitter, which is obviously where I find everything like everyone else.
To see who's been stabbed today.
And it's always awful.
It's always genuinely awful.
And so what I did is I went and had a look at the latest knife crime statistics we have, which are for last year.
And as you can see, this maps onto ethnic differences.
This is a map of the 2021 census based on ethnic group.
The darker the blue, the more native British it is.
And when it gets to sort of the green, that's the very much minority where it's about 15%.
So I'm seeing a lot around London and Birmingham, and if I flip back to the knife...
It's very similar.
However, this does correlate, obviously.
But the thing is, when you actually drill into the statistics, it's not as simple as saying, well, a bunch of foreigners have come here to stab us.
It's not that simple.
So I thought we'd go through some of the recent stabbings, just to see what I'm talking about.
It is worth saying that every single time a foreign national does stab someone, that is an optional crime that has been inflicted on the people by government policy.
Yeah, and when they aren't hanged, that's an optional opportunity for recidivism as well, which drives me mental.
So I thought we'd just talk about some of the atrocious things that are happening, right?
Genuinely atrocious.
Now, I'm a father, I've got four kids.
Oldest is 14, then 9, then 3, then nearly 2.
Well, 4, then 2.
And this is genuinely my worst fear, right?
My worst fear is that this mum here, 15-year-old in Southampton, I think it was, Southampton Railway Station, got stabbed by another teenager.
One of the boys plunged a 12-inch zombie knife into my son's head, because it's the zombie knife that's important here.
We live nearby, so he ran home.
I've never seen so much blood in my life.
He came in and was like, Mum, help me, I'm dying.
Now, this kid actually has survived at the time of recording.
I don't know if anything happens later.
But he was stabbed just under the jaw, or into his jaw.
Right, near his jugular.
Yeah.
Yeah, if it was an inch higher, he'd be dead.
Basically.
Are there moves here to try to ban certain kinds of knives?
Oh, yes.
As they've banned, of course.
Well, they've already been banned, actually.
Yeah, because there's a massive epidemic of Sikh stabbings and Boy Scout stabbings, because it's the knives that do this.
They just appear... Specifically Sikhs, they... Yeah, they just appear like the dagger appears before Macbeth and hell them to do it.
Well, you know, the bleeding self excites the violence, doesn't it?
I mean, maybe this is obvious, but in the United States, you probably know this, there's very little correlation between, say, gun ownership and actual crime.
So, the highest rates of gun ownership are essentially... Are the registered areas, which have the lowest crimes.
Exactly.
They're essentially the Scandinavians in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and not specifically the cities, so it's a very specific demographic.
Heavily armed.
And extraordinarily low violent crime rates, right?
They keep their doors open at night and so on.
So just to get a sense that it's not the weapons doing... But I want to make it clear it's not just an ethnic problem.
No, definitely not.
Because it's very... I mean, we don't know who did the stabbing in this, but Southampton is not a particularly diverse area yet.
It's getting more diverse.
Who knows?
I just want to show people the normalcy of the stabbings.
This kid at the train station runs home.
Mum, whoring with blood.
Chessington World of Adventures?
This is the sort of place I take my kids during the summer holidays.
Two men got stabbed in the car park for this.
It was the middle of the day, 2.35pm in the afternoon.
One man was taken to hospital with major stab wounds.
Another one was found with minor injuries.
It's believed that three men involved in the incident knew each other.
So again, the previous one, the kid probably knew who stabbed him.
This one probably knew who stabbed him, right?
There was a woman killed last Sunday.
Alberta Obimnym died at Barnard Road in Gorton.
A 17-year-old and a 64-year-old man were also taken to hospital for treatment.
A man was arrested with mental health problems.
Oh, yeah.
They said he was known to the family.
Yeah, he probably was related or something like that.
He probably was an ethnic minority, but he was detained under the Mental Health Act, a 22-year-old suspect, and as the police said, were known to another.
So probably standing beside an ethnic community.
But there are lots of examples of this that are not in these ethnic communities, which is very difficult for people on the right to talk about because we've got this...
Kind of... I don't want to say cope, but it feels like it's a bit of a cope, where it's like, well, it's the foreigners doing all the stabbings, therefore, if we just got rid of the foreigners, the stabbings would end.
It's not all, but I do think, again... It's not even most.
It's worth... I've got the stabbings.
...per capita, but it's worth carving out that all of those people being here is optional, so that is a problem we can deal with.
Sure, I agree, but the thing is, the fact that actually a lot of youths are, you know, native English and Welsh and whatnot, also doing this is something we have to deal with.
This is a problem we don't have a choice about.
The goal of getting crime to zero is never going to be achieved anyway, right?
So we have to take some violence as part of the background noise of the human condition and so on.
All you can do is tinker at the margins with laws, with social norms.
When social norms break down, though, violence does tend to go up.
So there are things that you can play with there, not just in terms of law, but in terms of fostering communities that have high social trust and so on.
But it's the kind of violence that's happening that is new to English life, and this is just shocking.
I mean, this was from... what was the date on it?
Literally the other day.
Just the second of August.
Just last week.
No, that was yesterday.
Oh, was it?
Yesterday.
Oh yeah, Christ, okay.
This is the thing, right?
These things happen so often, They just kind of blur into what, okay, it's just stabbings on the background, radiation of British political life at the moment, British social life.
So this, I think this was published yesterday, but this didn't happen yesterday.
I was January 27th last year, in fact.
But this young girl, Holly Newton, was knifed multiple times in an alleyway in Hexham, Northumberland.
That's 96% English, right?
She was stabbed by a boy, who was also English, who she knew from school.
Do we do we know the name of the boy because he's a minor?
We don't know the name.
So we don't know that.
That's okay, fair.
But I'm going to get if it's 96% it's fine to make the presumption.
I'm just saying we don't know.
Yeah, fair enough.
I'm going to make the assumption.
Because it the way they're talking about it is not in the sort of protective way.
That they talk about it once.
There's no euphemism like teen or scholar or something.
It's just an issue in our school system.
And apparently he had been diagnosed with autism, apparently, so you know.
But he'd been following her for 45 minutes, found her in alleys, just repeated stabbings.
This girl.
Horrific.
Just the most horrific thing.
Multiple blows on her back, head and face.
And he continued to stab her after someone tried to pull him off and then he stabbed the boy who pulled him off.
And it's just like, this is mental.
This isn't just a diversity problem.
There is a problem with the way that young people view one another at this point.
Stabbing is just a normal thing to do.
And it's not just young people either.
I don't know what has happened in this particular case, this was from this week as well, where a 28-year-old man, Jordan Wilkes, stabbed a 9-year-old girl.
The block of flats.
It's like, what are you doing?
Again, this is in Christchurch and Dorset, 95% English.
This is not a diversity problem.
This is a problem with something is going wrong in society itself, where we think that for some reason knives are just a normal thing.
I think this was a domestic occasion because there was a 50 year old woman who was also arrested and questioned but not charged in connection with this and it happened in a stairwell so I think there's some sort of argument within the flats.
Maybe, and I'm sure it is.
But the point is, this didn't used to be the way we resolved our problems, right?
And I know that lots of young people these days are, and I've seen loads of interviews, and you speak to young people, and they are afraid, right?
They are afraid that other young people have knives.
And so they feel the need to carry knives as well.
And this is not just in the minority communities, this is in the normal sort of majority community as well.
And it's something that we actually have to start addressing.
Because, like I said, we've got the statistics from last year, and I thought we'd just go through them, right?
So, as you can see, the knife crime is unbelievably high.
So, just to give you their summary, in fact.
So, in 22-23 there were 50,000 offences involving a sharp instrument in England and Wales, which is 4% higher, but obviously lower than 2020.
Since then, the total number of offences involving a knife or sharp instrument, which includes Greater Manchester, but excludes Devon and Cornwall, because the recording system apparently is something weird, but I can't imagine there's that much in Devon and Cornwall, has gone down slightly, but again, it's not anything significant.
I mean, you can see it.
It's still 44,000, and then it's gone up to 50,000 again.
And so, this is the highest we've ever had for homicides.
Now, you'd argue, well, it's about the population.
There's more people here.
Sure, but there are more than twice... well, there are twice as many.
More than twice as many.
So, this began recording in 1977, where there were 135 homicides a year, involving knives, broken bottles, whatever.
And this counted 33% of all of them.
Well, in 2022 there are 282.
So, if the population hasn't doubled, then that hasn't tracked with population growth.
And it's also 41% of all homicides now, so they're being used more often.
So this has just become a cultural norm.
And again, this is not just among minorities, but we'll get to that in a minute.
Can I get to page 12 on this?
I will point out that when you do the demographic breakdown of just specifically London, it is overwhelmingly the minority communities.
Yeah, but the problem is these things are not just happening in London.
Yes.
And they are going to places that are almost 100% homogenous.
So, am I on page 12 here?
Go down.
- So, am I on page 12 here?
- Go down, go down. - Yeah, so this is where I got the thing.
And so you'll notice that there are parts that are not necessarily very diverse where they have much larger numbers of stabbings now.
I mean, it's not good.
This is not good.
And this is I mean, you get, I mean, there are correlative factors.
So, like, North Yorkshire has the lowest rate of offences per 100,000 at 35, and of course West Midlands Police have got 178 per 100,000.
So it's not that it's...
Doesn't also track with diversity, obviously, but it isn't just minorities.
For example, Gwent in Wales, a small area of Wales, they had the largest percentage increase in knife offences from 284 in 2022 to 372 in 2023, 96% Welsh.
Right.
So unless there's a very, very active contingent, but again, as we've seen in some of these examples, it's not just the diversity.
It is the white people themselves doing it as well.
Some social norm breakdown.
Exactly.
And it seems to be among younger people, obviously.
In DfID Powys, which I can't pronounce correctly, a 27% increase from 180 offences in 2022 to 128.
Again, 96% Welsh.
in 2022, 228.
Again, 96% Welsh.
So it's not just the diversity and it's not just the kids.
There seems to be a general Maybe the lack of kind of internal restraints that would come in a more traditional society.
I'm not saying we can or should necessarily go back to that, but in a sincerely believing religious society where there's more monitoring and more of a sense that this is just intrinsically wrong as opposed to what penalty I might pay right now, yeah there's going to be less inhibition to commit these kinds of crimes.
That's got to be true.
I think so and I think as well there's a kind of permissiveness or freedom that young people have these days they just don't need.
There's, I mean, I really don't see the point of allowing them to just go roaming the streets.
It's like, no, force them to do things, like force them to join clubs, force them to go hiking.
Yeah, they don't need to work anymore either.
I mean even in the 70s and 80s it was normal to have a job as a kid, as a teenager you kind of had to and your parents would make you if you didn't want to do it.
It's really hard to get one now though when you're competing with the entire third world at very low wage rates.
I mean I remember, again I'm born in 97, I remember trying to go and get Saturday jobs and I had a couple but you couldn't just walk up to someone and hand your CV in.
You have to either do the sort of Multiple rounds of interviewing process because they've already advertised online via LinkedIn, or you're competing for, you know, your Saturday shift at McDonald's with... Sure, but even if they aren't working, don't just... Why are they roaming the streets?
No, get them to go to, like, Scouts or something.
Because about 40... I'm really serious about it.
About 44% of them don't live in a house with their dad.
Exactly.
I mean, just to go through a few more statistics, what's interesting is that juveniles, so 10 to 17, were offenders in 18% of the cases.
So we want to be like, oh, well, it's kids.
No, it's not just kids.
I mean, that is a massive proportion, obviously, but it's not just kids.
And so, you know, like for 82% of the cases, it's adults doing this.
So there's just this huge, like you say, breakdown in social norms.
Where the expectation incited me, and when I was a kid, if I had a problem with someone, well, I'd have a fight with them, right?
And, okay, I might get a bloody nose or something, but I didn't die.
No one died, you know, it was totally normal.
And that seems to have escalated to where, well, we've both got knives, so we're going to have a knife fight now, which is obviously atrocious.
And, of course, the authorities just don't know what to do.
But of course we had knives as kids, we just would have never thought about using them.
Well yeah, exactly.
It's not access to knives that was the problem.
And that's the thing, the authorities don't know what to do about this.
So of course they're going to ban zombie knives, which I thought the Conservatives had already done a couple of years ago.
I think they legislated for it.
I don't know if it's passed through yet.
Right.
I'm sure they did.
But anyway, they're gonna ban zombie knives.
Naive question for me, Yankee.
What is a zombie knife?
It's a knife that's fancy.
It's a machete with, like, decals on it that you can order from Wish.
I see.
And it's got a funny shaped blade because it looks like it's out of a zombie movie.
Easier to take a head off with.
No, probably not.
They're probably not in any way more effective or anything like that.
They probably get stuck and because of the barbs or something like that they'll rip and tear a bit more.
But it's more just for flash and show.
Yeah, it's more aesthetic.
But as if they won't be able to run home and grab a kitchen knife out of their mum's drawer.
Well that's the point.
Of the 244 fatal stabbings in England and Wales last year, 101 of them were committed with kitchen knives.
So nearly half of them aren't done with anything spectacular.
It's just anything you would have in the home.
And of course, what can they do about that?
Nothing.
You know, what are we going to do?
Ban being able to cook dinner?
It's like, sorry, you can't do this.
Idris Elba, the film star, has been on the hop about this, because he's very concerned, because obviously there is a predominance of this in the black community, where young black men are macheting each other to death in the street.
And he's complaining that, well, I can buy a knife anywhere.
It's like, yeah, but that's because they're household instruments.
I mean, okay, if it's not knives, what is it, bats?
Is it just chair legs?
How far does it go?
The problem is surely that these people want to kill one another.
Why are we living in a society where people are so ready to kill each other?
It's... Anyway, I don't have an answer, I don't have a solution.
And neither do they.
And the kind of right-wing cope of, well, we'll just deport all the foreigners, I don't think that solves it either.
I don't think it's cope.
And I still think you need to see a per capita breakdown, because even though... Well, I can only get the statistics.
Exactly, and the statistics are not published for a very good reason.
But there are lots of examples, especially that have been happening in the last week or so, where this probably isn't Minority violence, I think, is something that's seeping into the English community.
And so, anyway, I'm not saying I've got an answer or anything like that, but it's just, it's not as simple as saying, well, it's just the foreigns.
It's worth recognizing the pattern before we try to answer it.
Exactly.
Excellent.
Well, we've got a Rumble member, Keith Kaiser, so thank you very much for that.
What does that actually translate into?
I don't know what being a monthly supporter is on Rumble, but thank you.
Cheers for the recurring donation, I suppose.
I don't know anything about that, actually.
It's brand new to me.
We just appreciate the support.
Right, so the debate around politics often gets...
Lodged in the abstract realm of ideas.
And the reason is, if you suggest that non-consensual factors, whether they be social or biological, might have some bearing on what you're inclined to believe, you're immediately written off as a far-right racist conspiracy theorist.
And that's obviously because A few years ago some Germans tried to do something similar, took it very very far and ruined it for everyone else.
And this is what Exhibit A article is all about.
Did either of you gents take a look at this scorcher of a piece in the Atlantic?
It's the worst type of gutter journalism.
It tries to link Stefan Molyneux with Richard Spencer with BAP with Steve Saylor and Charlie Kirk?
And Elon Musk, don't forget him.
Oh yes, quite.
He also is a pattern noticer.
It's a schizo mood board, but the reason I wanted to bring this up is because... Because you won't be sat next to on an airplane flight.
That's what that is.
Someone needs to throw up that meme.
Roaring Nationalists, get on it.
I'm going for Batman.
So, as long as he doesn't do that fake Russian accent, that's eye of flight.
You just don't know what's going to come out of his mouth, right?
That's what I like.
Novelty.
Very true.
But I think this is obviously an antibody reaction to the idea that we're not all blank slates.
And you know quite a lot about this.
This is why we brought you on today, to chat about your work.
Because you've done a lot of investigation into what heritable traits might incline you to be persuaded by what political beliefs, if I know correctly.
Yeah, although, you know, I'm not a specialist in political psychology.
People like Jonathan Haidt, and there are many others, investigate these things.
I've read them, so I'm not an expert, but yeah, I mean, it's pretty well established that political orientation is heritable.
It's somewhere between 0.3 and 0.4, so that's not as heritable as Haidt, certainly, but it does incline you in certain directions.
So just that I'm not a scientist, so that's 30-40%, right?
30-40% meaning, yeah, so when you look at a population and we're trying to explain the differences in those population with respect to a trait that can be attributed to genetics rather than other factors, it's about 30-40% for political ideology.
How do you know that it's genetic and not just the consequence of being raised in a household that is Republican or Democrat?
Well, one obvious way to do this is look at twin studies.
So, identical twins that are raised apart in very different environments.
We've got tens of thousands of those twin pairs now.
Follow them throughout their life course and look at, you know, what's the political ideology of those around them, their school, their parents, etc.
And look at how they end up.
And by political ideology, we don't mean vote labor or vote conservative.
It's more like your personality traits that tend to incline you in one direction or another.
And look, these systematically differ between men and women on average, and between individuals.
So yeah, these kinds of things can explain some of our behavior.
How do you feel about retributive justice?
Women like it less than men do.
Yes.
Men really like to punish people who engage in antisocial behavior.
I've got a theory on that, just to... What's your theory?
Well, I mean, if you look at it, when we say antisocial behaviour, we're talking about violent behaviour.
Yeah, essentially, that hurts the group.
Women tend not to engage in violent behaviour.
They don't understand the impulses, the motives, they don't understand why they do it, they don't understand what the consequence needs to be for someone who does that.
That's what I think it is.
And many of these dispositions are mediated by hormones.
It's not like genes causing the disposition, it's genes causing hormones to be taken up in a certain way, influencing brain chemistry, so.
I think it's also experience as well.
Sure.
As a matter of fact, you know why that guy has done this.
No, no, he needs to know.
And you'd better know, or you're not going to be able to pay it back.
Exactly, right?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, one of the interesting things here, you know, it might be called toxic masculinity by some, but evolutionary psychologists, biologists have talked about moralistic aggression or strong reciprocity.
And the idea here is, if you've got like a public good, we all are expected to contribute to it.
It could be a cooperative hunt, it could be policing the community, something like that.
Men are more willing to not only contribute to the public good in certain circumstances, but to exact harsh punishments on people at personal cost to themselves.
And this actually doesn't benefit them at all, but it does benefit the community.
And when you've got a large, impersonal, liberal society, these kinds of traits are not rewarded in the same way they would be in a smaller, more homogenous society.
This is why if you look at the sort of stats that the New Zealand government did about 10 or so years ago you see that men are usually net taxpayer contributors throughout their lifetime, women are usually not net taxpayer contributors and they take more out of state benefits because they live longer because they have certain medical complications than men but also women are more generous with other people's money and being inclined to vote left.
...generous with more other women's husbands' money, certainly, and are less likely to be harsher with criminal penalties for the people that are exploiting the system and making it worse for everyone else.
I mean, it reminds me of, do you guys know Inspector Calls?
The famous... So, it's mandatorily taught on every GCC syllabus in the UK.
It was written by J.B.
Priestley, who was an English socialist who first performed the play in the Soviet Union, Oh yeah.
And the idea is basically this local trade unionist prostitute gets thrown out of her job, then insults the daughter of the guy whose workplace she tried to destroy with her socialist activism, and then sleeps with the son and gets pregnant, and then goes to the wife who's running a women's institute because it's a charitable enterprise before the welfare state, and pretends to be a member of the family, and then says, give me money.
And the wife says, No!
You've just lied to me!
She kills herself, and this ghostly inspector comes along and blames them all and capitalism for killing her.
And it's like, actually, no, I think asserting standards via charity was a good thing.
Really.
But I think there's going to be lots of left-wing voting women that are more inclined to go, oh, but she's crying, she made some mistakes.
I want to push back on that a little bit.
I think for the last five to ten years, this has been pretty popular in the discourse on the right, it is true that women are a little bit more empathetic and more open, in the technical sense, openness to experience, personality trait, and that can lead to more pathological altruism.
But I think what's really going on here, for the most part, is women are a little bit more conformist than men, on average, and they care more about their social reputation.
They're much less likely to burn their reputation in the service of Some principle, like, truth that they're going to stand for.
And so what you see is, on college campuses, for example, university campuses, you would call them here, women were actually more right-wing than men in the 70s, in many cases, and much more left-wing now, because they see where power lies, they see who their employers will be, and what the average ideology is in the government, in the civil service, at every level of society, in Hollywood.
And so I think what's really going on here is not just a kind of pathological empathy or altruism, there's something else.
And so if things change, I actually see women swinging faster than men. - This is what Mary Harrington's written about, is that throughout history, women were the enforcers of certain social customs and those trended towards risk aversion.
If you centralize risk aversion in state welfare, they'll go towards that.
If you centralize it within the community, there'll be the community enforcement arm.
And that's why I had a phone conversation with a prominent politician earlier this week, and she said, "Why are some of you many young women "just so crazy?
Like, why don't they get it?
Why don't they vote in right wing?
And I said, because unlike the trans issue, immigration hasn't been positioned to them as a women's safety issue.
And that needs to be the key campaign.
But also, they are still the social enforcers.
That's right.
It's just that the social enforcers are the left wing hegemony.
Yeah, so you saw that during COVID.
You saw that, of course, during alcohol prohibition in the United States.
They both led the charge against it and were the ultimate enforcers.
You know, it's throwing out guilt and shame on people if they weren't wearing their mask, right, etc.
And these are small average differences.
There are lots of outliers.
But when you take these populations and you put them together, you start noticing patterns.
Yes, so I bring up this article so I wanted to ask you what you make of this particular passage.
No matter how hard people try, however, race cannot be reduced to the results of an IQ test.
There is more to the complicated genetic, cultural, economic and historical realities of something like race than a few lines on the chart.
When the author asked Steve Saylor to explain the links between race and intelligence, he said he doesn't see strong reasons to assume that intelligence is all that different from a trait like height, which is clearly driven by both genes and the environment.
What do you think of that?
Well, first of all, the consensus among the relevant experts—and I'm not appealing to mere expertise—but, you know, when you have enough peer-reviewed studies over long enough time, there's probably kind of something to it, especially when it actually contravenes the official ideology, you know, of what you're supposed to find.
And so what we do find is Intelligence is about 70 to 80 percent heritable by adulthood.
Height is about 90 percent.
So it's reasonable to assume that these are heritable traits that are distributed unevenly in the population.
You can't automatically infer from the fact that there are individual differences that there are average group differences.
On the other hand, there's something very interesting, which is, I now work indirectly in this realm of genetics, and when you make predictions about adults or embryos, you use what are called polygenic risk scores.
And I'll just tell you this, you can't actually take a polygenic risk score from one ethnic group and apply it to another one that's genetically distant from it.
It doesn't work, or it doesn't work very well.
Why?
Because there are genetic differences between populations.
So it's indisputable these exist.
It's so indisputable you literally can't use this in medicine, if you would like to, or to guide embryo selection if you would like to.
You need an Asian dataset in order to get really good polygenic risk scores for Asians, African dataset, et cetera.
So it's clearly true these genetic differences exist.
Do they exist for IQ, for height, for all these things?
I assume for most heritable traits there are going to be these differences.
And I'm not appealing to the authority of any one person, but the Harvard evolutionary biologist David Reich found this in his book, Who We Are and How We Got Here.
It's a book about essentially the evolution of different groups of humans out of Africa, and what he says in the last chapter is more or less, and he published this in the New York Times actually, surprisingly, he said it would be absolutely shocking if when we looked around the world we would just find identical traits exactly distributed in all these populations.
I mean, We know if you just look at people, Asians are shorter than Africans on average, right?
So they're not, and the only question is, does this apply to the mind?
There's no reason it wouldn't apply to the mind, but I don't have a definitive answer here.
What they're saying is there is a definitive answer, and it has to be no, and if you ask questions about that, you're a bad person.
And you're not even applying a moral valence to observing those differences, whereas they are.
I mean, they've recategorised racist as noticing the difference between different groups of people that have been shaped by geography, culture, time, and then they've also, and this was a very provocatively titled article that you released, but deceptively provocative I'd like to say, they've also accused anyone of saying that as being a eugenicist.
Yeah, this was an interesting article.
It got me in trouble in 2018 at the height of the woke revolution.
I was asked to write this article.
In philosophy, we do things called debates.
We used to do these things.
And the debate was for and against eugenics.
And what I thought is, you know, you're supposed to steel man the best version of that.
I'm at least mildly in favor of polygenic selection.
We'll talk about that later.
I think if given the ability to select traits among kids by choosing embryos, generally that's actually a good thing.
You can reduce disease risks and so on.
But anyway, what I try to do is say, look, there are versions of eugenics that are worth defending, the versions that Charles Darwin and Francis Galton, for example, who coined the term, advocated, which is individual choices, judicious marriages guided by knowledge about heredity.
That's how I define it.
That's how they defined it.
Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, president of the Eugenics Society of England, defined eugenics as the use of heredity for the betterment, mental and physical, of the human race.
Okay.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
If you knew about genetics, this is what every Jew in New York does before they go on a first date.
You may not know this, but Ashkenazi Jews are especially susceptible to a single gene variant that can destroy their children's lives.
This is called Tay-Sachs.
And so if you're both carriers for it, you give birth to children who have the most horrific fates imaginable.
It's a protein folding disorder.
I don't know anything about this.
That normally results in either a stillborn child, in many cases, or they live for maybe a few years with every organ in their body slowly destroying itself.
Is this eugenics?
Of course it is!
They're guiding their reproductive choices with an understanding of genetics.
Is this state-sponsored coercive eugenics?
No, it's not, and I would never defend that.
So, everybody's a eugenicist in the sense that you choose your partner on the basis of certain traits, you notice genetic differences, In individuals and populations, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
What they want to do in this Atlantic article is connect that with Nazism, and they want to connect it with this idea that if you recognize genetic differences, that must be because you want to destroy people who aren't like you.
There's really no relationship between those things.
And not being funny, BAP, Lomers, yourself, would be pretty questionable Nazis considering Jewish ancestry is in there somewhere.
We're all half-Jewish, yeah.
That's right.
We're all Mischlings, yeah.
There you go.
So, you know, just very strange.
But those sort of hate facts and those observations have led you onto your recent work.
You published a sort of preface of your new paper.
That was another one you directed me to.
But a preface of your new paper about the end of liberalism on Lotus Eaters yesterday.
Do you care giving us a brief overview?
Sure, why not?
And this is mostly a scientific approach with a little bit of moralizing in there.
So it's a very sort of PPE paper, a little bit of political philosophy, a little bit of ethics.
So what we argue in this paper, my co-author and me, is more or less that liberalism has done actually a lot of good for the world, especially, you know, giving birth to the English Industrial Revolution, which reached its height, I suppose, in the United States.
Clearly the emphasis on individual liberty, private property rights, an impersonal conception of justice where the law applies to everyone equally.
There's not the sort of Privilege, you know, people who inherit their rights because of their last name, then there's the disprivilege.
Liberalism tries to, I think in principle it does, guarantee equal rights and so on.
The problem is, and there are many problems, we've all discussed them in our own ways, we think that because of the fact that it has such an emphasis on individual liberty, and it has such an emphasis that the state should remain neutral with respect to all conceptions of the good life, It both generates wealth, which lowers birth rates, and can't offer a solution to that by definition because it can't prioritize one particular way of living.
It can't say that other things equal, yeah we'll leave you to your thing, but it is better if you get married and have kids.
It's a purely negative doctrine.
It's a negative doctrine.
So giving you a sense that it is better to have family formation and children and care about these things and care about your civilization.
That's kind of out of bounds by definition of liberalism.
You might, as a liberal who likes private property rights and free trade, I think all of us like that to some extent, you might think it would be better if we didn't have this demographic decline.
But again, that's not what a liberal government, by its own principles, allows itself to do.
You're not drawing on liberalism to arrive at that conclusion.
You're drawing on pre-liberal, pre-theoretical... Substantive values.
Yeah, exactly.
That's right.
So we think, and another aspect of this, so we think liberalism by generating wealth and prosperity, you know, accidentally lowers birth rates a lot.
So does any other society actually that generates wealth and prosperity.
And by encouraging mass migration, ends up inadvertently lowering social trust, which is the basis for everything good in the world, right?
When you have low social trust, What do you do?
Well, capitalism doesn't function well anymore.
Like, when you go to a rural gas station, the cashier may step away and go to the bathroom and just sort of have a jar there that says, like, leave your money here.
And most people will do it.
It's amazing.
Most people will simply put their money there.
They wouldn't think... When you have a low-trust society, people don't do that anymore.
When you have low-trust politics, Politicians will start taking bribes rather than thinking about the welfare of their citizens.
It affects everyone.
And so we think that by encouraging mass migration, this is the second part of this, what you get is lowering of social trust.
And we actually found a meta-study that looks at all of the other studies on ethnic diversity and social trust.
And basically every major study, and these are done by left-wing academics, right?
I repeat myself, left-wing academics.
They still find a negative relationship between social trust and ethnic diversity.
They don't even want to find this relationship.
It just falls out of the data.
And so what we think then is, putting this all together, you get lower birth rates without the possibility of solving them, because you get low birth rates in lots of societies.
You get low social trust as an inadvertent result of mass migration, and once you have that, you get factioning.
You guys have talked about this.
You get different political parties that just try to distribute goods to these different groups.
They coalesce into a kind of Leninism, right?
They'll temporarily form alliances.
In order to extract resources from other groups, and this is simply a political system that will be replaced, I argue, by some form of tribalism in the long run.
Whether you like it or not, it shall be done.
That's the argument.
That's certainly what Eric Calfin was observing in White Shift when he did comparative studies.
To African nations that have the highest levels of ethnic diversity among tribes and demographics and ethnicities and every single business of state descends into squabbling over which tribe is allocated which percentage of the resources which is why they can't build any infrastructure.
I think it's not the only reason, but I have been to Ethiopia.
I was there 25 years ago.
I was working at the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia when I was about your age, right after college as an intern.
And I made friends with an Ethiopian who was working at the embassy.
He said, oh, you should come to my country.
And I love Ethiopian food.
And he was a cool guy.
So I came out there.
And the first thing I noticed is, you know, somebody told me there are like 92 tribes here.
And the main thing you need to do is understand this tribe will not talk to that one.
This one's at war with the other one.
And, yeah, it makes governing essentially impossible.
You just form these shifting coalitions to extract wealth and resources from others.
It's not a nation, is it?
No, no, it's not.
Each tribe is its own nation, and that's the issue.
Essentially, that's it, yeah.
So some choice quotes from the paper, I thought, might illustrate your point.
Liberalism's sustainability problem is then as follows.
Liberals cannot impose a fitness-enhancing vision of the good life without violating their commitment to pluralism and individual liberty, so they must tolerate ways of life that minimize fitness.
Without a sect, tribe or tradition to fight for, it may be difficult to see why many should bother having children or making the kinds of sacrifices required by a lasting civilization.
Nevertheless, liberal polities cannot prioritize the formation of families over the satisfaction of any other desires or preferences.
Instead, in order to remain liberal, A state must stay neutral between different conceptions of the good that form the basis for meaningful life and often give us reasons to have children.
Liberal institutions could try to prevent ethnic conflict and thus reduce political polarization and increase social trust by curbing immigration.
As explained above though, these institutions have moral and economic incentives to increase diversity via immigration, as we saw in the Atlantic article.
It might go even further than that, not just incentives, but if you have a declining population in, say, a welfare state or pension state, it's not even that it's an incentive.
They view it as a necessity.
We need the bodies to fill out the demographic pyramid and so we're just going to get... but then it turns our country into a kind of black hole for lineages.
Well that was the Bill and Melinda Gates study recently with the Lancet that found by 2100 all but six nations in the world would have sub-replacement birth rates.
They included Israel in that which I don't agree with because they're one of the only ones that still has positive birth rates and they said that it's only going to be two countries in South Asia and four countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and so the rest of the world will just have to get all their people from there.
It was just a foregone conclusion that we're just going to have to Like, strip mine the horn of Africa for people to populate really technical, increasingly complex and technological professions.
And suddenly the answer is to why 72% of Somalians are in social housing, why are we battery farming, well now you have your answer.
Yes.
Yeah, Robert Jenrick, a Tory leadership contender who wrote that paper that we're referencing, wrote an article yesterday after the visa numbers came out and he found out that we had imported more family members of existing Somalians in Britain via chain migration last year than we did chemists, biologists, physicists and structural engineers from every other country combined.
Yeah, and this goes to the incentives problem.
So, as we argue, and you guys have talked about before, you know, large corporations have incentives to get cheap labor.
And also, you know, they do high IQ immigration as well, right?
But they're going to prioritize whoever's best at the job over their own citizens.
And there is some short-run benefit to that.
You get cheaper and better goods to some extent, while breaking down some of the problems we mentioned before.
Then you get on top of it, once you've got this process going, What we have in the United States now where political parties explicitly import new voters.
Where you've got, you know, what do we have, 10 to 12 million illegals just under the Biden administration alone.
We've had many more before that.
And there's a rush to try to prevent states from requiring that you show ID when you vote.
This is not coincidental.
The illegals are being actively courted by the Democrats as well.
They will just openly say that we are for you and we want you to vote for us.
So the solution to this you put in another paper.
I'll go for the cultural solutions, then the technological solutions we'll have to hash out after.
But this was an interesting one that I found, which is enlightened tribalism, which I think is a framing that you'll actually like quite a lot.
I've been calling myself a tribalist for quite some time now, actually.
Yeah, well, so there's a quote here that I found interesting.
We argue that although tribalism can encourage needless conflict, it can also provide meaning, promote important values and increase the long-run viability of human groups.
Better than liberal cosmopolitanism, we call the view that we endorse enlightened tribalism.
So is it just that tribalism is the natural state of human beings and so if you're unilaterally practicing universalism, you're disadvantaged, can't increase the population of your tribe and will be dominated by another tribe?
Yeah, so there's the kind of evolutionary component, which is exactly that.
You know, tribes tend to provide public goods well, they provide a sense of meaning, and people with a sense of meaning do tend to have more children.
And ultimately, the winner in the evolutionary game of life Is, of course, those who reproduce the most.
That's just true by definition of being an organism on this planet.
But there's also the just purely moral aspect of that, which is partly derived from the science as well.
And that is, we are a tribal creature.
We evolved to care more about our family or, you know, kin, as you would put it in England, right?
You've got kin selection, you've got group selection.
And the idea that we would sacrifice our lives or have, you know, five children instead of one or zero for humanity or for human rights or some abstract ideal is preposterous.
Most people aren't wired that way, but they will do it for their church, their community, their family, their religion, their nation.
And so we think, like, recognizing this is both a good thing, it's part of human nature, and building our morality around our nature.
But then also recognizing, as we do, you know, this can become pathological.
So if you only care about your tribe and you see the world as purely zero-sum, well, you might just attack any other tribe, kill them, take their stuff.
But we think enlightened tribalism, what characterizes it, is you recognize there are duties to other people and there are reasons to cooperate for reciprocity, for mutual gains.
Had Hitler, instead of invading Poland and considering the Slavs natural slaves of the Germans, traded with them, there would be more Germans and more Poles, and the Germans probably would have actually gotten their goals achieved better.
I'm not saying their goals were the right goals, but look, it's actually counterproductive and morally bad to just be a blind tribalist.
But I think we can recognize that there are clearly good forms of this, and this is going to make a comeback in the current century, I think.
I think so.
And I think one of the problems that the liberals have is they don't understand that there is actually A lot of nuance in the nature of a tribe itself.
It's not just in and out.
The entire tribe is maintained by a web of relationships, and those relationships also go outwards as well as inwards.
The classic example is the, honestly, the relationships that the English have, the Welsh, the Irish and the Scottish have.
These are all tribal peoples, we know each other, we've got stereotypes, and that extends to, of course, the people on the continent as well.
We all know what a German's sense of humour's like, what French cooking's like.
Italian work ethic is like, um, the, the stereotypes make us predictable to one another.
And as soon as something's predictable, then it's not dangerous.
And you know, oh, that's fine.
You know, it's, it's just an Italian who's come in and he's going to start criticizing my food or something.
Right.
He's not going to do something.
I know what the kind of person I'm dealing with is.
And so suddenly you've got a much more disarmed world.
You know, the Europeans don't hate each other, actually.
That's right, and actually, okay, so again, back to World War II, a lot of these norms where we pathologize any form of tribalism for fear that, you know, a mustached man is going to come on a horse and, you know, take over Germany again.
When you actually look around the world, again, I've been living in South America, I've been to Ethiopia, I've been many places.
In Ecuador, where I live part-time, people laugh at our kind of, well, They have a certain name for Netflix, I guess I won't use it on here, but they openly mock what Hollywood pushes, and they make stereotypes all the time of the different subgroups within the country, and it's considered normal, and they don't really fight over it, they laugh at it.
It's really interesting.
So sometimes when you put it out in the open, and you just make jokes out of it.
It's actually less dangerous than when you pathologize it.
It's domesticating it.
That's what it does.
It completely domesticates it.
I first realized this in 2009 when I went to Oktoberfest in Germany.
And on the campsite we were staying in, obviously there were loads of different European ethnicities.
None of us knew each other, but everyone knew each other, right?
And so instantly there was already this kind of camaraderie.
You know, there was a Belgian guy, I'll go get government, you know, like, do you even live in a state?
You know, but everyone had something to say to each other, and it wasn't hostile or fearful, and we're all just sat around drinking.
You know, we're all from completely different countries, but we've all got certain preconceptions that we were happy to fulfill.
Because they are basically true.
You know, there is a kernel of truth in them.
And so no one felt on edge or unsafe or anything like that.
And it was just a really small microcosm of, oh okay, actually, before liberalism told us that all of this was wrong, it's just normal and human and actually people get along like this.
So this is the sort of social trust way of engendering higher birth rates and a continuity of, not necessarily liberalism, but the national character of European peoples which can coexist with the occasional short-term war.
Not even just European peoples.
I think this is just peoples around the world.
Yeah, I think all people are tribal.
I mean, there are some interesting claims here.
There was a spicy paper published in 2019 in the journal Science, so this is like mainstream journal, but was pre-2020, so maybe it couldn't be published anymore.
It was then popularized in a book by Joe Henrich at Harvard called The Weirdest People in the World.
Weird for Western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic.
What the paper argued, somewhat controversially, provocatively, is that Catholic prohibitions On cousin marriage produced for more than a thousand years actually produced effects on the European people.
Cousin marriage is the norm around the world.
It's still practiced by about one-eighth of all people in the world and like half of Muslims.
And what happens is they argue that when you introduce this what you actually get as a byproduct is More of an impersonal sense of justice, less preference for mere family members, and so it actually makes commercial life and political life a little bit easier.
So there are these interesting cultural consequences of genetic decisions which were themselves influenced by cultural decisions for reasons that weren't fully understood by the Catholic Church.
And these are examples of, you know, you can actually get more or less tribalism And actually, less tribalism probably served Europeans very well 500 years ago, and may not be serving Europeans very well anymore in a world in which it's really easy to get here, and in which Europeans created, after World War II, the sense of universal rights, the sense that if you're persecuted for any reason, come on over, right?
And you can fake the persecution, it doesn't matter.
In this environment, those are not good traits to have, right?
And so I actually predict a reversion back to tribalism for that reason.
But even in the absence of any tribal peoples, I think it could still be argued that actually a certain level of tribalism is a desirable thing.
Like you say, you know, it makes people feel and the way I've been framed is a sense of belonging, right?
If you feel that you belong somewhere, that's Emotionally important.
And I think that's one of the reasons that young people are so depressed.
I think it's one of the reasons why so many women are depressed.
They genuinely don't feel that they belong anywhere.
So you haven't got any obligations to anyone, you haven't got a purpose, you have a reason to have a family, to have children.
To be on the continuity, the Burkean continuity of society.
And a callback to the stabbing.
So, like, none of us know exactly why this is happening, including among the Native Brits.
We're not going to pretend we do, but there's probably a role for this sort of thing, right?
If you felt like you were bought into the community and not a mere individual performing for social media or whatever it is, right, you might be more likely either to have an internal sense, like, I shouldn't do this, or you'd be monitored by community members and you'd be told you aren't going to do this.
Well, this is why I said European peoples, because they are the most liberal by disposition rather than ideologically, which is not self-propagating, and they're also the ones suffering from the most precipitous birthrate collapse alongside the Japanese, the South Koreans and the Anglosphere, all of which, I hope, actually have thriving birthrates and become very nice countries again.
And which inherited their institutions from Europeans.
Exactly.
Didn't just fall out of the sky.
One last thing on the tribal thing as well.
Like you say, we don't know why this is happening, but I have a strong suspicion this is because that no good example is being set.
Because normally it would be, well, what would your grandfather do?
What would your father do?
And now it's, well, what does the drill rapper do that you're listening to on YouTube or something like that?
And so there's a kind of continuity of tradition that's been broken there and it's being filled by something What do teenagers want to be when you pull them?
Social media influencers?
YouTuber?
Nothing wrong with you.
I used to dig gardens for a living before this.
It was much nicer.
It's just the government relentlessly didn't leave me alone, and very few other people are very good at it.
As soon as all the problems are solved, I'm going back to putting up fences.
It'd be fantastic.
Speaking of fences, that's a very good transition.
Haha!
Daily Wire!
Call me!
You have an alternative, perhaps slightly provocative way that other nations, particularly like the South Koreans or the Japanese that might be technologically inclined, could take up a solution to birth rate collapse and the discontinuity of their culture.
You gave, to preface this, an interesting analogy between Chesterton's fence and Chesterton's post.
Do you mind?
Yeah, so let's put this together by saying I've been writing for the last five to eight years and teaching on this before that about the coming genetic revolution.
So I knew that embryo selection using polygenic scores, I knew that was coming.
I knew it would be powerful quickly.
I didn't know when, but it's here.
I knew gene editing is going to follow that.
There's no doubt about it.
The question is just the timeline.
And, yeah, I've thought a little bit about both birth rates and the use of this technology.
So, I have this series, and for Psychology Today, they just contacted me, asked me to write for them.
I call it Sex and Civilization.
So, start off the first column with the consequences of the birth control pill.
Mary Harrington and Louise Perriott talked about this.
I, you know, separating sex from reproduction, many bad effects, maybe some good effects as well.
And I kind of explore a bunch of the different issues associated with this.
I think what's going to happen, and is already starting in Israel and in China, is one solution to birth rates falling is governments will subsidize IVF.
I'm not saying this is the ideal solution.
I think it will naturally follow.
I think there might be good reasons for this in some cases.
Hungarians have started to find correct as well.
I don't know.
Yeah, that's that's plausible.
I think more will do this.
And once you have that, it's a short step to, you know, How does IVF work?
I guess I should explain it, right?
Right, you don't know.
Oh yeah, yeah, good, good.
So women are stimulated, it used to be just infertile couples, it was started here in the UK and then it came to the US.
They stimulate the production of eggs and usually, especially if you're young, you can produce a lot of eggs, even 50, 80 eggs, no problem.
And if you do multiple rounds, you can do even more.
Then you fertilize them, right, with sperm, obviously, and you create these embryos.
And about day five, they can biopsy the embryo and test it for Down syndrome.
For single gene disorders, they've been doing that for many years.
And if you're going to choose one out of ten, well, you're not going to choose the one with the highest disease risk or with a blindfold on, so you tend to do the one that doesn't have Down syndrome.
Now, this actually, I think, reduces abortion rates for, you know, which is interesting from a Christian standpoint, but it also just forces you into a choice of which one am I going to do.
And I think that as IVF itself is subsidized, and as more and more companies come online to do embryo selection, people are going to be selecting against disease, for intelligence, and for personality traits.
Now, on to this.
So, you know, what I argue is, you know, Chesterton was a vehement opponent of eugenics.
But what he meant by eugenics is, of course, state-sponsored coercive eugenics.
And I actually think Christians, I mean, Christians are all over the place on this issue.
What would you do if you were choosing among embryos?
Most Christians will do the one with a lower disease risk.
And in fact, many Christians Even abort selectively, which is not what this is, but abort selectively downs children when they get the diagnosis.
Back to embryo selection, I think what Chesterton should have said, so let me say, Chesterton's fence, we've all heard this, basically it's a metaphor for social reform.
He said, imagine some social reformers walking along a road, and they see a fence just blocking their path, and he says, well, Probably, before they tear the fence down, they should ask why it was there and ask what would happen.
What would the alternative be if you tore it down and just put up some other structure?
And that's a metaphor for obvious reasons.
Before you tear down a bunch of laws or an entire civilization, ask what you're going to replace it with.
Or religion, right?
This is what Richard Dawkins is asking himself right now.
Fuck, what did I do?
So that's Chesterton's fence, and it might urge caution when it comes to this technology.
And I think that's right.
We should be cautious.
But Chesterton also wrote, 20 years earlier, in the book Orthodoxy, he had a metaphor of the post.
And the post is a white post, which is subject to a bunch of weather.
And, you know, suddenly it's being, you know, it's being weathered, you know, sand is hitting it, and it's getting dirty, and eventually the paint is going to peel.
And he says, look, even if you just care about preserving the post as it is now, you have to constantly repair it.
And the metaphor here Evolution doesn't stop.
We've already mentioned that genes and cultures co-evolve.
We're very different than we were even 10,000 years ago.
Evolution sped up as a result of the agricultural revolution.
We got new diseases, our immunity had to adapt by large numbers of people dying, and the ones with the right mutations survived.
Probably there's a story.
One of my favorite books is A Farewell to Alms, A Natural History of the English Economy by Gregory Clark.
He gives a story of gene-culture co-evolution over a thousand years here on the island.
And this is happening, something Darwin worried about, and people like John Tooby have written about, who just died.
And that is we are probably accumulating deleterious mutations as a consequence of civilization.
Why?
Precisely because civilization is so successful.
People who have poor eyesight from childhood, not because they read too much like we all do, people who have childhood cancer, people who have all kinds of deleterious mutations, a predisposition to extreme schizophrenia, they would have been taken out by natural selection a long time ago.
Now they survive.
That's more or less a good thing.
You know, we should take care of each other and that sort of thing, but A consequence of this has to be that we're deteriorating, that there's kind of dysgenics.
Call it what you want.
You don't have to use that word because it's loaded.
And so what I argue is that Chesterton's post, as a kind of metaphor for what's happening, actually says, probably this technological solution is going to be better than going down the path, which is not Gattaca, but idiocracy, right?
We're heading in the direction of idiocracy.
There's kind of no way to avoid that unless we do one of two things.
We reintroduce The harsh mistress of purifying selection, which is war, disease, and famine, just taking out people with these kinds of conditions, or we, or maybe it's an and, unfortunately, we intentionally select for lower mutation loads, for lower disease burdens, and maybe higher intelligence.
That's the thesis, anyway.
So in the last couple of minutes before we move on to the comments, I wanted to contrast this with the two visions because I think some people in our audience, me included, are raising an eyebrow and you've brushed up against people you've already mentioned, our mutual friends Mary Harrington and Louise Perry.
in their tech skepticism regarding reproduction because Mary Harrington is much more the the Chesterton's fence and the Chesterton's post regard um and you do you do point out in the in the article that uh Harrington has an anxiety about technology that you think she should reject the worry is egalitarian and that's the concern is that the luxury belief class will be able to afford this and that all of the
Undesirable consequences for not being able to ascribe to this technology will fall upon the lower classes, and you say instead that you're more of a tech trad that endorsed the platonic ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness.
They embrace the Aristotelian ideal that comes from a life of excellence rather than hedonism, and they understand, following Darwin and Nietzsche, the natural abilities needed to attain a good life are unevenly distributed within and between populations.
For this reason, they're willing to allow inequalities to emerge in the service of other transcendent values.
I think Louise did foresee this coming with the repaganizing article.
I mean, this article uses the analogy of, basically, you can tell a Roman brothel by seeing the infant boy skeletons buried underneath it, and she says that because of the, let's call them Actually, eugenic practices of abortion.
You're not even going to have the discarded material to be able to tell where this happened in the future, so is this a kind of pagan sacrament?
I think, basically, what you're envisioning is a technological Roman Empire here, which contrasts to this reversion to Catholicism that the likes of Mary are proposing.
I think that's right, and I think there's no way around the fact that religions evolve just like cultures do.
You see now in America many churches with, first they have the BLM sign, they have the progress flag.
I worked for a year at a Catholic school, and they were pushing us to go to the border and demand, quote, justice.
And, you know, this is common in Catholicism in the United States as it's now interpreted.
Love you Jesuits.
So, you know, whatever your views are on that, you know, I think that we need to have, or I at least need to have, because we may disagree here, an alternative positive vision, which is, look, hierarchy isn't bad in and of itself, it's actually necessary and good in some forms.
I don't think we should exclude people from the ability to use certain kinds of technologies, but I don't think that if inequalities arise as a byproduct of this, that's necessarily a bad thing.
And I will argue even further that if we try to ban these technologies, whether you like them or not, there shall be a black market because people will do whatever it takes for their own children.
I know personally for a fact that some very wealthy progressives are publicly denouncing this and privately using it right now.
Even if it's not a black market, travel is so easy now.
Exactly.
There are going to be countries that don't agree and people will just go there.
Precisely.
Like hair transplants in Turkey.
Or the Ukrainian surrogacy market.
And they do this in Cyprus right now.
So a lot of IVF clinics are in Cyprus because it's kind of a grey market.
It's not clear whether they have to abide by all the European regulations and so on.
So, the bivalent futures of whether or not liberalism survives would be pretty interesting.
Interesting.
Right, we're running out of time, so I'm going to try and be quick.
Renfren says, there may be white kids doing violence now, but the imported values is the cause.
Yes, but the values are here, you can't just deport values, unfortunately.
Matt says, could a group of people's lower intelligence not be geographical, but lack of diverse genes because of inbreeding?
That is also true.
Yes, it is true.
In fact, this is a big problem in the Middle East, and this is going to be the best use of embryo selection.
Cousin marriage is there.
Sibling marriage actually accounts for a fair number of marriages.
And so, you know, one way to avoid this is stop marrying your cousin.
They should do that.
But in the meantime... You listening, Bradford?
They should also probably want to select against the diseases that come with that.
We have open borders with these countries.
Josie's Angel says, thanks for having Jonathan Anomaly on.
Is this the handle we've needed?
I think the hand we've needed to guide real change.
As a grandma, I look ahead.
I've never found common ground with the pro-choice women, but maybe on this we can.
Maybe, but I don't know.
There's something about the pro-choice movement that isn't really about It's not about choice, it's a death cult.
I don't wanna just call it a death cult.
It's an abdication of personal responsibility in aim of maximal personal freedom.
Yeah, but there's a real hint of...
I don't, I'm trying not to think, I'm trying not to be mean, but there's a real hint of like subversive joy about being able to commit abortions.
I think this is a new phenomenon that you see with the radical progressives.
I don't think this is what motivates most people.
No, no, I'm not saying it.
But yeah, I mean, just to push back.
Yeah, no, no.
It's kind of like Extinction Rebellion, like, they're not the environmentalist movement.
Yeah.
In the sense that many of us want sensible, clean water and so on.
They're the crazy people who are looking for a fake religion, right?
Yeah, but the thing is, they're just so vocal.
Yes.
And they get such little pushback from the people in the movement who you would think would be, well, look, I just don't want So you guys are the pushback?
Yeah, I just don't want, you know, women who have been raped by their fathers or something to have to bear those children.
Exactly.
I can understand, you know, whether you agree or not.
It's not, I love aborting children, but those people don't get any pushback at all.
Yeah, yeah, unfortunately.
That's disgusting.
Anyway, Jimbo says the UK government is institutionally racist because they operate a justice system by which races think they are responsible for their own actions.
White people are even held responsible for the actions of their ancestors and must be held accountable today, whereas diverse men committing atrocities have no agency and it's actually society's fault.
Yes, that is undoubtedly an aspect of their racism.
The only time the English ethnic group is acknowledged is to hit them with a cudgel of unique historical guilt.
George says the government knows the murder isn't a threat to them, which is why they are releasing them to scare those who have the potential to rebel.
It really, really is this, again, I'd say two-tier, but it's... A knockout tyranny.
Yeah, it's not their problem, but it is going to be your problem, and they don't care.
JJHW says, the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state, from Tastus.
Probably true.
Andrew says, is there anything the British people can do to get any kind of change, or is it really just going to be survive for the next four years?
No, it's five years.
But yeah, it's just going to be, you know, challenge, survive.
I mean, what could people do?
Protest?
No, I mean, don't protest.
Don't do that, because it gives them an excuse.
Yeah, exactly.
Also, no protest ever works unless it's already protesting on behalf of something the regime wants.
This is why we're trying to influence legislation and talk to politicians behind the scenes, because this is the only thing you can do at the moment.
It's an institutional Long March.
And also, I'm not saying abandon the homeland, but I am saying you can do it in exile.
Yeah, but we shouldn't abandon the homeland.
North FC Zoomer says Carl is on the Dutton train with commenting on the declining IQ of the Labour Party.
Have you spoke to Dutton?
No.
Have you not?
I am right about it.
You've got you two in a room, man.
You'll love it.
Dutton is a gem.
Michael says, better way to empty the prisons?
Bring back and expand the death penalty.
He wants to do it to murderers and paedophiles.
Historically it was just murderers that got the death penalty.
And traitors.
I think we expand it to paedophiles.
Yeah.
Ropes cheap is a British tradition.
Yeah, I agree.
We probably are about out of time, but I'll go for one more.
Lord Naravar says, Seriously British friends, invest in self-defence classes.
This is going to be necessary going forward.
Probably true.
I can't arm-block a machete, I'm afraid.
Thank you very much, Jonathan, for all your contributions.
Pleasure to be here.
You'll be back on Lads Hour in half an hour, where Carl will be... Be something a lot more light-hearted.
Yeah, yeah.
English-sharier, by the sounds of it.
Anyway, you'll be able to watch that if you're a low-seated subscriber.
Go do that within the next half an hour to watch it live.
Otherwise, we will be back at 1 o'clock on Monday.
Have a good weekend, everyone.
▲
Export Selection