Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 18, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:28

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1003

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters, episode 133.
	What a mouthful we've made it this far.
	It is the 18th of September 2024.
	I am your host Connor, joined by Carl and Chris Williamson's ethnically ambiguous brother, Rorik Nationalist.
	It's good to be here.
	Yeah, excellent.
	Love the suit, man.
	It's very good.
	So today we're going to be discussing how Nigel Farage is refusing to lead the right, the media's deafening silence around the recent Rotherham grooming gang trial, and the disorderly nature of the state's power, according to your article in Islander.
	It'll all prove very interesting.
	Before we begin, It's a Wednesday.
	I want to draw your attention to the fact that at three o'clock today I'll be doing my show, Thomson Talks.
	I'll be speaking with head of them before us, Katie Faust, about Gen Z's gender-based political divide, looking at the data with that, and whether or not the Trump administration has a family-friendly platform going ahead of November's election, because he's getting a lot of hits from the right these days.
	And so, interesting to litigate that out.
	Also, are we doing the other reading at the start of the segment, Samson?
	Yeah.
	Okay, all right, that's... Now?
	No, okay, all right, we have another announcement.
	There we go.
	I'm a professional host.
	I do my job just fine.
	Oh, skipping over for some reason.
	There we go.
	If you are qualified to work with us as a production administrator, you can go over to lotusus.com slash career dash production dash administrator to read the job listing with a careers profile on our website.
	You can list all the responsibilities there, including, like, guest bookings and being a general nice person to work with in the office.
	Send your CVs in.
	You might end up working with us if you want to be in Swindon.
	God bless you.
	But without further ado, Carl, take it away.
	There are worse places.
	So, Nigel Farage recently did an interview with Stephen Edgington, and this has been relatively controversial among people on the right, because it wasn't very good.
	And it seemed that Stephen Edgington, who's a very good chap, gave him lots of open goals in order to score some really solid political points.
	And Nigel Farage refused them at every turn.
	And the reason I think this is important is because Nigel Farage is portrayed as the Donald Trump of Britain.
	And one thing that Donald Trump did, as you saw with the recent Haitian controversy in America, is he says things that are bombastic in order to puppeteer the media.
	They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats, and now that's all people know, that's all people remember from the debate, that apparently he lost with Kamala Harris.
	And yet it's just Donald Trump that everyone remembered because of the one bombastic line that everyone focused on.
	And essentially, Edgington was giving Farage the opportunity to go, right, okay, you're going to get a bunch of bombastic headlines out of this, so what do you want to say?
	And Farage refused to engage at every point.
	Before we go on, though, the bulk of my analysis is going to actually be drawn from Dr. Nima Parvini's article in Islander issue 2.
	This is called Boomer Truth Eulogy because we can see very much how Nigel Farage is within the 20th century paradigm when it comes to politics and how the world has changed underneath that paradigm.
	The things that Farage is saying just don't feel sufficient to deal with our current political moment.
	So, I've read it, I can tell Nigel Farage hasn't read it, but you can read it by going onto the website shop.lotuses.com and purchasing it now because it won't be available for very long and it won't be very long until you receive it either because we're going to be printing them in batches.
	So there was quite a distance between ordering it and receiving it, that's shrunk now.
	So let's go to the first clip where Stephen was just asking him directly about demographic change.
	Samson, do you mind taking the reins of it?
	Do you think that immigration represents a major threat to Britain from a demographic perspective?
	So, in the last 20 years, the white British population has declined from 87% to 74%.
	Is that a concern of yours?
	No.
	No, that's not a concern of mine.
	What is a concern of mine is, in many cases, the lack of integration.
	of mine.
	What is a concern of mine is, in many cases, the lack of integration.
	We see that writ large by the new kind of politics that's emerging, sectarian voting along religious lines.
	I think it's a good thing.
	I never really thought I'd see that in England in my lifetime.
	I mean, I grew up seeing what it did in Northern Ireland, and it's not very welcome.
	So that's a fascinating answer to me and I just want to pick this apart a little bit because the sectarian voting and conflict in Northern Ireland is purely based on ethnic demographics.
	It's a very hard line and I grew up with this looming over my head because my dad was in the Royal Air Force.
	So I grew up on military camps and there was constantly the threat of IRA bombings.
	So this is something that resonates with me but that was obviously due to ethnic differences And so to say, well, I'm not concerned about the fact that there are other ethnicities being mass imported into the United Kingdom, into England specifically, but I am concerned about the sectarian conflict that comes out of it.
	It's like, well, these things are not separate.
	There's a direct connection between the sectarianism and the ethnicities themselves.
	I mean, Northern Ireland, that's not a problem of integration, is it?
	It's a false analogy, totally.
	It's a different problem.
	There's also a couple of false premises in there.
	The first being that there is such a thing as non-sectarian politics.
	Because sectarian, in his mind, is religious conflicts.
	But religion is a set of value judgments that are incommensurate with one another.
	And so the idea is there can be a politics above value judgments.
	Which is the exact paradigm that led to Blair's success.
	Putting things on rails and saying there are certain things outside of discussion.
	There are certain things that can't be resolved for you.
	All things can be resolved through pure politics and turning the managerial dials.
	To push back on that, I think Nigel would say it's not that there isn't a set of values at question.
	I think he would say, well, it used to be that it was more personal interest that dictated politics, as in working class people voted Labour, and so the middle and upper classes voted Conservative because they wanted to maintain a sort of balance of interests.
	Whereas this has become religious, and I don't know why he won't say ethnic, because it's very clearly an expression of ethnic groups.
	It's not even contestable.
	This has become something that's now not about personal interests, it's about group interests between these conflicting groups.
	And that's downstream of demographics because in homogenous societies, ideas precede identity.
	In heterogeneous societies, identity precedes ideas.
	Well, the question of identity in a homogenous society just doesn't have to come up.
	There's no need for it to come up.
	And then the other thing is as well, as you've said before, people are bearers of civilization.
	Culture is a story that certain people tell themselves about themselves over time.
	So if you import people en masse into a country, they live among themselves, they don't have a reverence for the culture and the country they're coming into, they see it as an economic zone, and also that country is actively attacking its own history by saying it bears the loads of unique white supremacist historical guilt, then one, they're not assimilating into anything, But two, they are telling themselves a completely incommensurate cultural story because the ethnicity factors into their likelihood of buying into another one.
	So even if he thinks ethnicity doesn't matter and demography doesn't matter, it matters to the new arrivals who are not going to buy in.
	So integration isn't possible.
	I just want to say, there are lots of people on the right who say, oh, integration is a falsehood.
	I don't agree with that.
	But I think integration is a difficult thing.
	And it has to essentially be done by massive personal commitment.
	And usually that's intermarriage.
	You have to marry someone in that community, and then your children are a natural part of that community, and you're bonded to it.
	You've got nowhere to go now.
	So you have to become, you know, the foreigner who goes to the bar, you know, and then you'll be brought into the community.
	Everyone will be kind to you and all that sort of thing.
	That can happen.
	But that can't happen if, of course, millions and millions and millions are being dumped into an area that is already mostly ethnic minority.
	What are you integrating into?
	And the demography of intermarriage is only ever about 7-11% of the population anyway, so you have to set expectations of integration according to the organic desires of the host population, and so unless you try and mandate intermarriage overnight, again, integration is very, very difficult, particularly with a culture that doesn't even believe in itself.
	Yeah, that hasn't even been trying, but sorry.
	No, I mean, integration has worked.
	Integration does work.
	I mean, nobody, nobody, you know, talks badly of the Huguenots.
	Yeah.
	50,000 of them.
	We're all just descended from Huguenots.
	Yeah, I have, I have some Huguenot blood somewhere in, you know, far back in my family as well.
	Yeah, they integrated, but it was 50,000 Northern French Protestants.
	You know, I mean, we're talking about degrees of separation as well.
	I think that's another thing, you know.
	concentric circles working outwards you know the further outwards you get the harder it just the harder it becomes and so but it's a non it's a nonsense everything that he said but it can be done but as you were saying it's just it's an effort of will you know the I mean I I know this because my own grandfather came from St Helena very different place to England but he just wanted it was an effort of will he wanted the thing and And we're not bringing in people who want the thing, so why are we even having a conversation?
	And the host population has to want them as well.
	And the final thing I will say is that I listen to this and I hear, right, you're not addressing my concerns.
	Because I listened to a Trigonometry episode, he spent 10% of it on immigration and the majority on supply-side tax reforms.
	And the thing I will say is, pretending that ethnicity and demography doesn't have any bearing on culture, okay, that might well be fine for you, Nigel, because you're Well no, he does concede that it has an impact on culture.
	It's just it's not his concern because he differentiates and separates the two things.
	But this is the point.
	Pretending you can differentiate and separate them.
	It might be fine for Nigel because he's nearly 70 and wealthy.
	I'm a third of his age and I'm going to be living with the consequences of pretending that it has nothing to do with it for a very long time.
	So it is annoying to me.
	Well, you know what's interesting?
	The way his mind works on this I find quite interesting.
	Let's go to the second clip.
	No, I think the real problem is this, that the population explosion And remind ourselves that it's ten million increase since Blair came to power, six million increase since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, is having a negative effect on the lifestyles of pretty much everybody in the country.
	Whether it is access to public services, whether it is the complete unaffordability or impossibility of young people to get on the housing ladder.
	I mean, just think about it.
	We need to build a new home Every two minutes, just to cope with the last two years' levels of legal, let alone illegal, net migration, the impact on everything, traffic, you name it.
	Our lives have been devalued.
	And now we learn that even the one big reason why we were all told we've got to put up with this, we're beginning to learn that's not true either, namely the economy.
	One thing that I find very frustrating about this is a very typical Boomer perspective.
	Oh, material.
	Our lives are being ruined.
	Our monetary power is being devalued.
	If we can just go to the links I've got there, Samsung, just because he is correct about this, just to be clear.
	Get back on there.
	There we go, yes.
	So this is the UK's latest GDP estimate and no growth in June.
	Well, I mean, you know, there's been very, very little growth.
	Basically, the more immigration goes up, the more the economy grinds to a halt.
	Obviously true.
	This is, of course, costing us billions.
	As everyone knows, Andrew Jenkins thinks it's 14 billion every year.
	And Labour accept this because Yvette Cooper said, yep, quote, we need to clear the backlog of assignment claims that we have inherited from the Conservatives because they're costing us billions of pounds.
	But this is, of course, illegals.
	A recent study found that economically inactive legal immigrants costing Britain about £23 billion over the last four years.
	So it's not that Farage is wrong, but was this the question that was being asked?
	The premise of this is that if we could mobilize the private sector to build enough studio apartment battery farms to house the entire third world tomorrow, and all the trains still run on time, it would be okay.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so, I mean, he's perfectly happy with the vision of Britain as a giant factory farm, right?
	I mean, no longer England's green and pleasant land.
	As long as the culture's okay.
	As long as they're all wearing their Union Jack hats.
	Last night of the proms.
	This is the thing that Eric Kaufman talks about in White Shift, and he analyses the Brexit referendum pretty well, and he said, actually, the majority of Brexit voters were concerned about sovereignty, immigration and cultural cohesion above economic matters.
	They were willing to take an economic hit, and that's why- I'm one of those.
	I'm one of those.
	And so, when politicians go out and they think that making a purely economic or infrastructure-based argument about immigration keeps them from accusations of racism by the sphere, one, it won't.
	They'll still call you racist anyway.
	Two, you're actually alienating your core voters because you're cloaking cultural concerns in economic terms.
	They're concerned primarily about the cultural concerns because Even if all the trains were cheap and accessible, if I've got a hundred foreigners around me playing TikToks aloud in random different languages, it's going to feel very uncomfortable.
	And that's happening now.
	I'm just going to feel alienated even if they're all quiet.
	See, what I don't understand is... I mean, I understand that Nigel Farage doesn't want to talk about race.
	He just doesn't want to talk about race or ethnicity, whatever you want to call it.
	But there are ways that he could have answered the first question in particular that would have satisfied everybody, basically, his entire core constituency.
	He could just have said, Britain has been subject to an unprecedented Social experiment since 1997.
	You know, mass immigration was a policy that was instituted by the Labour Party specifically to change the nature of Britain, socially and politically, to rub the right's nose in diversity, as Andrew Nether, the Labour advisor, said.
	I mean, he could just have said, look, this is a social experiment that's gone terribly wrong.
	If he'd said something like that then that would have been fine.
	No one would have complained because it would be true.
	It's also not a race-based concern because the Albanians are pretty white and I wasn't too keen when thousands of those are coming across the channel either.
	Exactly.
	This is why I'm much more specific about it being ethnicity because I think that really is the core of the issue.
	I mean at the moment the East End is populated by Frenchmen.
	I'm not happy about it, actually.
	That's where the Cockneys should live.
	The French have got France, theoretically, and they should bloody well go back there.
	But anyway, let's move on, because Stephen Edgington does do a good job of dragging him back to the core point.
	No, Nigel, we want to talk about demographics specifically.
	Let's play this one.
	You say you're not concerned about demographic changes in Britain, but we have seen the fastest and most rapid decline of the white British population ever experienced in British history.
	This has happened in such a tiny, short period of time, and I think some people Many, many people in Britain are concerned about that.
	Majority cities that were once, you know, 90% white British are now majority ethnic minority.
	London, Leicester, Birmingham.
	So why isn't that a concern of yours?
	Look, I'm very concerned that we have whole areas of our towns and cities that are unrecognisable as being English.
	But they're not unrecognisable as being English because of skin colour.
	They're unrecognisable because of culture.
	Right, a few things there.
	First of all, English as an ethnicity is white.
	That has no moral content.
	So yes, there is an element of it being recognisable.
	King John did not ascribe to English values, which is why we needed Magna Carta to constrain him.
	There might be a wonderful Nigerian chap who's lived in Lagos all his life, who waves the Union Jack, and is a Christian, and who would be a great neighbour.
	Doesn't that make him more English than King John?
	But the issue is that culture is what people do.
	And so it's a product of those individual particular people.
	It's not something that is just floating in the ether that someone right away across the world can say, you know, I'm going to become English for a day.
	It's just not an option, right?
	It is only produced by English people and those people who are, I guess, married into or very much part of the tribe of Englishness.
	Like Ben Habib.
	Ben Habib.
	It doesn't exist outside of that.
	And so, Nigel is committed to English cities being mostly English if he wants English culture out of English cities.
	And so he says, I'm concerned about this, but I'm only concerned on a cultural level, but you can't distinguish the cultural level from the ethnic level.
	Because the culture is a product of the ethnicity, which is why he can't describe it without naming the ethnicity it comes from.
	It's English culture.
	There's not some other kind of, you know, abstract noun or something.
	It is the culture that comes from the English ethnicity.
	Do you know who was concerned about this a couple of years ago?
	Nigel Farage, when the census came out and he did a down-camera video saying it's essentially a problem that London is now minority white English and Sajid Javid responds to him saying so what?
	And now Nigel Farage has taken Sajid Javid's opinion.
	Well, exactly.
	Like, this is the weird thing about reform becoming like a values party.
	So, weirdly enough, Labour aren't a values party.
	Labour are actually very specific about the ethnic groups that they support and will pick out.
	But this is precisely, as well, this is precisely the line of reasoning that's being used in Springfield, Ohio to justify the Haitian invasion of Springfield, Ohio.
	You have people, local businessmen, local community leaders saying things like, oh they've revitalized the factories, they've revitalized the Pentecostal churches and the Protestant churches and whatever.
	It's pure culture.
	It's interesting and very strange and disappointing actually to hear Nigel Farage basically using replacementist kind of arguments to justify How British cities could actually be made British again simply through values rather than demographics.
	But even then, he's still committed in a way that he's not admitting that's the problem by the very nature of the construct of I want English culture in English cities.
	He's committed to an ethnic argument.
	And the attempt to separate it out into a values argument isn't true.
	It's a false argument.
	It reminds me of Richard Dawkins saying, I'm a cultural Christian, I love all the hymns at Christmastime, I love the churches, but I'm going to do literally everything I can to discourage people from attending them in the first place, and then wonder why they get turned into mosques.
	Now Farage is not like that, obviously.
	He's not a warrior against English culture or anything.
	So I don't want to make it seem like we're saying that, but... No, he's antithetical to the demographic change.
	Sorry, I'm antithetical.
	Apathetic.
	Apathetic, sorry, yes.
	But it's the boomer mindset.
	Again, if it wasn't for Nima Pallavini's work on this, I wouldn't be able to see this so clearly.
	But it's the boomer mindset as if there is something that is different and detached.
	The culture is separate from the people.
	It's like, no, the culture is a product of the people.
	Without the people, you don't get the culture.
	And it's literally that simple.
	And it happens everywhere, and everyone knows it happens everywhere, which is why John Cleese was like, wow, London isn't an English city.
	Good point.
	On every single level, London isn't an English city.
	It's not demographically English, it's not culturally English, it's not, like, spiritually English, it's probably not legally English in most parts, you know?
	Like, they're on every bloody level.
	And Farage is, again, but it's the boomer mindset.
	They've got this, like, externalist view that we'll, in fact, we'll get onto in a minute, because, let's go to the next clip.
	I mean, look, you know, the truth is I genuinely think that the British are the most open-minded, most accepting people, you know, that you'd frankly find, I think, from any Western country.
	But it's the cultural impact of this.
	It is the societal impact of this.
	You know, you look at our cities now, you know, people often don't even know the names of their neighbours.
	It is the breakdown of communities.
	It's why kind of in the election campaign I said family, community, country, these are the things that we're going to stand for in reform.
	So yes of course I'm deeply worried but perhaps for different reasons than your question.
	I don't know why these things keep going off but that particularly bothers me because What is he appealing to there?
	He's appealing to some sort of abstract, metaphysical entity called society.
	He's not appealing to the genuine, real human beings that are actually having their lives affected.
	And so you've got this kind of external, institutional view where it's like, okay, I could be concerned inside the frame of the family, the local community, but instead I'm looking at it from outside as someone who's just like, oh, well that doesn't look very good, as if it's gone on a wrong color or something.
	It's like, no, sorry, Nige, we're really having real human problems here.
	And for some reason you're not acknowledging that with these answers?
	Well, who's family, who's community, who's country?
	Exactly.
	And this is why you said boomer politics.
	Ever since the Second World War, it has been the case that if you stake a claim in a given people, history, culture, country, you are indistinguishable from Nazi Germany.
	That is a fiction, but it is something that I think has been rote learned, and this is why, left to their own devices, the booms will fall back on liberalism.
	Because in all of those statements, Farhad could have been talking about Muslims.
	You could have been talking about any country anywhere.
	Specifically, you value family, you value community, you value your country.
	Okay, well, Mohammed bin Salman could have said that.
	Who doesn't?
	So let's go to the next one, because this is where Stephen starts getting a bit edgy.
	If Britain is made up of a majority of immigrants and their descendants, is it the same country?
	Well, it's not the same country because you don't actually have anything in common.
	That's the problem, isn't it?
	That part of who we are is shaped by our history, is shaped by our family experiences, is shaped by the triumphs and tragedies that the country's been through in the last 100, 150 years.
	It's part of who we are.
	And if you finish up with large numbers of people with whom you have nothing in common, well clearly it's going to be a very different place.
	And one that's going to struggle to have a proper collective sense of what matters.
	Again, speaking from the outside, as in, oh, if you just had a collective sense, if you just knew your neighbours, then actually English cities becoming minority English would be just fine and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
	He's also described a large part of the constituent elements of ethnicity and just omitted the fact that genetic heritage plays a part in whether or not you're going to buy into a given culture.
	So So he's almost most of the way there and then just sort of imposes a limit on himself because he's worried about being called racist by the exact kind of people that are going to call him racist anyway.
	Have you got the clip in here as well where he talks about the vast majority of British Muslims, by any chance?
	No, I left that bit out.
	Okay, that really annoyed me though.
	I'm sure it did.
	And I'm sure he's saying that because Zeus is now chairman, but it's like, Nigel, you had people on your GB News show a few weeks ago from the Henry Jackson Society that did some pretty robust polling after October the 7th that said the majority of British Muslims have a positive opinion of Hamas.
	So no, the vast majority of British Muslims are not concerned about radical Islam.
	I'm sorry to break it to you, and you're not going to make inroads with them.
	Instead, the only inroads you can make are the disenfranchised indigenous English who do not feel they can vote for anyone at the moment because they all sound the same.
	Sounding more like the establishment parties they won't vote for won't win you voters.
	Thoughts, Charlie?
	Thoughts?
	I mean, I... First of all, you know, saying that history is just a part of who we are, obviously.
	I mean, it's not a part of who we are, it is who we are.
	I mean, it is fundamental.
	It's fundamental to who and what we are.
	I always find these appeals to collectivity rather strange.
	not only because they're so beige, basically.
	It's a kind of beige sort of...
	It's a communitarian vision.
	But also, I mean, for starters, you know, we've never, even the English, we've never had a totally shared collective vision.
	I mean, it's a falsification, actually, of what a nation is.
	I mean, nations are riven by struggle.
	I mean the class system in particular um but this sort of false vision that all we need is some sort of unifying big society type vision you know that that'll be fine that'll be fine I mean it is boomerism at its worst and you know I only saw the first clip uh before I came here uh and I had hoped that the rest of the interview wouldn't be as bad but it's actually worse It actually gets a bit worse that we're going to go into.
	I'm going to make this a long segment because I think it's important.
	But you are right.
	The idea that there was a shared mass culture in which everyone bought into is a very post-World War II 20th century perspective because of mass media.
	Before, what you had is lots of regional settlements, essentially, where different regions got along with it.
	You can see this in Burke's lecture to the Bristol electors, in fact.
	where he talks about how regions of England rely upon one another and things like that.
	I don't actually agree with him on that one, the eventual conclusion he came to out of that, but the description is what's important there because, yeah, no, Devon is different to Northumbria, you know, but they are still English and they do have connections, but they are distinct.
	And so it's not this... But the connections are physical, biological connections.
	That's what cuts across.
	Well, not just that.
	They're also sentimental and romantic.
	You know, you have a romantic vision of parts of the country, but you are right, there is also a biological... it's a very, very deep thing to describe an ethnicity.
	But you're of course correct, you know, it's partly biological, it's partly this, it's partly that.
	And Nigel's like, okay, I want the very thin BBC culture view that was produced in the 20th century, so everyone got, you know, there were three channels or whatever when he was growing up, however many.
	And it's like, that just doesn't exist.
	But there are other things that underpin it that do exist that we can talk about.
	But like I said, it does get worse, so let's go to the next one.
	In Birmingham recently we saw anti-white graffiti painted on a school.
	This was in an area which was more than 90% non-white British, ethnically diverse, mostly kind of Asian population.
	We've also seen examples of anti-white discrimination in the RAF and more recently in the police.
	These were court cases, you know, found that these people were discriminated against because of the colour of their skin.
	Is Britain becoming systemically racist against white people?
	I think some of the institutions are.
	And the Royal Air Force, perhaps, is the best example of a lot.
	I mean, hey, surely you've got to pick people who are physically and technically the best people to be in the Royal Air Force.
	And I thought, absolutely appalling what they've done.
	No, look, the problem is we're living in a two-tier country.
	You know, two-tier attitudes towards employment.
	Two-tier attitudes towards policing.
	I mean, you know, Black Lives Matter.
	Fascinating response.
	Because Stephen began with non-institutional racism.
	in the streets virtually.
	You get a rough crowd at a football game and the policing's very, very different. - Fascinating response.
	'Cause Stephen began with non-institutional racism.
	There was someone had scrawled on a wall in Birmingham, "No whites." And Nigel immediately frames it, well I think the institutions are.
	Yeah no, the institutions are as well.
	It's this depersonalised perspective on politics we mentioned earlier, and this allows him to decouple it from a demographic perspective.
	Because as we've discussed before, yes there are brainwashed white female middle managers that have fully signed up to the diversity initiative because of pathological compassion, sure.
	But I don't think Hamza Yusuf was making a nuanced point about anti-racist equality when he decried all of Scotland for being white.
	I think that's ethnic and tribal antagonism and those people being in those institutions is a sort of unilateral inconsiderateness about merit because they want to advantage their own personal in-group.
	But it's more than that because as Parvini points out it's an obsession with the institution that Nigel blinds himself to the real social racism against the English people that is being felt in the 90% non-white, non-English area of Birmingham.
	When he says, like, yeah, no, there's definite anti-white racism in, you know, we live in a two-tier society, so they've got two-tier police, two-tier thing.
	He's, again, looking at the institution and their behaviour, not the motive behind all of this two-tier nonsense.
	Because it's not that they are being two-tier because they're like, yeah, we just like having inequality and we just want one group to benefit.
	No, it's because they hate white people.
	It's because they hate the native English.
	And Farage has kind of, again, just moved the mirror so very slightly that you can't see that now.
	And so now it's the institution is not upholding an egalitarian liberal frame of one rule for all, rather than focusing on the genuine hatred of the native population that is being expressed through the nature of the two-tier.
	policing and whatnot.
	And so, again, I just find it very interesting how he's just almost on the point at every point, but he can never actually stand on it.
	We're running a bit short of time, but we've got a couple more.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Go for the next, here's a good one. - In terms of the atmosphere in Britain, are you concerned that there is a rising level of anti-white hatred? - I'm just concerned about a deeply divided society.
	I'm concerned about a society which they keep telling us the crime figures are improving.
	I think that's because people just don't bother to report crime anymore.
	People feel far less safe going out and about.
	And I know, I've spoken to a number of women who live in London who just want to leave.
	who just genuinely don't feel safe on the tube at night.
	So, you know, all you have to do is open your eyes to see that we are living through societal decline.
	It frankly is a disaster.
	The question was about anti-white hatred, not societal decline.
	Who's committing the crime, Nigel?
	Who is making women feel unsafe in London, Nigel?
	Please answer the question, Nigel.
	But this appeal to Britain as a deeply divided society, again, historically, we've always been a deeply divided society.
	I mean, you know, go back to the 19th century.
	Go back to the Peasants' Revolt.
	How far back do you want to go?
	I don't think the Scousers have much love for the South.
	Yeah, it's just, it's fine.
	No, I mean that's no real metric, is it?
	Division in itself.
	At the very least you have to talk about specific kinds of division.
	But yeah, this is so bad.
	The whole premise of populism is to take issues that have been put on rails outside the boundary of public debate and put them back into public debate.
	But then this is demonised by being divisive.
	Because the entire premise is that we are all equal, and so if decisions were made in our rational self-interest, because we're all equal, then we'd all want to make the same decision.
	So by saying things are divisive, you're playing into their rhetoric and rendering your own populist revolt moot.
	And moreover, again, you're appealing to something outside of people themselves.
	Oh, the abstract entity of society.
	So I'm actually not worried about the abstract entity of society.
	I'm worried about whether my daughter is going to be attacked when she's on the bus.
	I'm worried about that.
	I'm not worried about people being unequal.
	In fact, that's something I support.
	Hierarchy.
	It's not that I don't want to live in a society where people are unequal, no.
	Actually, there's a very different kind of society that I don't want to live in.
	I'd like to live in a society where people belong instead of one you know and then anyway so we'll finish on this next clip.
	In the US, when they had a period of mass migration in the late 19th century, early 20th century, they closed their borders, largely, in the 1920s for, I think, almost three decades.
	Do you think Britain should do the same?
	Pretty much.
	I think we should aim for... Let's give net zero a different meaning.
	I mean, people are always going to come and go, and we are a country that's engaged in international trade, and we have relationships around the world through the Commonwealth, etc.
	But yeah, we have to aim at a balanced migration policy.
	But net zero still means hundreds of thousands of people coming into Britain, immigrants coming into Britain.
	Isn't that too many?
	It may well be, but we have to start somewhere.
	We have to start somewhere.
	If we can get into people's minds that we have to try and stop this relentless rise in the population that's having a negative impact, that's where you start.
	It's not purely the rise in the population, it's the demographic churn by having a net outflow of Brits and a net inflow of foreign nationals.
	That is the point.
	That's why Stephen's doing the Lord's work with this question.
	It's also interesting, the comparison with the US, with mass immigration into the US at the end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century.
	I mean, that was a huge thing.
	It was a huge thing, of course.
	Enormous numbers of people, but all European.
	And they closed the borders for 30 years.
	Yes, exactly.
	They closed the borders for 30 years.
	But what they had done is they had absorbed a huge number of assimilable people.
	And they did manage to assimilate them.
	And so, you know, Italian-Americans.
	But even then it led to rises in organised crime.
	I wouldn't even say that was perfect.
	The fact that there are Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans.
	How assimilated are they?
	It was only over 15% of the American population.
	That's a very high number.
	London is currently 50% born abroad.
	Not just second generation immigrants.
	So... But what I suppose what I mean is that actually the Americans could do something with the people who came.
	It might have taken time and it did create distinct hyphenated cultures but they actually contributed to the American project and most people would say Italian-Americans They can stay.
	They make good pizzas, good reality TV shows, and that sort of thing.
	But actually, the difference here is that we've already got millions of people who actually aren't going to assimilate, which is then, you know, you get on to the question of re-migration, for example.
	Well, okay, we'll play this last clip then if we want to get on to the question of re-migration.
	Go on.
	Do you support mass deportations?
	Well if people come illegally they should not be allowed to stay.
	Simple as.
	Simple as.
	And the only way you're ever going to solve the channel, and boy have a look at the last three days, unless they know that number one, they'll never be granted refugee status by coming via this route, that number two, they're not going to stay, they'll keep coming.
	But just back to the issue of deportations specifically.
	Do you support that mass deportations?
	Trump says in America that he wants mass deportations.
	We're talking about hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are in Britain at the moment.
	Some estimates say the number could even be in, you know, a million plus.
	So do you support deporting all of those people?
	It's impossible to do.
	Literally impossible to do.
	But do we have to begin the process?
	Yes.
	Look, we're told that we can't send people back to Afghanistan, right?
	That's impossible.
	Well, Germany, two weeks ago, did.
	Germany sent a plane load of people back to Afghanistan.
	You know, if the Germans can do it, I'm certainly sure we can.
	But if the Americans can do it, for example, you know, in America they are able to deport a lot of people.
	I know they haven't under this administration, but Trump was able to.
	It's not totally impossible, is it?
	I mean, it should be an ambition, at least.
	Is it your ambition?
	For us, at the moment, it's a political impossibility.
	But is it your ambition?
	It's not a political impossibility.
	The parties that are doing better than you in Europe and the US have promised it as a policy point.
	So you are alienating your voters by not promising it, and I don't care if it's a logistic impossibility, there are 1.5 to 2 million basically confirmed illegals here since 1998.
	It's gonna be way more than that.
	Yeah, but we at least know that from the estimates provided by Pew Research, Oxford Migration Observatory, etc.
	They all need to be sent home because those are the illegals that you said you need to be sent.
	So then don't renege on the commitment because of logistics.
	That's the most defeatist possible attitude.
	No, we didn't conquer half the world by saying, too big, can't be done.
	Honestly, Wellington's campaigns in India, man.
	I can't be done, because he was literally outnumbered like 50 to 1 or something like that.
	It's staggering, the decline in Britain.
	But we'll leave that there.
	Nigel's heart is, I think, basically in the right place.
	But there's something about the way he frames everything that he's talking about that just kind of sours in the mouth.
	It's like, no, Nigel, you're not on point for some reason.
	Could you do those?
	I'm just going to restart the video wall for one second.
	Anyway.
	We're doing Rumble Rants between...
	Oh, yeah, God, sorry, I forgot about those.
	Yeah, I'll do those while we reset.
	I don't know what's happening with the video wall today.
	Everything's going wrong.
	Right, okay, so...
	I do know it's certainly not producer Samson's fault.
	No, no, Samson's...
	Excellent job.
	Something to do with the voltage, apparently.
	Ramshackloth says, A fruit tree that has been unpruned for years cannot be pruned hard in one season.
	Ramshackalot says, He's not.
	I'm sorry, he's not.
	Behind the scenes, people at Reform are really frustrated.
	He is softening.
	He's not pruning.
	He's not biding his time, as you can see by that last statement, because he said, this isn't even our ambition, and it is politically palatable, because he just said, the left-wing German government are doing it.
	So this is the perfect time to say it's safe to do it.
	All of the winners across the continent are doing this.
	It's a shame actually that Stephen didn't mention what's going on in Sweden.
	You know, paying settled migrants.
	I hate the Dengels, but I understand.
	Paying settled migrants to go home because then you could talk about the lifetime costs of a migrant.
	Hundreds of thousands of pounds to the taxpayer.
	Give them £15,000 and say go home.
	I mean, from a practical position, there's definitely an argument there.
	And, you know, if they started doing it, would I complain?
	No.
	I'd just be like, good.
	I can see why Nigel Farage sort of blinks at the idea of sticking people on a plane and sending them.
	I mean, you know, you're going to have the people who campaign for Just Stop Oil, the sort of retired vicars and retired doctors, are going to be at Heathrow and Gatwick, chaining them.
	Yeah, but you know, I mean, it's the optics of sticking people on a plane and just sending them back to the country they came from is very different from saying, look, actually, you know, maybe you'd be better off in your home country.
	Here's a little golden handshake.
	Bugger off.
	You woefully underestimate the appetite for people to just send these criminals home.
	Well, sure.
	Yeah, no, I do.
	I do think there is a there is a massive appetite, but I think that they'll never let it go.
	They'll never let it go and I also I also think that it does it clearly does make politicians uneasy and and ultimately they are the ones who have to have to do it and you can you can just see that he is fundamentally he's uneasy about the whole the whole topic all of it So Keith says basically the same thing.
	If he says anything against the BBC, they'll use it against him.
	It's like, yeah, but they should.
	They already do.
	Yeah, but he should.
	He should be puppeteering the BBC.
	He should be saying, like, I want the BBC to tell everyone in the country that I'm going to get rid of the illegal immigrants.
	Right.
	And he'd be like, yeah, I'm totally for mass deportation of illegals.
	You know, make it very clear, very crisp.
	And the BBC would be like, Farage is going to deport illegals.
	It's like, yes, I am.
	Thank you for the free campaign ad.
	Exactly.
	And that's exactly how Trump got to where he is.
	And Farage should be doing the same thing.
	But for some reason, he's not moving into that frame.
	Which is mad, because Trump has now had two assassination attempts, one very near miss, incited against him by the media and his political opposition, and so he knows they would rather see him dead than victorious.
	Given he's very good friends with Trump, I don't get why Farage doesn't get this yet.
	Well, I think maybe Farage actually does get this and is looking and going, do I want that?
	Maybe he's a bit afraid.
	Again, Aofui... I can't pronounce that.
	I lost all respect for Nigel when he did reality TV.
	I think he'd want to work in US and reform is a poor second choice for him.
	Classic boomer politician.
	I actually think the jungle thing was a smart campaigning strategy.
	Yeah, I do too.
	Binary Surf says, Farage is showing the limitations of the boomer mindset in real time.
	I must not state my beliefs unless people who hate me anyway call me a racist.
	Yes, that's Dan Tubbs' position as well.
	You can lead a boomer to water but you can't make him drink.
	Right, let's move on to the next segment.
	Sorry, that one ran over.
	That's alright.
	Yep, I'm just going to let Samson play with the tabs at the moment, because there is... Samson, do you mind moving the little list of clips off my notes, please, so I can read it?
	Oh, wonderful.
	Thank you very much.
	Doing well today, aren't we?
	Yeah, I know.
	Welcome to the Tech Problems of the Lotus Series.
	Anyway!
	There's been a complete silence around reporting on a recent trial to do with the Rotherham Grooming Gangs, the moral stain on British institutions for the last couple of decades.
	And I just wanted to contrast this briefly with the reporting about recent disgraced BBC News host and noted nonce, Hugh Edwards.
	But before I do, if you want to work with us where we're actually, you know, reputable figures and we don't do that sort of thing, there is a career- Low bar, man!
	We're not nonces.
	Simple as.
	Not the BBC.
	We have a career listing for a production administrator.
	If you're watching this at the time it goes out, it's probably still open.
	If you're watching it in the far future, missed your chance.
	However, if you just go onto our website, the careers section, look at the listing and you think you might be suitable for that position and you want to come and work in Swindon...
	Good to see you aboard.
	Anyway, look, point being, Hugh Edwards had his trial.
	This was covered briefly by Stellios yesterday.
	The other guy that provided him all of the images as well, both of them got a suspended sentence.
	So he had paid 1500 quid to Alex Williams, the guy who sent him those 41 illegal images.
	They were some of the absolute worst material you could possibly imagine with children as young as seven and nine in them.
	He got a suspended sentence for this, meaning he will never see prison.
	On the plus side, you'll never be able to go into a pub again.
	Can you imagine?
	Yeah.
	The downside is, of course, that we have seen a litany of examples recently, such as Judy Sweeney, a 53-year-old care worker, who put a spicy post on Facebook and has been jailed for 15 months.
	There was a guy waving an England flag who got jailed.
	There was a guy shouting at a dog as well, got two years.
	So, it's pretty clear that the Magistrates' Courts are a political wing of the Labour Party, and they are persecuting the political opponents of Keir Starmer for ill-advised social media posts while letting actual paedophiles off the hook.
	Lot of coverage about this story, from all sorts.
	Lots of sympathetic coverage to Hugh Edwards about his mental health, because for some reason a bout of anxiety causes you to go and abuse children, but alright.
	Well, remember, he didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge, and so he felt like an outsider, and so that's why he became a paedophile.
	I'd rather him be the insider of Belmarsh personally but there's an interesting silence, a conspiracy of silence one might say, around this trial.
	Now this trial was arguably worse than Edwards because of the industrial scale grooming of white working class girls across decades in various towns and cities in the UK.
	This was in Rotherham and it was only covered by Charlie Peters at GB News.
	There was not a single other journalist in the gallery for this and you can probably tell why as we get into the details and some good news and some bad news here.
	Just a quick thing again Stephen Edgington no one else would have asked the questions of Nigel that he was asking you know Charlie Peters none of the other journalists are interested in this you know so I there are many criticisms of GB News but come on guys they're decent lads and they're doing the good work.
	They have got a few fantastic people on staff.
	So, well done to you, Jones.
	So, seven men were convicted of child sex offences in Rotherham in a nine-week trial that concluded last Thursday, 12th of September.
	The defendants were, and I wonder if you can spot a pattern here as we look at the mugshots, Mohamed Abar, 42, Yasser Ajabi, 39, Mohamed Zamir Siddiq, 49, Mohamed Sayab, 49, popular name around those parts.
	Abid Sadiq, 43, Tahir Yasin, 38, and Ramin Bari, 37.
	So, all grown men from the subcontinent with a particular religious motive.
	And there's a Christian YouTuber called David Wood who covers this.
	Apologetics.
	He's so good, and he's so funny, and he just, there's this one line from him, so, what do all these Mohammeds have in common?
	It's so good.
	Sorry, go on.
	That's alright.
	The defendants arrived individually, according to Charlie, waving to their families in the public gallery.
	Now, this is something you've spoken about before.
	WHAT?!
	There is an uncomfortable reality that these communities cover for one another.
	Because if you had found out that your dad was guilty of molesting children, You would never show up there again.
	You would never speak.
	If my wife had found out that I was doing that, I wouldn't be waving to her as I walked into the court.
	She would disown me!
	The details get worse.
	So the men were investigated as part of the National Crime Agency's Operation Stovewood.
	This was launched after 2014 with the Alexis Jay report.
	The number of convictions by Stovewood, bear in mind the thousands of girls that have been victimized by the grooming gangs, is only 33.
	And they've identified 1,150 victims.
	There is another task force set up by... Sorry, say that again?
	How many victims are there?
	They've- They have only identified, this investigation, 1,150.
	They've identified a thousand victims.
	Gets worse, right?
	Jesus Christ!
	Because, no, last year, in April 2023, after Charlie Peter's documentary for GB News, Grooming Gang's Britain's Shame... Yeah, it was amazing.
	Yep, Suella Bravenman watched that, and so she set up as part of the Home Office, one of the only good reasons the Home Office exists, which is a National Grooming Gangs Taskforce.
	This is something that, to Rishi Sunak's credit, failed on everything else.
	He did promise to do this.
	They have coordinated with 43 police forces in England and Wales, and they have identified over 4,000 victims in less than a year, and arrested 550 suspects.
	So, that is the scale of the industrial rape that has happened across England and Wales, particularly by Pakistani Muslim men.
	This was an ethnic and religious-motivated crime.
	This is not just general sex crimes.
	Over 4,000 victims identified.
	So, leading prosecutor Nicholas Lumley summarised the case.
	Warning, some of this stuff is going to be horrific, but necessary.
	He says, it took place in the early 2000s with the girls, who were aged between 11 and 16 at the time, being groomed while they were in care.
	So they targeted care homes.
	This is something that Hannah Barnes has actually detailed.
	This is a repeated pattern.
	Well, there was a woman that worked at the Tavistock Clinic that used to work at a Rotherham care home, and she said that the same girls, sort of the same profile of the girls that were leaving care and going and getting genital transitions, were also being snuck out of the care homes.
	And all the care home staff knew about it and didn't do anything.
	So, there you go.
	The abusers often collected the girls from children's homes in South Yorkshire.
	They were abused across the town, including in a cemetery, a supermarket car park, and behind a nursery.
	Sheffield Crown Court heard how one of the girls was locked inside the abuser's homes, with one girl escaping via a window after being assaulted.
	The defendants denied the sexual acts against the girls, and some even denied knowing the complainant, with the women having to be cross-examined at the trial.
	So the court heard the victims had to time and time again carry out identification procedures, confronting each man one by one to confirm their identity.
	So sitting them in the room with their abusers many years on.
	One of the survivors, there were two survivors that delivered a witness account, one of them was in the court and she delivered a witness statement.
	Her abuse started when she was 11 in a primary school playground.
	Her abuser made her undergo a virginity test.
	She said, you made me ashamed of being a virgin at 11.
	That same day you sent me off and forced me to commit a sexual act.
	I knew it was wrong, but I wanted to belong somewhere.
	You monsters took advantage of my vulnerabilities.
	You started to pass me around as if I was a fresh piece of meat, man-to-man, city-to-city.
	So this is a cross-country trafficking organisation.
	All five.
	The men that she listed there played a part in exploiting her.
	She spoke directly to Yasser Ajib, and she said, You didn't play a big part in what happened to me.
	I didn't even class you as one of my main perpetrators, but you're still one of my abusers.
	She said he abused her behind a nursery.
	When she was 12, she was assaulted in a taxi until she was bleeding.
	She was given alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs.
	She became addicted throughout her adolescence and attempted suicide more than once.
	Her phone was confiscated as she was trafficked around different towns in England.
	And so, addressing the seven men, She said, I don't want to give you too much of my time.
	You've already had all of my childhood and the majority of my adulthood.
	Was I groomed or was I a slag like they said I was?
	For years I believed I was a slag.
	I was just a child, not a slag, nor was I a problem child.
	I was vulnerable and screaming for help.
	For years she suffered with flashbacks and she gets a whiff of one of her abuser's smells sometimes or hears their laughs as they assaulted her.
	She wakes up screaming from nightmares even when highly medicated.
	She quote, Quote, Quote, "You ruined my life, but I won't you.
	You ruined my future." I'm a fighter and survivor.
	I'm fighting and thriving and fighting.
	You can't and ever won't ever take from me again.
	22 years ago, you groomed me.
	10 years ago, I started my justice fight.
	You stole my childhood, and now I'm taking your freedom.
	I am your karma.
	Again, very powerful.
	Charlie Peters was the only one there that bothered to document this.
	Round the clock coverage for other stories.
	Well, I mean, she's an English girl.
	Quite.
	There was another girl who did a victim statement via a video link.
	She said, All of you came into my life when I was at my most vulnerable.
	You all made me feel wanted, loved, and part of something, something I craved.
	Life started to feel good, as if I belonged.
	I was made to feel like I was pretty, that I was somebody.
	What I did not realize as a vulnerable child was that you all had ulterior motives.
	You all befriended me for reasons it would take years to understand.
	In the coming years, I hope you feel as lonely, frightened, and isolated as I have felt.
	You violated and humiliated me when I was a vulnerable child.
	Now it's your turn to feel as I did.
	Now, all of these men were convicted, and I'm going to read out the sentences for you, because remember, again, Hugh Edwards got nothing.
	These men involved in a country-wide operation that led to thousands of girls being raped.
	Mohammed Omar, convicted of 2 counts of indecent assault, 16 years imprisonment with 2 years on extended licence.
	Yasser Ajib, 1 count of indecent assault, 6 years imprisonment, 12 months on extended licence.
	Rahman Bari, 4 counts of rape, sentenced to 9 years.
	Mohammed Zamir Sadiq, convicted of 1 count of rape and 1 count of intercourse with a girl under 13.
	How's that not rape?
	I'm not a lawyer, right?
	No.
	Sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, 12 months on extended licence.
	Quote.
	Some family members were seen shaking their heads and crying as a sentence was delivered.
	They were upset... Oh, yeah.
	...that he was going to prison for raping a girl under 13.
	Yeah, I'm not upset about that.
	Tamir, you're seen.
	8 counts.
	13 years imprisonment.
	Again, this is a very weird statement from Justice Slater, who sentenced him, said Yassine was, quote, a sexual opportunist rather than a predator.
	How is anyone that abuses a child not a predator?
	Why are we making that kind of distinction?
	Not just why is it necessary, how does it even make sense?
	And the Mohammed Siab?
	I don't mean to laugh, but of course he did.
	intercourse with a girl under 13 and one count of trafficking.
	25 years, 12 months on license.
	Justice Slater described Siab as a persistent and cruel sexual offender as he handed down the sentence.
	Met with shock in the public gallery.
	Siab, who heard his sentence through an Urdu interpreter I don't need to laugh, but of course he did.
	He's been here for 20-odd years.
	Waved to his family as he was taken down.
	One of his daughters shouted, I love you, Dad, as he was let out of the dock.
	So there's not just conspiracy science for the media here.
	Yeah.
	There's a reason these families have not dobbed in their own family members for doing this.
	Failure of integration.
	Yeah, quite.
	I'm sure if we just- We live in a hugely divided society.
	Yeah, so the families don't care about victimized children because they're white English girls.
	It's genuinely in-group ethnic, religious, and familial preference which justifies the weaponization of sexual assault against children because they're an out-group.
	There's one more guy as well.
	Abid Sadiq, 43, convicted of three counts of rape, one count of indecent assault, sentenced to 24 years and 12 months license.
	He was previously sentenced for rape and indecent assault convictions in 2019 by the same judge.
	Who at the time described him as a cunning and determined sexual predator, Slater found he had no reason to change his assessment and worsen the sentence.
	Why are any of these men ever being allowed out of prison?
	Why was he convicted of this in 2019 and yet somehow five years later he's still on the streets?
	Well, why are none of these life sentences?
	What?
	Is there an idea that somehow they'll be reformed?
	Because of the industrial abuse of children?
	Sorry, like two counts of rape.
	Yeah, I'm sure that's the limit of what he did.
	Yeah quite so yeah it's interesting that they're not tried for things like human trafficking and only one of them was kidnapping yeah like I mean in in the US then it's typical to hit defendants with as many charges as possible I mean they especially if they want to get you you know they will hit you with one after another after another and then you end up with a 400 year sentence right I mean you could absolutely throw the book at these people you could charge them with pretty much everything under the sun I mean you could but they don't yeah
	The judges have been advised to stretch the law every which way but loose to convict people involved in the Southport Prisons.
	Well, remember that the prisons are overcrowded.
	You've got to think of the logistics of the thing.
	Oh yeah, we had to let people out like this in order to imprison grandmas for Facebook posts.
	Now, I just wanted to draw attention to the very few politicians that actually spoke about this.
	Liz Truss responded to it, as did Suella Braverman, because she actually cared about this issue and tried to do her best.
	God bless her.
	Charlie Peters also responded to Dan Hodges from the Mail on Sunday.
	Who just said, I can't believe that no one else bothered to look into this.
	Why don't we have an independent public inquiry into this?
	And Charlie Peters said something rather interesting.
	He said, after Suella Braverman implemented this task force that led to the identification of thousands of victims, It was met with hatred, lies, scorn and derision, swarmed on by commentators, journalists and politicians who described her assessment as racist.
	He found it all hugely dispiriting.
	Many influential and powerful people were happy to trot out the bogus 2020 Home Office Report and wish away the decades of horrendous abuse as basically a myth.
	Charlie was the only reporter in court to hear one of the victims stand up and confront her abusers 20 years after they groomed and exploited her.
	It was unbelievably powerful.
	It will live with him forever.
	But it was equally so depressing that no one else was sat in with me in the press gallery.
	And I won't hold my breath for any change in this, neither will Charlie, because something was censored from that woman's address.
	She had asked for some of the abusers to be deported because two of the convicted rapists have Pakistani nationality and they could be removed from the country.
	Permanently.
	So they wouldn't fill up our overcrowding prisons full of 10,000 foreign nationals.
	She was forced to remove this request from her statement in court.
	So Charlie's reporting here says, Jimmy News has seen the original copy of the speech she intended to deliver, which has several sections crossed out due to restrictions ordered by the judge.
	who was granted sight of the statement before it was read out in court.
	The censored conclusion reads, I'd like to request that after sentencing and upon Rudy and Shoaib's release, they should be deported back to Pakistan, as this is where they originated from, and came here to exploit children.
	Thank you.
	Rudy is Mohammed Ajar, and Shoaib is Mohammed Saib, who got 14 and 25 years, respectively.
	Saib was the one who needed the Urdu interpreter, so, again, integration not high on his list.
	I mean, she's been brave enough confronting her, rapists and attackers, and speaking in court, but wouldn't it be amazing if she had left that in, if she'd said it anyway, and then the judge had been forced to, you know, act against her for contempt of court, whatever.
	Who knows what would have happened to the actual court, the actual proceedings, though, you know.
	Yes, that's...
	Her testimony probably would have been thrown out for contempt of court, meaning the evidence would have been withdrawn from her.
	Which is madness, because we don't have to have foreign rapists here, and the judges are insistent on keeping the narrative that for some reason they need to not only be allowed to stay in the country, but eventually be let out to presumably do it again.
	So, she says, there's nothing to say they'll stop exploiting children.
	We can deport them and let their own country deal with them.
	The Foreign Office should absolutely give Pakistan full punishment if they refuse to accept grooming gang rapists.
	Those men need to be deported or Pakistan should have its visas restricted.
	Barrister Matthew Bean was acting for the Crown and said, whether the abusers remain in this country or not is up to the Home Office and that the decision should happen regardless of what the victim should say one way or another.
	Yeah, I disagree with that entirely, actually.
	I think the victim should have a say in what happens to their persecutors.
	Home office spokesman said it would be inappropriate to comment on ongoing legal proceedings.
	Yeah, because it looks really bad for you.
	I'm just going to play one last little minute of Charlie Peters summing up this story, because he really puts in perspective the legal mechanisms that render this entire situation a choice by the government to allow these people to languish here.
	Because they could just do it tomorrow if they wanted, and they clearly don't.
	UK Borders Act.
	Any foreign national offender serving a custodial sentence over 12 months should be deported.
	However, with the Grooming Gang scandal, there have been several cases like this where that has not happened.
	The most notorious case is that of Kari Ralph in Rochdale.
	He was sentenced to six years.
	A decade later, he's still fighting deportation, even though he's had his British nationality stripped due to various ECHR and legal battles he's put on.
	No, I think this survivor fears the same will happen again with her abusers.
	That's why she wanted to say in court, in open justice, for everyone to hear, thankfully we were there to hear it, what she wanted to happen.
	That she wanted those abusers to be out of the country.
	She said that she had no confidence that after those sentences are served, and they'll serve half of them, that they will be safe to be released into the community.
	I should also add very quickly that under the 2022 Nationality and Borders Act, the government introduced a provision that any country that refuses to accept foreign national offenders being deported should be and could be subject to visa penalties.
	So the government could punish Pakistan and say, if you don't accept these gripping gang abusers, we won't let your workers come to this country.
	Now I understand, my sources tell me, that the Foreign Office has consistently blocked that power being used.
	Suella Braverman last night told me she wants that power to be used.
	Lee Anderson has also told me he wants that power to be used.
	Laura Farris, the Safeguarding Minister, told me in March she thought it would be sensible for that power to be used.
	The Home Office last night told me it would not comment on individual cases.
	That's just insanity.
	Why would we deliberately choose to pay for people, for child sexual abusers to be here when they don't have to be?
	Under ECHR rulings they can claim a right to family life, they can say that they'll be a threat if they move back home.
	These legal battles have succeeded, but this survivor wanted to let it known through sharing her statement with me that she wants these abusers to be deported.
	They're evil men, she said, and they've got to be let out of the country.
	So, they can claim a right to family life to stay in the country while they destroy people's families with their crimes.
	And I just want to say, well done to Charlie Peters for reporting on this.
	Nobody else did.
	Shall we do a couple of the... Yeah, well, we'll be quick.
	Casadwen says, And I think that's the deep fear that lurks in the back of their hearts, in the back of their minds.
	are in too deep.
	If the full truth of the English people's suffering is ever acknowledged, the ethnic outburst will be uncontrollable.
	And I think that's the deep fear that lurks in the back of their hearts, in the back of their minds.
	But it's also why they pay as little attention as possible.
	Anyway, take it away, Charlie.
	Thank you.
	No, this is my first ever segment.
	It's a real pleasure.
	So I'm going to be talking about my essay in Islander issue 2.
	The Headless Tyrant and basically this is an essay about the relationship between order and power in modern society.
	So there's a tradition in modern political philosophy that sees the sovereign's main role as being the guarantor of peace and social order within his realm and this is best exemplified I think in the English social contract edition by Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.
	or the matter form and power of a commonwealth ecclesiastical and civil which Thomas Hobbes wrote and published in 1651.
	Now as Hobbes put it the agreement between sovereign and subjects brings to an end the war of all against all.
	the state of nature in which man exists by default a place where life is nasty brutish and short and any man can kill any other if he chooses to do so.
	So there's this tradition in political philosophy that sovereignty rests on a monopoly over violence the state monopolizes violence and offers ordinary people peace and and quiet and the ability to go about their daily lives without the threat of attack and murder etc so Max Weber for example in his famous definition of the state
	In his lecture Politics as a Vocation from 1919 defines the state as a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of political force within a given territory.
	So that's the classic sociological definition of what the state is.
	It is an organization with a monopoly over force within a given territory.
	So I think broadly this is how we tend to think about the role of the state.
	We've been thinking about the role of the state for hundreds of years in these terms.
	We think that it's something that exists to ensure stability but actually there's a much older tradition stretching right back to the ancient Greeks to Aristotle which sees the role of the sovereign, of the ruler, or of a particular kind of ruler As actually being ensuring disorder and really what the essay is about is it's about
	The fact that actually I think this is a much more apposite way to understand state power today as a form of disorder, as a form of ordered disorder, I suppose, if you will.
	So in Book 5, Chapter 11 of Aristotle's Politics, which was written 2,300 years ago, I think he provides really the most accurate definition of what government and states are doing today across the West.
	Really.
	He calls it tyranny and I think we probably should too.
	I just want to add that Aristotle wasn't in favour of this.
	No, no.
	In Aristotle's well-run polis the state inculcated virtue into the citizens and so you didn't need a tyrant to control everything because the people themselves would be good.
	Of course we live in the opposite of that now.
	Exactly, exactly.
	So, I mean, what Aristotle is doing with the politics is, the politics is a descriptive project really.
	I mean, it's his lecture notes, that's how we generally... You know, there is an argument that actually it's all normative, but I won't get into it.
	Yeah, yeah, no, there definitely are.
	But it's, it's a, it's a, so he's describing different kinds of government, basically, and one of the forms of government is tyranny.
	And he describes tyranny as the kind of counterpart of a properly constituted monarchy.
	So tyranny is that arbitrary power of an individual who is responsible to no one, governs all alike, whether equals or betters, with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will.
	And Aristotle goes on to provide a long description of the kind of things that tyrants do in order to tyrannize their subjects to rule over their subjects unjustly in order to maintain their own power so he says this is a fantastic description so I'll read this one at length so again this is this is just a description but it's actually framed In a kind of normative way where Aristotle says, look if you're a tyrant this is what you should be doing because this is what good tyrants do.
	The tyrant should lop off those who are too high.
	He must put to death men of spirit.
	He must not allow common meals, clubs, education and the like.
	He must be upon his guard against anything which is likely to inspire either courage or confidence among his subjects.
	He must prohibit schools or other meetings for discussion.
	And he must take every means to prevent people from knowing one another, for mutual acquaintance begets mutual confidence.
	So Aristotle describes a variety of different ways that tyrants maintain their power.
	They prevent free association.
	They surveil their subjects.
	They keep an extensive network of informers.
	This is sounding very relevant.
	I know, it is.
	The kicker's coming.
	They sow quarrels among their citizens.
	They impoverish them with high taxes.
	They make wars to distract them.
	Aristotle also notes that tyrants prefer bad men and like foreigners better than citizens for the one are enemies but the others enter into no rivalry with him.
	So I think yeah I think we're starting to see perhaps some of the similarities with the modern situation and you could easily be forgiven for thinking that western governments have been reading Aristotle's politics and in particular this chapter In particular, Keir Starmer, because he's guilty of- I mean, within two months, he's guilty of doing every single thing there.
	It's actually kind of insane how he's speedrunning.
	Yeah.
	The persecution of every non-state school, the collection of a patronage network of donors that give him the sort of car and harem syndrome of the Soviet Union.
	The preferencing of foreign peoples.
	The fact that he's currently trying to persuade Joe Biden to launch missiles at Moscow.
	The divide and conquer strategy by calling anyone that is complaining against your mass importing of foreigners far right.
	The new budget that's going to come out where your taxes are going up, I promise you.
	The abolition of social circumstances where you can sit outside the pub and have a cigarette and a drink.
	Exactly!
	It's actually kind of crazy.
	Yeah so I mean this ancient conception of tyranny is obviously very relevant and there's a chap called Sam Francis who gave the peculiar modern inflection of tyranny a new name anarcho-tyranny he was writing in there
	80s and 90s he was cancelled for speaking at an American Renaissance conference I think in the 90s and continued to write until his death in about 2004 I think but he was generally held up as a white nationalist and a racist and all this sort of stuff but he wrote very very persuasively about the kinds of the little things that America's rulers did and do in Indeed.
	To make the lives of ordinary law-abiding citizens difficult and to allow criminals, basically, unlimited license to do as they would.
	And he called it anarcho-tyranny, as I say, but actually I'd quibble with calling it anarcho-tyranny.
	I don't think you need to add anarcho-tyranny to the name.
	I think it's all there already in the ancient definition of tyranny.
	I think it's just tyranny.
	Maybe, but one could argue that a tyrannical society doesn't necessarily have to have an active criminal underclass.
	No.
	So I do think anarcho-tyranny is a good distinguishing mechanism to suggest that... Sorry.
	No, but that's what I was going to say actually.
	That is one of the things I think that Aristotle doesn't really place emphasis on, his crime in particular.
	He describes so many recognisable things, you know, as we've just noted.
	He lived in quite homogenous states that are actually quite well governed by them.
	Yes, exactly.
	So here's Sam Francis describing some of the new techniques that are used to enforce anarcho-tyranny.
	Exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, the engineering of social institutions such as the family and local schools, the imposition of thought control through sensitivity training and multiculturalist curricula, Hate crime laws, gun control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally and a vast labyrinth of other measures.
	Now probably the most spectacular instance of anarcho-tyranny I think in modern America of recent times is of course the summer of Floyd and the mostly peaceful protests of 2020.
	So we need to remember that these took place during the COVID-19 pandemic at a time when people were confined to their homes were told you know they couldn't go outside because they would be spreading a deadly virus and yet we had the largest riots the largest social protests in American history 30 people died 30 people died 2 billion damage as a as a modest estimate a modest estimate
	But really I think the key to understanding these riots is that they actually benefited the regime.
	Now I know Donald Trump was in power but actually... Well, the regime exists around... Exactly, the regime isn't coextensive with the ruler and certainly not when someone like Donald Trump is in power.
	But they served the American regime's purpose, which was to demonise Donald Trump during an election year.
	You know, you have a racist president running for re-election.
	Just create an instability in his own governance.
	Exactly, exactly.
	And they also, the other thing they did, of course, was they greased the skids.
	on the largest wealth transfer in in recent years as uh you know this was Jim Cramer totally um mainstream commentator saying for CNBC you know this is one of the greatest wealth transfers in history and uh yeah it was people were kept inside small businesses were shuttered not only because of the pandemic but they were also burned to the ground
	Also like big supermarkets, right?
	You were forced to go to Sainsbury's or Tesco.
	You couldn't go to your local grocery store.
	Yeah, exactly.
	People forget just how crazy it was and people don't join the dots and I think they should.
	And this is a pattern that we saw repeated across the Western world.
	So, our very own Keir Starmer, our Prime Minister, took the knee in 2020 with... God, he's such an NPC.
	Just awful.
	Dreadful.
	He looks like the NPC meme right there.
	He does and we had and we had black activist groups in paramilitary uniform marching through London.
	Which is illegal by the way.
	Yeah.
	You're not allowed to have in Britain, you're not allowed activist groups with a uniform.
	Yeah, since the 1930s that was banned, wasn't it?
	Unsurprisingly.
	So, we're starting to get an idea then about what an arco-tyranny is, this modern inflection of tyranny.
	But another way to look at it actually, I think, to understand its hold on Western societies, is to look at a country that actually punishes crime.
	I can't even imagine such a thing!
	Imagine such a place.
	Yeah, well, such a place does exist.
	It's called El Salvador under its current president Nayib Bukele.
	Maybe if we could just scroll through the pictures and show some of the good work that he's been doing.
	That's CICOT, the centre for...
	Terrorist confinement center which was built to house tens of thousands of gang members.
	Yeah.
	UK just said look enough is enough we're going to declare a national emergency we're going to arrest all the gang members and the gang members handily had tattoos that allowed you to identify them.
	So anybody who has MS-13 tattooed on top of their head is likely to be a member of MS-13.
	He's basically constructed Arkham Asylum.
	Yeah, yeah he has.
	Just to be clear as well, I mean, El Salvador was having thousands of murders every year.
	It was more dangerous than a war zone.
	Yes, and to get into this gang you had to rape or murder someone.
	Yes, yeah, exactly.
	So El Salvador has gone from being the most dangerous country, or one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to the least dangerous country in the Western Hemisphere.
	Lower murder rate than the US.
	And that is the... love him or hate him, that's a miracle.
	Necessary, you think?
	This is the interesting difference between tyranny and anarcho-tyranny.
	And I think it's interesting that you've rooted it in the reference to Thomas Hobbes at the start, because I think it's a very Enlightenment philosophy.
	And it's because there's a tacit admission by the ruling class that weaponise foreigners and criminals against the law-abiding population, that actually the blank slate anthropology isn't necessarily true.
	They're hoping that we all get to a post-crime, multicultural utopia where we all hold hands.
	You have to recognise there is a certain criminal clientele class, whether you bring it in or allow it to proliferate within the borders, that is distinct from the way that the majority of people live, and so you let them run free.
	Whereas, Bekele, who doesn't have those priors baked in, is just like, oh yeah, I'll just lock up all the criminals.
	1% of the population in prison?
	Yeah, cry harder as you get more tattoos but do no more murders, I guess.
	And miraculously, his civilisation is short on liberalism but very good on peace and prosperity.
	And of course if you read something like, I mean I don't like Steven Pinker, but if you read Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature then he talks about the fact that actually Western societies through the Middle Ages, every generation I think, something like 1% of the male population was executed.
	It might even have been more than 1% of the male population was executed.
	In order to keep the peace, essentially.
	And that's actually the reason why.
	I actually read a couple of books on the death penalty because I found it fascinating.
	It wasn't that 1% would be executed.
	A lot of these would be commuted.
	The issue is actually war.
	When we are at war, murders go down significantly.
	And then when we're not at war, murders go up significantly.
	Because, of course, that sort of, I guess, warlike percentage of the population are shipped overseas and possibly die over there.
	But it wasn't quite what I'm saying.
	But it's still a substantial... It's not as substantial as you would think, actually.
	I think it's more like Thomas Hobbes.
	For him, the Leviathan's main function was over-roaring, being the over-roaring power over society, which would prevent many things from happening that otherwise would have happened.
	That seems to be the same with the death penalty.
	But, I mean, obviously it did also have the effect of taking out the congenitally violent laws.
	Yes.
	Yeah, the ability of the state to wield deadly power against its citizens did have some effect, at least.
	Oh yeah, 100%.
	So what's Bukele shown?
	Bukele has shown that, contrary to what we're told in the West, crime isn't simply a fact of life.
	It's not like rain.
	It's not like the weather and inconvenience that nobody can really do anything about.
	You know, it's just raining today.
	Somebody got murdered.
	Somebody got raped.
	But crime is a choice.
	Crime is a choice.
	Yeah, it's a choice.
	And the Western response to Bukele is very, very revealing indeed.
	He's making them look bad.
	He's making them look very bad indeed and it's interesting to note, you know, these human rights groups, newspapers, media groups, politicians who dare to talk about Bukele all emphasise, you know, the human rights of the gang members being thrown into this enormous prison.
	But never the human rights of their victims.
	No, exactly never.
	So it says, I mean that in itself as well, says something about the concerns of these groups back home, you know, with regard to their own sort of native populations.
	And it tells us of course as well that it's not just government that is that is upholding anarcho-tyranny in the west it's also these institutions it's also newspapers it's the it's the media complex you know NGOs etc you know these are essential organizations for justifying and upholding anarcho-tyranny so
	I think we've established that anarcho-tyranny exists but it does, as I say, it has some unique inflections I think from the ancient examples that Aristotle gives, some different emphases and in particular I think those emphases today are crime and immigration.
	So Aristotle does talk about the fact for instance that the tyrant prefers foreigners but he could never have conceived, never have conceived of a ruler who would actively go about replacing his own, the entirety of his own population.
	I mean in Aristotle's conception it was assumed that the tyrant would have a bodyguard of foreigners, the tyrant would specifically pay them to protect him from his own native population in order to keep him safe.
	Like you say he would never have thought that one of these tyrants would be like well we can just change the population.
	yeah yeah it's crazy so it's so there there's obviously something different about anarcho-tyranny from ancient tyranny uh and you know so i mean i think if you look at the work of uh samuel francis then he talks about immigration but things weren't quite as bad in 1994 in the us as they are in 2024 and he died in 2005 so It needs some updating.
	But yes, if we want to see this central axis at work today, then we need to look no further than the Southport stabbings.
	Axel Rudipakana, there he is, looking angelic.
	Still hasn't been put on trial yet, has he?
	No, that's strange, isn't it?
	It's because it's a Crown Court trial rather than the Magistrate Court, so that's why there's certain restrictions around the reporting, but... I mean, I don't think... I don't really need to rehearse or re-rehearse the circumstances of the Southport stabbings.
	Needless to say, I think it is a very, very clear example of the way that Well, two-tier policing, for example.
	It's weird, though, how we don't have an updated photo.
	Just weird how they keep using the one of him as a small child in primary school, as if the system, again, let him down.
	As if it's our fault for incurring on his human rights that he goes and murders three girls and stabs a bunch more.
	But the so we're getting to the to the kind of crux of of what I say in this essay which is that actually who's in control that's the question that I'm really asking that's why the essay is called the headless tyrant because tyranny in the ancient sense presupposes a tyrant a person.
	A nameable individual.
	Periander of Corinth.
	But anarcho-tyranny, at least in modern democracies, isn't the product of any single individual.
	I think that's clear, or even a single group.
	So Sam Francis himself, then he said that anarcho-tyranny is instead the product of the growth of the managerial state, bureaucracy, legalism.
	There's no plan as such, there are merely incentives within our power structures that drive government in the direction of tyrannising its own citizens.
	Including the kind of levelling and base numerical tendencies of democratic politics itself, you know, where you just see... you end up seeing people as beans to be moved on a... Oh yeah.
	So I think this is in line actually with the more sophisticated thinking about the Great Replacement, Renaud Camus, for example.
	Contrary to what a lot of people say about him, he's never said that the Great Replacement is a conspiracy.
	He's never said that it's a conspiracy by some particular group against others.
	What he's actually said is just that a particular mindset has come to dominate government in the West, institutions in the West, which he calls replacism.
	And that's basically just the belief that human beings are interchangeable.
	You know the native population of France is interchangeable.
	It's the natural core view of liberalism.
	Yeah yeah.
	The more liberal we become the more this becomes the doctrine.
	Yeah and so actually really the Great Replacement is a product of the growth of democracy, industry, mass education, mass entertainment.
	It's not some group of shadowy figures sitting in a in a room conspiring to get rid of the native French it's actually it's actually a much more complicated process than that so I mean I think it's I think it's more important to understand modern tyranny as a kind of system that abides by it fulfills a certain logic it's not a procession of individual tyrants satisfying their personal whim it would be so much easier to deal with if it was exactly
	and that is that is that is my fundamental point I think with this essay and And this helps us to grasp, I think, some unsettling truths.
	Like, for instance, the ease with which the Conservative Party was able to pick up the mass immigration policies of the New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
	They just run with them, you know.
	I mean, that should not have happened.
	The Cameronite wing won.
	Yes.
	So you know opposite parties replace each other and continue the same policies and that's what we see in across the Western world you know.
	Even the people in charge are interchangeable and replaceable but what matters is that they follow the incentives of the system and meet its needs.
	That's the fundamental thing that matters.
	So really what we're dealing with is we're dealing with I suppose an example of the management heuristic the purpose of the system is what it does you know it's better to look at the way that a system the outcomes of a system rather than the people involved with it you know so it's not it's not about whether the conservatives are in charge or the new labor is in charge or even reformer in charge.
	A blob still exists.
	Yes it's a blob and it has its own... the blob isn't a person, the blob isn't an organism and yet it has its own intentions that are nevertheless separate and distinct from those of the people who are sort of caught up inside it in its guts.
	Um which isn't to say that there aren't odious people at work.
	Oh I imagine it's full of odious people but it will be full of odious people the next time there's any kind of changing of the guard and whatnot.
	So you know we I mean we talked we talked about the uh origins of the new labour policy of mass immigration the admission by Andrew Nether for example in 2009 that Mass immigration policy was brought in by New Labour to rub the right's nose in diversity, to change the demographics of the nation.
	That was a deliberate policy and the people who deliberately chose to do that are odious.
	They deserve our scorn and they deserve to be held responsible.
	But nevertheless, People are waking up to the fact that government is at war with them now.
	It's clear people are.
	We're running out of time, so we're going to have to end it there, but that is precisely the theme of the entire issue.
	We've clearly passed the limit.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, Charlie's essay is amazing, and you should definitely get Islander to read it in its full.
	But that exactly hits on the point, doesn't it?
	We've passed the threshold at this point.
	We're going into new, undiscovered territory, which again, aesthetically, is perfectly represented by Rory.
	Superb.
	Go and get it.
	Honestly, it's really good.
	Right, do we have any video comments to do?
	Unfortunately, I don't think we have time for video comments.
	Okay, alright, I suppose we can do a couple written ones for five minutes.
	Yeah, we'll do a couple of comments.
	George says, No way, I can't believe Nigel would abandon his responsibilities.
	Again, he's only abandoned Brexit to the Tories, you kept the Brexit Party reform and demonised people on his side.
	He's certainly not a pattern of behaviour.
	Yeah, it is a persistent problem.
	People who know Nigel Farage personally have told me that they're going to keep coming up against a Freybentos for every Haitian, which... I mean, honestly, I'm just... like, imperialism would be good for Haiti, and if that meant, you know, the British state sends a couple of gunships over and a shipment of Freybentos pies, that would make them very happy, and we would have done... the net good for humanity would have risen.
	In the world.
	Do you know what I'm saying?
	You know how the Joker at the end of Batman 89 is still laughing because he's got that little talking button in his pocket?
	Yeah?
	You're gonna have to attach one that's making meowing sounds for every tin of furry bentos to convince him to start eating them.
	Again, the thing with imperialism is you don't have to convince people.
	But they say, very disappointed with Farage, Civ Nattery cannot be tolerated.
	This is another thing, just like the question of values.
	Civic nationalism.
	I think I might write some of this, because again, There is no such thing.
	All nationalism is based on the nation.
	You are just trying to identify one layer of it, which is the civic layer.
	But, okay, well, what is it you want to be?
	Oh, I want to be a French civic nationalist.
	Well, why did you have to preface it with French?
	Because you have to appeal to the ethnic group.
	Again, you just can't.
	It's like Bernard Williams discussing the soul.
	It's like, well, whose soul?
	Oh, Mike's soul.
	Right, so it comes after the person.
	You know, you identify the soul by identifying the corporeal body.
	So, you know, whatever... I'm not getting into a theological discussion.
	What I mean is we have to conceive of these things as in some way embodied and civic nationalism is very much the same thing.
	Civic nationalism does have a weird sort of Gnostic dualism when it comes to ethnicity and identity because it wants to be purely self-associative to avoid the trappings of racial essentialism from the Nazis.
	But then it doesn't acknowledge how an involuntary element like ethnicity and heritage will influence whether or not you buy into a given culture, which everyone except basically white Europeans who are very individualistic does still have.
	Well, not even... northern Europeans who are like this.
	Other Europeans aren't actually like this.
	But even then, if you want to, you just can't refer to it without the ethnicity, so you're not a civic nationalist.
	You are still an ethnic nationalist in the very nature of your description of the thing.
	So I will write something on it at some point.
	Paul says, Farage is afraid to do what needs to be done.
	We need politicians who aren't running scared of the mainstream consensus.
	Which is precisely how Farage got anywhere in his entire career.
	His entire career has been successfully opposing the mainstream consensus, and it's so strange how he's kind of become supine at this point, which is very weird because, again, as a character, he's not normally like that.
	But God's Own Prototype says, remember that a liberal justice system only imposes half the sentences that they're given on paper.
	I do find very frustrating.
	And Charles says, doesn't Machiavelli observe that the best way to establish tyranny is to do what the people want until they get used to your exercising arbitrary power?
	He might.
	I'd have to go and recheck.
	Californian Refugee says, the kind of tyranny we have now is interesting because our politicians allow foreign forces to literally invade and take over whole towns.
	In fact, they'll facilitate that in the case of Springfield, Ohio or various places in Britain.
	This is something that's gone on in California for ages with cartels.
	Only recently, like in Colorado, is anyone feeling, anyone else feeling these issues.
	Same with the UK and caliphate towns run by foreign forces.
	Also, remember the summer of Ludd that radicals set up the Chas and became separatists?
	But it's okay when they do it.
	Just not when the South did it, I guess.
	Quite.
	One last one before I outro us.
	Carrier Regan in our audience has said, I'm struggling to keep up with you this week, gents, as I got married on Saturday and offers to send us some gin, as she has done before.
	I just wanted to read that out and say congratulations.
	It's always good to hear people starting families and the like.
	That's the actual practicals of this.
	You know, politics is very up in the air, but as long as you have a stable home life and you're practicing your values, it's fantastic.
	Brilliant.
	Anyway, cheers for coming back in, Charlie.
	It was a pleasure, thank you.
	Follow him down in the description.
	There's also a Man's World link down there, after you pick up Islander, of course.
	Keep your reading list growing.
	I will be back in about half an hour for my show, for those behind the paywall.
	If you aren't already subscribed, go do that.
	You're missing out on all the good content otherwise.
	Until tomorrow, we'll be back again at 1 o'clock.

▲