All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 27, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:29:56
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1009
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 26th of September 2024.
I I am joined by Carl and Stelios.
Hello.
And today we're going to be talking about the moron occupied government that is of course the absolute geniuses in the Labour Party.
We're going to be talking about Millais and Bekele at the UN and I'm going to be talking about English identity and the recent debate, I suppose, about whether the English exist or not.
Are you real?
I don't think so.
I'm not actually real.
But I've also got some announcements.
Islander Magazine is out now.
It's very good.
It's got both me and Carl in it, and lots of interesting people.
I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here.
All of you have probably already bought it, but you can buy it again.
You know, you've got friends, right?
You can buy it for your friends.
You know, buy it for your family even.
It's got Carl, Nima Parvini, Morgoth's Review.
Dr. Charles Cornish-Dale, Roerich Nationalist, Stefan Molyneux, lots of other people as well and some surprises in there, so check it out.
It's very good, I like it.
Luca's article on the Marshals of Middle-Earth is great.
He did one in the first one for Boromir and he's done another one for Faramir.
I really enjoyed those ones.
Anything about Lord of the Rings is normally good, isn't it?
If it's written by a right-winger anyway.
But also, another announcement.
If you are submitting video comments, please do so in the MP4 or MOV file format, because we've been having some in MKV.
MKV is the VLC media player file format, I think.
It makes our editors' lives a lot easier.
It's not the end of the world if you submit it in a different file format for whatever reason, but it would make it easier.
So if you could, if you're given a choice, please do that.
But that's it.
So take it away, Carl.
So we are currently struggling under what I've decided to term a MOG, a Moron Occupied Government, which means we are on the regular being mogged by the Labour Party, because they're morons.
They are literally... I said this very originally, but I genuinely think that the Labour Party has an average IQ, the Labour Front Bench, of about 90.
I'm being generous, to be fair.
I'm not being generous.
No, I'm not being generous.
I'm being very serious about this.
I don't think they're intelligent people.
And what I would love is for them to have to do a public IQ test.
Just sit down, do the IQ test on this, have them on a scoreboard come up with the rankings.
In the similar way that people wanted Biden to do the cognitive test, we want to know how intelligent the Labour Party is.
I want Labour Party members doing IQ tests.
If they're not members of Mensa, I'm not interested.
They don't even have to be members of Mensa.
I just want to be average.
Well you've seen David Lammy on Mastermind haven't you?
I have absolutely and so I guess the inspiration for this segment came from Keir Starmer because he was giving his speech at the Labour Party conference and there was a hilarious gaffe.
Hilarious.
The return of the sausages.
The hot sausages.
Hamas have captured a bunch of Israeli sausages.
Kirstahmer is very upset by this and wants the return of the sausages.
Now obviously this is just a gaffe.
Everyone is prone to make mistakes.
I mean, maybe he was a bit hungry when he was going over those, like, I'll eat afterwards, I haven't got time.
And it was just on his mind.
Or maybe it was written on the teleprompter and he didn't, maybe it was a mistake on the teleprompter and he just read it with sincerity and passion because I too would like lunch.
The thing is, he's vegetarian as well, which makes it even funnier.
So he just misread the word, I guess.
But this isn't the only moronic thing he's done.
And I don't want people coming away from this thinking, well, look, he mis-said a word.
It's like, yeah, he did.
But anyone could make a gaffe like that.
It's on the teleprompter.
He's 61.
Maybe his eyes are a bit, you know.
That's by far from the worst and least, the most stupid thing that he's done.
So I mean, of course you've got the opportunity to make himself less hateful to the country.
And so he's been interviewed by the media a lot recently because he's had a lot of controversies surrounding him over things that are formal and procedural a lot of the time.
And so, for example, on the case of, you are going to be killing loads of pensioners.
Do you want to at least apologize?
And he was just like, no.
I mean, in fact, he turns himself into the victim of it.
It's quite great.
Would you like to take this opportunity to say sorry to pensioners like Chrissie?
Well, I am really concerned that we've been put in this position.
Yeah, that's really stupid.
Yeah, I'm really sorry people criticise me for basically being completely unpopular.
I'm very sorry about this.
I'm really sorry that I'm being forced to kill Granny.
It's like someone coming across you in a dark alleyway and saying, I'm really sorry that you found yourself in this situation, but I've got to take your wallet and keys.
It really is!
Alright, Granny made me do it.
Well, no, the Conservative Party made him do it, is his argument.
He goes on to be like, well, you know, Conservatives left us with £22 billion in the hole.
Someone's granny's gonna have to freeze to death.
And just to be clear as well, I mean, they are well aware that this is probably going to kill about 4,000 pensioners.
But he's just like, well, you know, I'm not sorry about it.
It's just unfortunate that I've been put in this position.
It's like Mr. Freeze.
Everything freezes.
We need to burn lots and lots of fossil fuels to flatten the curve.
Because remember, our pensioners are our most important asset in Britain.
But the funniest thing though, he was given such an easy out there, it's like, yeah, I'm truly sorry this is gonna be done, or something like that.
But he doesn't, he's not sorry for it, and he's too stupid to know that he should be trying to appeal to people's sentiments, right?
He's too stupid to understand that, oh, people look at me like I'm doing the wrong thing, which is why he's constantly being grilled.
And so, then in the same interview, Uh, I can't remember what this woman's name is.
She's Good Morning Britain host.
I can't remember.
I can't remember either.
Yeah, I do know it, but... Oh, Susanna Reid?
Susanna Reid, that's right.
Yeah, so Susanna Reid, you can tell she's laying him up for this.
She's like, look, everyone hates you because you're going to kill their grandmother.
Do you want to say sorry or something to try and get yourself into good graces?
Basically kicking him under the table at this point.
She's teeing him up.
She's giving him every opportunity.
And so she's, in this one, she's like, well, you're giving billions to Ukraine.
Is there anything you want to say about this?
We're about to be in America, in New York.
We spend three billion on Ukraine, eight billion on foreign aid.
What do you say to those who say, spend that money at home?
I understand that argument, but I think in relation to let's say Ukraine, we have to understand that that war in Ukraine is not just about Ukraine.
It's about Russian aggression, it's about our freedom, our democracy, the way we're able to exercise our rights in this country.
It is the frontier of freedom and so it's really important that we stand with Ukraine.
Sorry, Ukraine is the frontier of freedom?
I think before 2014 wasn't it the most corrupt European country?
Yes.
Zelensky was a comedian before he became the president, and now he's a billionaire.
How does a comedian become a billionaire?
I mean, he's not that funny, right?
The idea that, like, if Ukraine falls, Britain's next, the Russians are not going to invade Britain.
I think at the very least he's a multi-millionaire.
No, no, he had something like 800 million.
Really?
Yeah, yeah, he's got it in offshore bank accounts.
I'm not even joking.
Look it up, I swear to God.
Zelinsky is worth an ungodly amount of money and it's just like, how did he amass this as a comedian?
He's just a really funny guy.
Yeah, he's just really funny.
So, again, you could have said something more deferential.
But no, his premise is, well, if Ukraine falls, Britain's next.
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
You're an idiot.
That's obviously not going to be the case.
You know, like, Putin can't even take all of Ukraine.
Like, he can take a couple of border regions that are mostly Russian, and that's as far as he's got.
So it's like, no, that's nonsense.
This is fake.
You're full of it.
But what you are saying is that, no, I'm literally going to take money from Granny and give it to Zelensky.
But also, it wouldn't even be in Russia's interest to take the British Isles because they would become a pariah the world over.
Just like, well, no one wants to be near Russia because they keep on taking random countries.
But also, why would you take things of such little value?
That's true.
Russia has taken over Britain.
OK, so all of our problems are now your problems.
OK, good luck.
Liberate Britain.
Yeah.
And so nothing about Keir Starmer's approach here has been intelligent, right?
None of it's been sophisticated.
He hasn't managed to finesse this in any way shape or form and of course his popularity is plummeting.
Did you want to... Yeah, I have some reservations because, okay, I don't think he is IQ 90.
My reservation is... Well, he's the 100 IQ.
He's the thing making it.
Yeah, something that I'm worried about, which is harrowing, is whether he wants to habituate the population into not expecting him to be sentimental towards Yeah, well the thing is I think that implies far too much forethought on his part.
I don't think he's that much of a strategic thinker.
I think he actually is just kind of heartless and doesn't care.
He has bad sausages though.
Well, no, that was a mistake, remember.
He doesn't want the return of the sausage.
He doesn't even want your sausages back.
He doesn't even care.
But anyway, so, moving on.
Again, mired in public scandal because this is a moronic party.
For some reason, Keir Starmer has accepted that Sue Grey, his Chief of Staff, Needs to be paid more than he is paid.
Now, there's something very peculiar about that.
It's like, why is the Chief of Staff being paid more than the Prime Minister himself?
Surely, as the top of the executive branch, he should be getting paid more.
But no, he's accepted that.
But not only has he accepted it, he decided to come out and say to the public, and I quote, uh, this is not for public debate.
It's like, Oh really?
Because we're going to debate this a lot and how you treat that is, again, more an indication of how stupid you are when you are approaching these issues.
So he thinks this is fine and, not a direct quote, but in summary, fuck them pensioners was basically the opinion.
So she's going to get paid stacks, the pensioners are getting their money taken away, Ukraine is going to get billions every year and you don't even get to have a say in this, says the Prime Minister.
This is dumb.
This is really dumb.
This is bad politics.
You're doing everything wrong, and maybe I shouldn't be complaining.
But then, I mean... You could have saved this, by the way, just by saying... Easily!
You could have said, well, as the Prime Minister, I think it's in poor taste when people are struggling to increase my salary above that of Sue Grey, and so I'm willingly taking less money, and at least he can frame it as, I'm trying to be virtuous here.
Or at least say that he's in a position to get more donations than she is.
Maybe.
Maybe.
We'll go into the donations in a minute.
I mean, she's being moronic as well.
Why are you insisting on 170 grand?
If you've got 165 grand, then you'd be on less than him.
And you wouldn't notice it.
You're still going to be taking home way more than 10 grand a month.
So, come on, you greedy morons.
But they're like, no.
And you're not allowed to talk about it.
Okay.
Understood.
Evil.
Right.
But... The freebies are just a perennial issue where Keir Starmer is, again, not in any way apologetic.
I had to.
Idiot!
I had to take the freebies for my son, says Keir Starmer, because he says, quote, my boy is in the middle of his GCSEs.
I made him a promise, a promise that he would be able to get his school, do his exams without being disturbed, which meant I need to take 20 grand.
We have a lot of journalists outside our house where we live, and I'm not complaining about that, that's fine, but if you're 16 and you're trying to do your GCSEs, I promised him we would move somewhere, get out of the house and go somewhere where we would be peacefully studying, and so Lord Ali offered him the use of his $18 million penthouse, and so it's like, okay, but you could have gone almost anywhere, right?
Again, it didn't have to look so obviously corrupt.
So this is one of those things where almost everyone knows someone who has taken their GCSEs, right?
Yes.
Because everyone's taken their GCSEs.
Yes.
And so we know, we have personal experience as well as, you know, we know people who have gone through it.
They didn't need a multi-million pound penthouse.
I was locked away in my parents' dining room and just no one was allowed to come in.
That was enough.
Yeah.
They could watch TV in the other room, that's fine.
You're just reading your notes, so it's really not that much.
But anyway, so speaking of Lord Alley, now one thing that Labour have always been hammering is closing of tax loopholes, because of course the Labour Party, despite all of the apparent stupidity and corruption, are against that kind of thing.
Very amusingly, even Lord Alley is a moron, because he was like, oh yeah, no that's right, I have a massive stake In a firm that's based in the Virgin Islands that I don't pay tax on.
I'm gonna get £425,000 from that this year.
I forgot to declare it.
Whoopsie!
I'm just a moron.
It's like, God, what is wrong with you people?
Like, you are doing everything wrong.
Everything.
It's just...
Genuinely moronic.
He's a director of Mac BVI Limited, which is based in the British Virgin Islands, which was only added to his Register of Interest when he was contacted by Open Democracy to ask why it was missing.
He's like, yeah, whoopsie.
I'm just stupid.
It's like, yes.
The only reason it's going to be based out of there anyway, isn't it?
To avoid tax.
Of course.
Of course.
So they're going to... I mean, Keir Starmer has taken more gifts and donations than any other politician since 2019.
So it's just like, I can't believe you managed to outdo Boris, frankly.
Well done.
Boris was too busy making mini-Borises to get distracted with GIFs.
I guess he was.
But again, okay you're corrupt, okay you're communists, but do you have to be so dumb about it?
Do you have to make it so in our faces?
And I guess I shouldn't be complaining because this is good for us, but it's just like, I'm insulted that they're mogging us.
I think the ideology has progressed so much.
They're in the position where they just don't care.
They genuinely think that they don't have to answer to anyone, that they're not accountable.
They do think that, but I think there's something more, because I think the problem with ideology, and I think the Labour Party is entirely controlled by ideology, is that it's essentially programming for midwits, right?
So if you don't know anything about the subject and you're not very smart, you can just parrot the line and someone will say, okay, at least he's conformable, right?
He's in the in-club, he understands, he's going to do the doctrine, and so he can fail upwards, right?
And this is how David Lammy ended up as the Foreign Secretary, and we'll get to him in a minute, right?
So, anyway, so he's again being interviewed by the media and then he just gives the game away completely.
And this, I love this clip so much.
And Beth, I might just gently say, Sky invite us to quite a lot of hospitality events.
Your summer party is a great party costing thousands of pounds and you invite me every year.
Presumably you want politicians to continue to come and, you know, part of that is how politics works.
That, like, you're just giving the game away.
Yeah, look, we're all in it.
It's all a big slush.
We all invite each other to very expensive hospitality.
Why are you grilling me on this?
You do it as well.
I do it.
They do it.
Angela Rayner's at the Tories.
They say, yeah, it's all a big grift, isn't it?
And it's just like, you're on a TV interview.
You could have said that after the interview.
You could have said it before the interview.
But no, he's like, you know what?
No, I want everyone to know it's all a big grift and we're all in it together.
And we all go to the parties and they invite us.
This is how it works.
You fucking idiots.
Like, I'm glad you're doing it, but it's so stupid, right?
She looked so shocked as he was saying it.
I know, she's like, what are you doing?
It's interesting, he says now, I wasn't going to let my son fail, but before the elections, he said that he wouldn't somehow intervene into the NHS.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
He savoured an ailing relative.
Well, you've got to understand, every single person in England fails their GCSEs because they're not in £18 million penthouses, right?
Keir Starmer's son is going to be the only person who passes this year.
But anyway, even like regime comedians like Jonathan Pye are like, my god, how bad are the Labour Party?
I mean, he says here, you can't be in opposition for 14 years, criticising the Tories for accepting gifts and certain privileges, then act surprised when the public call you out for doing the same thing.
From Angela Rayner's but everyone does it excuse to Starmer saying it was the right thing to do.
Labour need to sort their ass out ASAP, because the honeymoon periods go, this has been an absolute car crash.
It's like, even Jonathan Pye, again, someone who's congenitally, intrinsically, morally, spiritually, the managerial Labour class voter, even he's just like, God, you guys are terrible.
So anyway, let's move on.
So you've got the Southport Riots, of course, which were almost universally in the Labour heartlands.
We have a map here, just to be clear about this.
So, you might think, hmm, The Labour voters, the Labour base, are really unhappy with what's going on.
How will I handle this?
Now Keir Starmer of course came out and just called them racists.
And this carried on at the Labour Party conference.
So, quote from Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, don't tell me that was a protest.
Don't tell me it was about immigration or policing or poverty.
It was racism, it was thuggery, it was crime.
That's right, yeah.
Call your core heartlands racist thugs and criminals.
Why not?
Why not do this?
How is this going to improve?
No, it's not going to improve.
You're going to make yourselves look like morons, you're going to make yourselves hated, and you're too stupid to understand that this is the consequence.
I mean, there are so many just small, stupid things that the Labour Party does.
I just can't get over it, and I realise I'm going on, but like, it's just constant.
For example, like, they're going to have a conference, let's have a conference, let's bring in all of the billionaires from around the world and get them to invest in the UK.
Good thinking!
So, what about the richest man in the world, who seems to be very pro-Britain, actually?
What are we going to do?
We're going to keep him out, because he said things about the Southport riots on Twitter.
And we don't like it.
And so we're not going to invite him.
So Keir Starmer has been beefing with Elon Musk.
Again, moron, moron.
What are you doing?
Why are you arguing with the richest and one of the most famous men in the world?
Why are you publicly doing this?
Because he will then say, well, actually, I'm not bothered about being shunned.
Quote, I don't think anyone should go to the UK when they're releasing convicted pedophiles in order to imprison people for social media posts, says Musk to 190 million people around the world.
And you're killing grannies?
Okay, well done, Keir.
But the thing is, as well, there's no way Keir Starmer can compete with Elon Musk.
He just needs to say, look, look at my, you know, space company.
Look at my electric vehicle company.
Look at all these other things I'm doing.
Neuralink, all of these companies.
And you're killing grannies.
Yeah.
And freeing pedophiles.
That's all he has left to a portion of his audience, though.
Because they're saying, okay, just he is against the rich.
So he makes this public.
Meanwhile, he invites others to come to the... He's against some of the rich and other of the rich, right?
So anyway, the BBC were like, well, hang on a second.
The BBC say, quote, earlier this month, the government released some prisoners to reduce prison overcrowding, but no sex offenders were included.
That was wrong.
Because the Labour Party are thick as pig ass, right?
So they decided to have this mass releasing of a couple of thousand prisoners, which of course the prisoners themselves were thrilled about.
Champagne corks.
One of them was like, yeah, I'm going to be a Labour voter for life now.
It's like, yeah, you look like you've got an IQ of about 90.
That's true.
You know, you're genuinely representative, right?
But no, they released 37 people who were wrongly tagged to be released.
One of them actually was a sex offender.
Five of them are still on the loose.
They managed to get 32 of them back.
This is like Chris Morris writing for Brass Eye.
Yes, it is!
It's just like, this is the one thing we didn't want to happen.
Yes, so yeah.
I mean, Elon's not wrong.
They released rapists and nonsense and stuff.
They did get 32 of them back.
Five of them are still on the loose.
So, best of luck to the general public, shall we say there.
And anyway, so that's...
Just catastrophe after catastrophe after catastrophe.
Stupid, unforced errors that didn't have to happen.
And then, of course, Keir Starmer says at the latest speech, well, the state needs to be in control.
It's going to take back control of people's lives.
What a horrifying thing for a politician to say!
Yeah!
Why would you say that?
Why would you say that unless you were a complete moron?
Even the dictators of the 20th century didn't say it that explicitly.
Well, no, that's not true.
Because he doesn't fear any repercussions.
I think it's because he's not smart enough to understand.
To be of a certain intelligence allows you to create a mental model of someone else's perspective, right?
So you can think, okay, what would this person think of this?
And you go, they probably wouldn't like that.
And so I won't do that, because they won't like it.
And so this is essentially the basis of all morality.
I don't think he's possible for this.
I don't think he's capable of creating a mental model of other people's thoughts.
And so I'd put him at about 95 IQ, probably, something like that.
But unironically, he wants the Labour government to take more control of people's lives, and take control of the market.
And Lisa Nandy was like, yeah, we want government walking with you everywhere you go.
God, just leave me alone, you freaks!
Anyway, we're not at the end.
David Lammy, of course, went to the United Nations and gave an amazing little speech towards Putin.
I think we may as well just watch it because it's incredible.
I also want to speak directly to the Kremlin and its representative here today.
And Vladimir Putin, Russia sits on this council, but its actions tear up the UN Charter.
Russia sits on this council, but over the weekend we saw it... This isn't actually... There was more to the speech.
I've got the wrong one.
I thought this was the one.
But basically he sits there and says, I'm a black man.
I think it goes on to say that later.
Is it in this one?
I think it might be, yeah.
Maybe it's in the lead-up to it.
Yeah, he basically said that he was his, he's a black person and he's... I'm a black man, I stand here before you today and it's like David... It's like David, I mean there are so many things wrong with what you're saying here.
One, you're sitting down, right?
You're not standing before them, right?
What you're doing is... I mean, he's literally sitting down, right?
So it's like you...
Absolute moron, right?
You're living through some sort of civil rights fanfiction in your head, right?
Because Russia never had an African empire, Russia has got 0% black people, Russia is not historically responsible for oppressing black people, so you getting up and going, I stand as a black man, the Russians are like, We know.
Why would we care?
Actually, Russia's the most ethnically diverse European country.
It unironically is.
And you could say, well, look, if you were a Chechen or something or whatever, you could be like, well, there's a case against Russian imperialism, blah, blah, blah.
But the Africans don't have that string to pull.
They've got that with every other.
So David has just gone, the Russians are white, aren't they?
I'm a black man.
No, no, moron.
It doesn't work on the Russians, you moron.
It works on the Americans.
It works on us.
It works on the French.
It doesn't work on the Russians.
You're an idiot!
But that is interesting because it shows the weirdness of critical race theory.
It's just an Americanism.
Everything that happens in the world is interpreted through lenses of critical race theory.
Absolutely.
And it is an embarrassment.
It's just like... Because the thing is, he's not wrong that Russia's a mafia state and he wants to become a mafia emperor.
Yeah, okay, yeah, sure.
But I mean, you know, in this he's going on about, oh, I can't believe you're invading places.
Yeah.
We'd never do that.
You know?
What about Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan?
What about Palestine?
You know?
God.
You know?
So you make us look ridiculous through your hypocrisy.
You are a moron.
Absolute moron.
Right?
And what's worse, is that Keir Starmer decided to go over to Biden and was like, look, can we just start striking Russia?
And Biden was like, no, that would be moronic, wouldn't it?
Like, because, but Putin's literally come out and say, well, I mean, we've got loads of nuclear weapons.
So, you know, so we, we are actually, we have a warmongering, retarded cabinet who keep doing really stupid things.
And even the Guardian are like, God, Keir, would you stop?
Imagine being at the Security Council and saying, I know what it is.
I'm standing against Putin.
I know what it is to not be allowed to enter, to enter the toilet of my gender or something.
Yeah, but that's where Lammy's at, where he's like, I'm a black man.
And they're like, and Keir Starmer as well, got up in front of the UN Council and was like, I can't believe Russia would show their face here.
It's like, Keir, they're not liberals.
Like, they don't have your morality.
They don't agree with you.
You're, like, you know, angrily, like, giving them the side-eye across the thing, like Lammy did.
And it's just, like, you're an embarrassment.
You have no dignity.
You're moronic.
And they're all looking around at you.
They're all looking.
It's like, God, is this what the UK is run by?
It's like, yes, we're literally, we're a more unoccupied country.
And unfortunately, we sent David Lammy as our representative.
We sent Keir Starmer over to America.
To get rebuffed by Biden, of all people, about, like, launching missiles at Russia.
It's like, God, we're so stupid.
Next Secretary of Foreign Affairs will be able to say, sorry, I know the tragedy of looking at skid marks on a pride mural.
So, we are just occupied by morons, and it infuriates me.
There are a lot of superchats on that subject, which is interesting.
Keith says, at this point I'm starting to think Keir Starmer is a ployed screw over Labour, like some kind of plant.
How else can he do everything incredibly wrong to an inconceivable level?
Honestly, it's a brilliant question.
If I thought that the Labour Party were capable of planning ahead like that, I might suspect the same thing, but I just don't think they've got it in them.
Binary says, based on performance to date, Keir is the type of man who, when he comes to a woman in a dark alley, would say, that's your position.
I'm not going to read the rest of that.
Jam says, I find it funny that we were told to stay home during COVID to save Granny so Labour could freeze him to death now.
Well, remember, the lockdowns were the Conservative policy.
Keir Starmer would have been like, well, bring about maid, you know, will forcibly get rid of them.
And GLE says, Kier the meathead, when beefing with Elon Musk can always fall back on the look at my sausage.
Well, he does want them returned, doesn't he?
Right.
So, a few days ago, Millay and Bukele spoke at the 79th UN General Assembly, and they literally rocked the UN.
See, world leaders are not embarrassing.
Exactly.
They literally rocked it.
They're throwing rocks at you.
That's what David Lammy was doing.
Yes, and I think it's a good idea to have a discussion a bit about some of the points they raised to show the contrast between their own examples and the politicians we have now.
Because the way it seems to me, it is like Governments in the West right now, they are not fulfilling their basic duties.
People are feeling resentful because the governments are not fulfilling their basic duties and the reaction of the government isn't to recalibrate the system and shift the direction.
No, it's to raise our taxes.
It's to raise the taxes, basically try to destroy national sovereignty, flood the country with people who frequently don't care about the country.
Largely criminals.
Yeah.
Oh yeah, releasing the criminals, forgot about that.
Yes, and I think that it's a good idea to talk a bit about what they represent, at least in most people's minds.
They're far from perfect, but they literally have an allure that I think we should discuss.
Oh yeah.
Right, but before we say more about this, we have Islander Magazine number two, issue number two.
You can visit our website here and also check out our featured products.
We have t-shirts, mugs, And we have also some really interesting contributions here.
We have a poem by Josh Firm.
Oh, don't tell them that.
They won't buy it then.
We have Roy Ignatianalist.
We have Stephen Molyneux, Dave Green.
Also we have... Dave Green one's particularly good.
He's a very lyric writer.
And so it's just a pleasure to read his work.
Yeah, so definitely check this out.
Right, let's go now to the speech that Millet gave.
And I think that it's interesting to see some of the things that he did with the speech.
We have a speech that is translated into English.
What was he used to call the leftists?
Like, what was the term he used?
There are a few.
But like, they're always really offensive.
They were Freddy-like, they were like excrement.
Yeah, yeah, something like that, yeah.
Yeah, that you can't give them a millimeter or something.
Yeah, yeah, that's it.
Right, so what he did here, he did several things.
So first of all, it seems like he tries to gain a more positive view and he says with a speech that Argentina is not going to have the neutral face it had so far and it's going to be pro-freedom and pro the forces of freedom.
It's going to be very similar to his speech at the WEF then.
Which was great.
His speech at the WEF is great.
Here he is criticized by several sides but I think that to a very large degree this is a bit far-fetched because it's one thing to express support for someone who says okay let's destroy the corrupt system and everyone who doesn't want this.
Only the beneficiaries.
All of the beneficiaries of corrupt systems.
But when... That's Lavon Delenski.
Sorry, there are actually a really large number of people who don't want to destroy the corrupt system.
I think maybe we can fit them into the category of beneficiaries of corrupt systems.
Delenski.
I know, I just couldn't name them.
That's all.
I think we could be here until tomorrow if you possibly... Joe Biden.
Now that's what's gonna happen in this segment.
I'm just gonna start talking about this segment and then you're gonna just mention names here.
I think listing people who are in favor of the corrupt system is a good thing.
I think naming them is good.
Bill Gates.
Making lists.
Checking them twice.
Right, so basically...
This can get it forever, couldn't it?
Go on, sorry, go on.
I'll let you carry on.
Right, so basically he said that Argentina now is not going to be neutral.
It is going to be in the side of the forces of freedom.
And I want to show you some of the bits here.
We'll fast forward to 3.30.
Let me... because he essentially says that the UN had some good ideas, some good things to go about it in the beginning, but it forgot its principles.
So it's said that at some point, like in the history of every bureaucratic organisation, at some point good ideas are being abused and exactly are taken over by communists.
I thought he was meant to be a libertarian.
Shouldn't he say that supranational governments are immoral, evil and destroying the world?
He says this.
The thing is, he's kind of on the sort of Thomas Paine position when it comes to all of this sort of stuff.
Thomas Paine was actually kind of in favour of a League of Nations in Europe to prevent war.
But he was also insanely anti-government.
So he just blamed the government for just everything.
So I know you're reading now about Thomas Paine and he does refer to the idea of inalienable rights.
That's why I think this... He's very similar to Thomas Paine.
This segment is very rich in discussion and maybe we could just say some stuff.
So he essentially says that basically at some point he turned into a supranationalist socialist government.
And I know that you think that sometimes that this is an inevitable conclusion of some ideas.
Not even sometimes.
Okay, maybe we could revive this.
Now at some point, and as often happens with most of the bureaucratic structures that we humans create, this organization stopped upholding the principles outlined in its founding declaration and began to mutate an organization that had been conceived essentially as a shield to protect the realm of men, transformed into a multi-tentacled Leviathan that seeks to decide not only what each nation-state should do, but also how all the citizens of the world should live.
This is how we went from an organization that pursued peace to an organization that imposes an ideological agenda on its members regarding a myriad of issues that pertain to human life in society.
Okay.
The problem is the very principle it was founded on was an ideological agenda that was imposing itself on various other nations...
America.
Sorry.
Saw fright.
Ignore that, America.
I don't know where that came from.
And I'm not saying that the ideology is bad, but it is ideological.
And so once you've agreed, no, we have the authority to impose an ideological agenda on someone.
Someone else is going to come along and say, well, I've got a different ideological agenda, or maybe an extension of your ideological agenda.
And I'm just as authorized by the same authority you claim for yourself to do it.
So, I think it's interesting because when we're talking about ideology, in a sense everyone has an ideology.
It's unavoidable, yeah.
Because it seems to me that an ideology is a system of ideas.
It's a way of comprehending the world.
I think that's far too broad.
I think it's impossible not to be ideological and the only way you can't be ideological is if you're like brain dead in like a coma on a like you've got no thoughts going through your head and you're just a vessel.
The thing is I think that the people who propagate ideology would like you to think that.
Yeah, no, you're right.
Our way of thinking isn't any way of thinking.
But an ideology strictly can be defined as a propositional set of ideas that come from a priori principles.
Most of the world isn't like that.
But there is another thing here, because it seems to me that there is something going for... we can say something positive about the idea of a priori principles, but we can go to that a bit... Sure, but they're not necessarily... the difference between having a set of a priori values or principles and the logical propositional nature of an ideology is that having a set of values doesn't demand universal change.
It's about you personally valuing something and looking around.
But when you begin from the position that he's begun on, and from any of the liberals have begun on, the ideological position gives you a mandate to attack all that came before.
I think this is a feature of basically everyone's thought, because everyone who... and if there is one ideology that is least susceptible to it, I think this is Malay's, because if we can talk about ideology in the abstract as, you know, systems of proposition, but it's good to see them concretely, like with cultures.
So we could say that, for instance, the ideology that Malay is for is one that is the ideology of limited government.
Sure.
And he contrasts this with the ideology of ever-expanding government.
Sure, but they're just having a discussion on the same topic, right?
Most people don't have a comprehensive propositional worldview.
So most people aren't actually ideological.
When you're walking down the street, very few of those people, because the point of an ideology is that it begins in theory.
So someone theoretically writes down, and so you have an author that is the person behind the ideology, which is why when they say, oh, it's far-right ideology, it's like, OK, well, who's behind it?
Give us the name of the author.
Give us the principles that the ideology works by.
Give us the intended outcome.
There's no answer to any of this, because it's not ideological.
So in theory, that's probably the most confusing way I could start this, but ideology, as you're framing it here, is someone's understanding of the world and it may or may not map onto the world.
That there's an objective reality and this is their subjective understanding of it.
No, no, no.
The thing is, if you look at the origin of ideology, it became very quickly an almost kind of alchemical
uh intellectual exercise where they established a set of rational principles that they would themselves use as foundational propositions and then compare the world them to the world and say well hang on a second the world doesn't resemble this at all so they've essentially made themselves up a little fancy about how they'd like the world to be and then they've applied that standard to the world and found the world completely lacking because of course the world is not made up from ideology the world is made up from people just interacting or mostly unthinkingly
And this renders all of the world completely unfree.
I mean, Thomas Paine is, in fact, completely guilty of this, saying, look, America is the only free country in the entire world.
And Burke's like, what?
I thought I lived in a free country.
What the hell happened?
And Burke's just sat there going, no, but I do live in a free country.
What are you talking about?
And Paine's like, no, because you've got a king.
And a king is an inherently tyrannical institution, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And it's like, OK, so you've made up a standard.
And you're applying it to the rest of the world.
And the only reason that Malay doesn't sound like a raging ideologue himself is because we live long after that revolution.
All of the things that Malay's ideology was trying to get rid of have already been gotten rid of.
And so we live in the post-liberal world.
So what Malay is saying is completely rational to us because it makes sense and, you know, it's all around us.
And the socialists are just saying, well, yeah, but we're supposed to go further.
And that's why we are resistant.
To sort of flesh this out a bit more, if I were to say, well, I don't believe in murdering people, but murders go on, would you say that's an ideological statement?
No?
That's a value statement.
But do your values not inform your projection for what an ideal world would be?
Sure.
But most people don't have a utopian view of what the world should be like in their head, right?
The thing is, though, the difference is that having a value statement is, I like something.
I feel that it should be good.
You're entirely sentimental.
It's non-rational.
A lot of the time.
It's completely gut... I've been habituated into believing these things.
But the difference ideology is that they're rational propositions that logically have conclusions that follow from them, right?
So you have to have a conclusion drawn from premise.
And this is...
It has a force within it and so it goes on a certain sort of set of rails that it sets for itself and it needs to keep going down those rails.
This is the problem with ideology.
This is why ideology spins out of control.
But question here because it seems to me that from a realistic perspective this may be a bit naive to think that we can live in a world where power and ideology don't combine.
So, if they are to combine, why shouldn't we just pick the one that is the least bad, let's say?
The one that has been connected with, let's say, economic growth, with more freedom, and with less, let's say, negative aspects.
Without saying that this is a panacea, a cure-for-all.
There's only one ideology.
Mine.
No, it's...
Enlightenment liberalism.
That's the only ideology.
It's not a law.
I mean, Marxism is an ideology.
No, it's not.
Yeah, but it's not separate.
It is.
No, it's not.
It's entirely based, it's a different stage of it, but it's entirely based on the same concept.
Because the very notion of ideology comes from, what's his name, it's some very fancy, gay-sounding French name, Anton de Tracy or something, I think it was, who wrote Elements of Ideology.
It was meant to be a science of ideas, and Marx picks this up in the German Ideology.
And then in the 20th century, by the end of the 19th century, it's become a kind of very normal thing to have ideologies.
And by the 20th century, it's just the century of ideology.
But they all come from the same river, right?
They're just sort of different streams that are coming off of it.
So really, ideology is one thing and it's the rational propositions that logically follow from a certain set of assumptions.
I think this has some sort of origins in Hobbes because he wanted to...
He wanted to view politics as a science, and he wanted to have the basic premises from which everything else followed, and he built his science of politics, however one likes it or not.
But something to say here is that it seems to me that if we are to have power, and I think that's...
There was power before there was ideology.
seems to me that what ideology there was power before there was ideology it's it's not that there can't be it's not there can't be dogmas i think it changed it changed position because you could say that even power in in previous centuries and even in antiquity there was a kind of narrative that tried to justify power so for instance you could say that that's true
there's always narratives to justify power but ideology is something particular and special because of the roots that it relies on it relies on something being rationally justifiable whereas most of the time whatever the narrative to justify power was was just totally irrational god made it so you know or i I won the battle, therefore.
But wouldn't that be better if it's rationally justifiable?
I don't want to transition my kids.
Excuse me?
The end consequence of that is transitioning your kids.
I'd rather be burning heretics at the stake.
I mean, that was a completely new phenomenon now.
Yeah, but it's all part of the same process.
So, let's go here.
It seems to me that this is an interesting question to ask.
Whether you think that, for instance, the UN 2030 agenda... So, what Millais is saying, basically, that this is a sapra-national socialist agenda?
Obviously true.
And what is interesting now, because there are debates and controversies now, is whether this is the logical conclusion of an ideology like the one Malay is embracing or not.
I think it's not.
And actually, I think the reason why is because the bedrock of what Malay is supporting is the idea of the rule of law.
And it's not a coincidence that in order to pursue the 2030 agenda, wokeness, is precisely an attack on the rule of law.
No, Keir Starmer is 100% behind the rule of law.
Not at all!
He's going to define the law to tell you who's in favor.
Yeah, but that's not what the rule of law is about.
The rule of law is As it was conceived, it was precisely something that was against arbitrariness.
Kiyostama comes along and says, I have subjectivized legislation so much as wokeness, and now I'm at the position where I'm arbitrarily governing.
The country, I'm doing anything I want, I'm not accountable to anyone.
Hang on, hang on.
Keir Starmer literally came in and said, he hasn't written a single law yet, he hasn't passed a single law.
He said all the laws are here for me to do exactly what I want.
He is using the established laws that the conservatives put into place to do all of this.
So he's not governing arbitrarily, it's totally legal, everything that he's doing, and I don't think there'll be any legal challenges to anything that he's doing.
But how is non-arbitrary governance when people are just put in jail for social media posts?
Yeah, but that's illegal.
That's illegal according to what law?
The harms law?
No, the section 127 of the Communications Act.
Okay, but doesn't this have to do sometimes with the notion of psychological harm?
Sure, but there's also kind of a... That's how it became arbitrary.
Well, I don't know if that's necessarily arbitrary.
Because again, it's not on a whim.
It is with law.
It's all there.
Everyone can read the law.
It's not arbitrary.
It's just evil.
I think it's a product of just what I would call bad law.
When you write subjectivity into laws, it enables tyranny, doesn't it?
It's not that.
The problem is the laws themselves are political, right?
The law has a political intention, and the intention is to make sure that no one's ever a racist, right?
And it's like, okay, but that's a political act.
And so, like, when Macron was like, oh, well, you know, we're not gonna be locking anyone up.
It's all gonna be done by the law.
It's like, the law is made by politicians.
So on the subjective point that I made, I think the best example of that is the Chinese Communist Party in that they have laws which they enforce selectively upon their political enemies and they don't enforce them on their friends.
Just like the Labour Party.
Yes, exactly.
However, they write this into the legislation because it gives them a sort of formal cloak to be able to do basically what they want, which is target people politically, but it's also written into the legislation.
But the thing is, even if the legislation was actually good legislation and enforced fairly, it would still be a valid charge to say that this law is a political law.
Sure.
You've got a political intention behind the law.
And so, essentially, anyone will always be able to say, I think that law was designed to target me politically rather than morally or from a consent of justice.
That's its sort of intention, but I was sort of talking more about how it comes about, how it manifests.
But the point being, the appeal to laws as being objective or neutral is, and the postmodernists are right about this, not true.
I agree with that, yeah.
One point to say is that it seems to me that the tradition of the rule of law doesn't just say that we should govern according to just any law that exists.
No, it should be our law.
It's opposition to arbitrariness and people could put forward laws that allow Extra room for arbitrary interpretation of them and therefore coercion according to them.
So for instance if people just voted the law and said we need to give absolute power to people who are going to combat anti-racism... Which is what they've done.
Yeah, that's arbitrariness.
That's no rule of law.
Because it goes against the spirit of the rule of law.
See, I don't know if I agree with this.
I think the problem is you have abstracted the concept of the rule of law outside of any context, right?
No, but you have.
But you're just talking about the rule of law as if somewhere in existence, in Plato's forms, there's a form of the rule of law that you're appealing to, right?
That normally makes sense, because normally you don't have a critical theory undermining absolutely everything.
If we would say, ground it, specifically in a place and a time and a people, and say, this is against the English conception of the rule of law, then you'd be like, oh yeah, very much so, obviously.
You know, obviously we shouldn't be persecuting Englishmen for the things that they say because they didn't, you know, they said something racist or sexist or transphobic online.
When it's abstracted away from that context, once you put it in the context, you've got a standard by which to compare it, right?
Yeah, you know, you could say, well, it's kind of rough, actually.
The traditional English conception of the rule of law was that actually an Englishman could say whatever he liked, and this was set during, like, the English Civil War, you know, this legal precedent.
So it's rough and ready, you know, there are going to be a lot of hurt feelings, but that's the English conception of liberty.
But the thing is, that's not a conception of liberty that actually is more popular at the moment.
I agree with you.
I agree with you on this.
I think it is mostly the English conception of liberty and I think that it has some, you could say, some ancient Hellenic and Roman elements, but there's a lot of into it that is distinctively English.
I don't think that relativism is the way to go.
I think it's objectively a better conception of liberty.
I personally agree, but that would just be your own prejudice.
I'm not prejudiced.
I'm objective.
It's fine to have a prejudice in favour of the English conception of liberty.
I've got that prejudice, but we know that there are loads of people who don't have that prejudice.
And so, you know, when we're trying to persuade them, really all we can do is say, well, look, I just feel this one is better.
And they'll say, yeah, OK, I feel this other one is better.
Well, also, certain people have to be compatible with the laws.
Like, we can't just pick up English liberalism, drop it on Iraq, and it work as intended.
Drop it on France?
It didn't work there, you know?
Should we go to Bukele to end the segment?
Because he says something really interesting.
I'll fast forward to 0.50 and I'll translate for... I won't translate, I'll read the thing because I don't know.
I'll have the volume off and I'll tell you what he says.
He's essentially saying the leaders of the West have turned their back on their citizens.
Which is true.
That people in El Salvador now feel secure and optimistic, whereas in the West they feel insecure and pessimistic.
I love what he's wearing.
I was just about to say, he looks like a sort of galactic emperor from Star Wars or something like that, doesn't he?
He looks like Dune or something.
But what is interesting?
Because the video is unloading, it's okay, but I'll tell you in a nutshell what he said.
But he said that countries of the free world, they became great because they adhered to the principles of free speech, trade, freedom, rule of law and stuff, and now they've turned their back on them.
And both Millet and Bukele, they essentially said, we're not telling you how to live, but we are telling you Where the road you're leading yourselves to... South America has been through what we're going through right now.
They've been so corrupted by leftism that for the last literally 50 years like they've been down this road and now they're coming out with really strong leaders.
Well they're very similar to the sort of former Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe aren't they?
In that they've experienced left-wing politics and that's made them very resistant to it.
But I'll say something that I think we will all agree on about what he says, because he says we're prioritizing our honest citizens over the comfort of our criminals.
Crazy.
And I think, yeah, this is, I mean, whoa, Stelios, what's that radical idea?
Just obvious common sense.
But what is interesting is that this shows a lot of how the notion of human rights is completely misused nowadays, because Adults know that we have to make a choice sometimes.
We can't have it all.
So when it comes to cases like that, we have to make a choice.
And choices require a hierarchy of values.
So when people are right now protecting the criminals, And they make our societies worse.
They're actually either destroying their very idea of hierarchical values or subverting them and actively turning their back to their citizens and prioritized criminals.
And as Bukele says at some point in his speech, you can't expect to be respected from your people if you don't respect your people.
And if you just look at the approval ratings of, say, Keir Starmer in Britain and Bacali in El Salvador, Bacali's like on 90% consistently, Keir Starmer's on 25%.
Well, El Salvador probably has a lower crime rate now than Britain.
It's not even probable, we know it does.
Oh really?
Oh yeah!
Should we go to the comments?
Oh yeah.
Cranky Texan says, to quote a great philosopher of our time, ideology is a political program for midwits.
Hey, that's me!
Let's carry on because we're running short on time.
Okay.
Um, I thought we're going to read some more comments.
Well, if you, if you send in a dollar soup chat and we're running late, which we are running late, I'm sorry.
Yeah.
$5 plus, I'm afraid.
Yeah.
I've just made that up.
I've made that up arbitrarily just to spite Carl.
There's no rule of law.
No, but that's Stelios.
I agree.
It's arbitrariness all the way down.
Oh yeah.
Sorry, Stelios.
Anyway.
Um, I need the stuff, don't I?
Of course.
I've got two boxes and there's a mouse.
Hang on.
Right, there we go.
Sorry about that.
Getting too excited about presenting my segment.
So, the English, do we exist?
Are we real?
We're getting decolonized out of our own universe.
So let's just poke me.
Yeah, but if we don't exist, what are they decolonizing in Oxford?
Exactly.
And who are they going to blame?
Yeah, exactly.
They'll find other people to blame, but they are also blaming them.
Oh, this is my favorite thing.
Diversity built Britain.
Oh, right.
So is it responsible for the empire?
No, that's the white people.
Oh, okay.
Also, it didn't build Britain.
No, of course not.
But it's their own premise, you know.
You know, post-World War II, even if it did build Britain, it's a worse version of Britain, so well done.
Britain was a great empire right up until the end of World War II.
Diversity ruined Britain, even by their own standards.
But anyway, recently Robert Jenrick went on Sky News and spoke to Matt Barbet, whoever that is, I think he's some Welsh fella, And he's obviously a conservative leadership hopeful and this guy Interrupted him saying I'm gonna interrupt you.
What is English identity?
which is a very strange question to ask and I As it has been pointed out by one of the lead writers at the Telegraph here, if you recognise the idea of a distinctly Scottish, Welsh and Irish identity, which the guy interviewing did, then you implicitly concede the existence of an English identity as the remainder.
It's not particularly controversial outside of the small circle of people who work in media and politics.
I thought that this was quite succinctly put and I wanted to give credit where credit is due here.
It's not a good answer.
It's not far enough, though.
I am going to build upon this.
It's basically saying that even by his own standards, it's wrong.
But I'm going to completely move out of the paradigm.
Stop being a stick in the mud.
I'm going to move out of this paradigm and say being English is genetic.
None of this other stuff about values, passport... That's not what he asked.
He didn't say, what is it to be English?
Because you are right.
That is the case, right?
What he asked is, what is English identity?
But it's ballooned into the... It did, but that's because everyone misread what he was asking for, right?
The answer to this is it's the felt experience of one's own ethnic identity in the context of the English people, right?
I don't, from, because the problem is, as soon as, because everyone else is taking an outside view of this, right?
And going, okay, well, it's cricket, it's, you know, playing on the green, it's tea and crumpets, and they can pick all of these things apart.
But when you say no, it's the subjective felt experience of being English, that the English people themselves feel.
You don't have to justify or validate that in any other way.
And that's what this guy's trying to, Like, from the external perspective, zero in on, but it's just easier to begin in the inside and say this is what it is in the same way that the Scottish, the Welsh and the Irish and every other identity.
That's what an ethnic identity is and there's just no further conversation to be had at that point.
No, I mean, I agree with what you're saying there.
I was getting to it, yeah.
But it's just, because I watched everyone responding to this and I was just like, just say it's the way we feel about being English.
And they'll be like, okay, what do you mean, what do I mean?
You know, that's the same as anyone else and we don't need to justify it.
But that's also something that only someone who is ethnically English can do.
That's correct.
There we go.
And now, but notice where you are there, I don't have to justify myself any further and you can't disprove me.
Yep.
Right, there's no standard by which you can disprove and it means that any English person who feels English can express their Englishness in the way that they like and I'm taking all of this from the critical race theorists.
So they set the standards!
If you're not suffering from an identity crisis, buy our magazine Islander because it will stave away this sort of thing because it's got lots of good things in it and you can go on our website and you can find a link to our shop where you can buy both the magazine and the corresponding merch, you know, mugs and t-shirts.
For only a couple of weeks now, it'll remain and then you'll miss it forever.
But this kind of subjective understanding of identity is a part of what Islander is about.
There's a through line through the whole thing.
That is essentially ground ourselves in what we are and how we are.
And these things therefore flow from it.
We don't have to constantly be on the defensive.
And that's the kind of principle that underpins it.
It's basically what my poem is at the end.
Exactly.
Exactly.
That's exactly my point.
So definitely go and get it.
Honestly, we're so on the money with all of this stuff.
That's the thing.
We're so far ahead of the curve.
I love it.
So let's annoy ourselves and look at some stupid people.
Oh!
Adam Ray, my favourite.
Yeah, so, Robert Jenrick thinks English identity is under threat.
Our language is Germanic, our numbers are Arabic and Indian, our patron saint is Palestinian, our royal family has German ancestry, and the church originates from the Middle East.
I mean, apart from that.
Right, so this is exactly what I was talking about.
He's taken a load of external characteristics and said, well, there we go.
But it's, again, very much like the baking the cake.
Well, my ingredients all come from the cupboard.
The sugar came from there.
The water came from the tap.
And therefore, I don't have a cake.
It's like, no, I have a cake.
I'm about to eat it.
Just because I can identify the ingredients doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist.
And even then, the English identity is a felt experience by the people who hold it.
Not that I'd expect Adel Ray to understand that, because he's not English.
Well, it's similar, like, English identity is very similar, in my mind at least, to things like beauty or these sorts of metaphysical concepts.
I know it when I see it.
I don't need to have a checklist of criteria and run for it like a robot.
I can just tell.
No, that's true.
Because it's sort of baked into me.
Yes.
I have a question here because it seems to me that the felt experience aspect isn't particularly important in it because it seems to me that there are Greek people who don't feel Greek, if you ask them, and there are English people that don't feel English, if you ask them.
But whenever I go to Greece, man, everyone's very Greek.
Yes, exactly.
So what I'm saying is that maybe the felt experience bit of it isn't the way to go about it.
So I would view it more as a combination between biological and cultural.
It's not only one thing.
Yeah.
As you're saying.
But when they say, what is English identity?
Well, that English identity is not, what are all the characteristics of being English?
What it is, is what is the identity?
And the identity is how English people feel about themselves.
Like in the same way as like, what's Greek identity?
What's how Greeks feel about their Greekness, right?
And then you can add characteristics onto it.
But that's the sort of core foundation that can't actually be chipped away from because you get no say in whether I feel English or not.
There's a very uncontroversial way of explaining it, actually, saying, well, a shark, biologically, is this thing.
This is the category.
Here's how it behaves.
Here's where it resides.
Here is how it differs from other animals that are similar to it.
You can do it outside of the human sphere as well.
But that's... I mean, like, if English identity... What do you mean, our language is Germanic?
What's a Germanic language?
Oh, it's exactly the same problem.
He's just kicking the ball further down the road.
Okay, what's an Arab?
What's an Indian?
Many languages are Indo-European.
Doesn't mean that... Well, that's the point.
Not only Indo-European... He'd say, well, it's something from Germany.
But that's an Indo-European language, so it didn't come from Germany.
So we know it came from the Asian steppes.
All he's doing is kicking the ball further down the road in order to just get around the fact that you are an Englishman.
There's also another example whereby there was this MP, was his name Sion Simon or something like that, I don't even want to pronounce it correctly, but he denied that the English exist as an ethnicity and this is the route we are going down now, is that not only are they denigrating English culture, they're also denying We are a distinct ethnicity, which is a bit absurd, really.
And there have already been attempts, we've actually discussed before, trying to decolonize the term Anglo-Saxon, right?
And arguing that using the term Anglo-Saxon is somehow, I don't know, racist or nationalist or white supremacist in some way, rather than using it as a descriptor of the cultural aspects.
It's not even Ethnically true.
They have an ethnic imprint, the Anglo-Saxons, but it's not necessarily the majority for most Bretonic people.
You know what's interesting is that they, we know the words they used to use to describe themselves, like Bede used the word Engelson, I think it is, which means essentially English nation.
Yes, that's part of the reason I have a copy of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People.
Written in the 8th century.
It was, yes.
Before England was even a united kingdom.
Mm-hmm.
That is how old it is.
It is, you know, over a thousand years old.
It's ridiculous to deny it is its own distinct ethnicity.
We have characterized ourselves as such for such a long time.
You know, I don't necessarily, you know, lean towards the Anglo-Saxon label, although I identify with it in the cultural sense.
I see myself as more culturally Anglo-Saxon, but genetically I'm very Bretonic.
That's fine.
The Anglo-Saxons are 30% Germanic and 70% Celtic.
By the end of the Anglo-Saxon era, by the 11th century.
I meant every modern English person.
It's about 30% Anglo-Saxon.
Well it stayed the same over that period of time.
the sort of end of the anglo-saxon era sort of by the 11th century but like i meant modern every modern oh yeah sorry yeah it's about 30 anglo well it stayed the same over that period of time yeah for a thousand years exactly so the the the ethnogenesis of the english people by about the 11th century was pretty much set in stone from that point Exactly.
It's been the same way ever since.
Because the Normans didn't really leave much of a genetic imprint, a very slight one.
Same with the Romans in fact.
Romans left virtually none.
That's because we killed them all.
Well they left.
They left and we genocided them a little bit.
We did a little bit of genocide.
Boudicca went through and killed a Roman.
Oh, that wasn't a genocide.
That was actually a really pathetic failed revolt.
She managed to destroy one town.
That wasn't a genocide.
The Romans just left.
Well, they got the message, didn't they?
Well, no.
No.
It's okay.
They were here for 400 years and the Empire started collapsing and they were like, look to your own defences.
And the British were like, no, you're not allowed to do that.
And they were like, yeah, we're off.
And they left.
I'm being silly anyway, so.
Another example here.
Here's Michael Rosen.
Generic mentions history.
It follows that For English identity to be a thing there would need to be a distinct separate thing called English history that's different from Scots history, Welsh history, Northern Irish history and different from but a part of British history.
But there is!
Have you read a book, Michael?
I know you like poetry.
I'm not going to get into theories of history here, but that's obviously true.
You can obviously say that there is an English history.
But also, no country exists outside of external influence, does it?
No, of course not.
Of course it's intertwined with Scottish history and Welsh history because we're next door to each other.
The very nature of the question of history, and this Francis Fukuyama issue, it means Ethnic groups and events between them, that's essentially what history means.
So all of history is essentially ethnic history.
And this is what the end of history is meant to bring about, where it's just the reign of the individual, so there isn't the mass movements of national events anymore.
That's literally what the end of history is meant to mean.
So all of history is ethnic history.
I don't disagree.
Am I wrong, Stelios?
I don't think so.
I don't think I'm wrong either.
It's a side of human affairs that is irreducible.
Yeah, exactly.
It's part of it.
So like Michael Rosen here being like, well, there'd have to be a separate thing called Scottish history.
There is Scottish history, wouldn't you agree?
Yeah, of course there is.
I really don't understand this.
This is just a silly argument, isn't it?
Very silly argument.
And Conor's also pointed out in one of his Twitter essays, but I'm going to go to the screenshot here, David Lammy, if anyone needs to integrate, it's the far right, which obviously he's on about the native English more than anyone.
The rights were only in England.
And they're trying to frame it as if the native English needs to integrate with our schemes, basically, which is ridiculous.
No, we don't.
It's our country.
You need to integrate with us actually, mate.
And a multiculturalist who is against integration is saying that some people have to integrate.
Yes.
Just double standards.
Don't want to derail the segment.
And also... Oh, sorry.
Sorry, no.
Far-right just means English in this context.
It does.
It's the English.
If anybody says integrate, it's the English.
Makes far more sense.
It does, doesn't it?
Far-right, whatever that is.
Rioters long for a Britain that never existed, says Trover Phillips as well.
It did exist.
I lived through it.
Yeah, it still does as long as I'm still alive.
As long as the English people are still on this island, you know, England still exists.
Although he's on about Britain, but what he means is England.
Obviously.
Because it's not Scotland and Wales that he's complaining about, is it?
Or Northern Ireland.
But anyway, here's another one.
It's quite hard for 84% of the population to be the remainder.
One reason why there is no distinct English British slash British identity and why Generic could not answer is the average British person is English.
That's just math.
So this argument is basically just saying that English culture is so dominant that it's taken over The whole idea of being British in the first place, which is a reasonable point.
He then goes on to be annoying because he's a former Guardian writer.
Is he?
Yeah.
So I believe it's in his replies, it's a question of shared beliefs, histories and traditions.
And it's frankly just impossible for the huge country in the metaphorical and literal centre of the country that produced Shakespeare, The Beatles and hosts.
I understand the argument he's making.
That's totally true.
He's right about this.
about the actual cultural aspect and lots of sort of our people went after him for this and I thought it was one of the least egregious examples but he's missing out the ethnic component however the cultural stuff it seems to be correct that yes because in England is the bigger country Its culture has infringed, of course, infringed on that of Wales and Scotland.
And we're noticing the same in sort of reverse with America and its relation with the British Isles as well.
And the American culture, because it's a larger country, is influencing our way of life to the point where people are using Americanisms in our daily life that infuriates me personally.
I mean, if you're American, that's perfectly fine.
I'm not having a go at you.
But if you're British, you should be ashamed of yourself.
And this is actually quite a commonly held view because we see ourselves as distinct because we've got to have pride in who we are.
Here's another one as well, and this is, I believe, who was this again?
Rakiba San, arguing that, "...Generic is right to call out the metropolitan disdain for Englishness.
The deep cultural roots of England are nothing to be ashamed of.
There is no contradiction between celebrating English history and being welcoming to newcomers." Yes there is, because the newcomers are the ones that are undermining it in the first place.
Well, hang on, it depends on the paradigm that you're operating under.
So if you're operating under what I'm just going to call the sort of tribal English paradigm, Where, okay, a foreigner can come in and, you know, join the tribe, come and sit at the... engage in the rituals, marry, and have descendants.
That's totally fine.
If you're going to come to the pubs with us, then people will happily accept you, and there's not a problem.
Because English culture is the dominant paradigm, and the English people, of course, Well, it angers me when other European countries have this done to them as well.
Yeah, me too.
I hate it.
Stelios was pointing out.
I mean like like Stelios being here right now, right?
Like you know, he's there's no contradiction with him being Greek and being like yeah the English need to set their identity up and sort it out.
I'd be the same if I was in Greece, you know I'd be a massive Greek patriot.
Well it angers me when other European countries have this done to them as well.
Yeah me too.
I hate it and just any other country really, but there's no contradiction there.
It's whether you're setting up a colony of your own culture or you're integrating and joining into the culture that you've come into.
And so in the multi-culti paradigm, they're like, no, colonies.
It's like, okay, well that's bad and it has to stop.
So Rakeem here, I do agree with him.
I think he's correct.
Okay, so I tweeted out this in response to some of this stuff, just emphasising the genetic point that you can't convert and become English, you are born into it, it's not a passport or a set of values.
You should see the number of leftists saying this is made up nonsense Scientific revisionism.
Ahistoric.
Ignorant.
I haven't read any history.
I don't know anything about genetics despite, you know, actually reading a ton of genetic research.
It's definitionally true that your ethnic identity is inherited.
Even if you Google this, Google will agree with you.
Well obviously.
Yeah.
The fact of it So even Google hasn't caught up with this new delusion that everyone's going to pretend is just normal and received wisdom for thousands of years.
But even the BBC, in 2016, frames it in these terms.
English DNA, one-third Anglo-Saxon.
So, English as the identity, DNA, and they're talking about the Anglo-Saxons as being a part of it.
This is perfectly ordinary, perfectly normal.
Completely comprehensible.
Yes, of course, and I think Survive the Jive did a very good video on this talking about Englishness.
One thing that he points out which I think is particularly important, although I encourage people to watch the video, is that there was a man buried in a pagan Germanic burial mound who had entirely Brythonic ancestry, probably very similar to mine, implies that the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons integrated to the point where the Brythonic people could achieve high status in Anglo-Saxon society, And so it makes sense to see them as compatible groups because they had become one, more or less.
Well, I mean, he undoubtedly married an Anglo-Saxon woman.
He would have literally married into the tribe.
Historically, this is always the way that tribes dealt with this.
You would literally take wives and husbands from the other tribe to make sure there was no split between them.
It was a conscious thing as well.
I can't remember which tribe it was now.
Taking hostages, isn't it?
In a weird sort of way, yeah.
But there was a particular event, I can't remember where I was reading about it, but it was certainly the first century or something, but these two, this Germanic and Celtic tribe were like, okay, we're just going to join up.
And so literally every single one of them chose a husband or wife from the other tribe.
And that was it.
And then they changed the name or they had another name for the tribe and that was it.
And it's just like, that's just the way it worked.
But it also suggests that this mix has remained relatively consistent as well because of course let's not forget that the name of Wales means foreigner in Anglo-Saxon and that's where the Britons who didn't integrate fled to and it's also why... I'm Brittany as well actually.
That's true, yeah.
That's also why my ancestry from Devon and southern Scotland is very much not Anglo-Saxon and why I look like I do and not more white.
But anyway, let's move on to some of the other stuff.
So why DNA haplogroups are very useful?
Because it also reinforces this point that in the sort of grand scheme of things, people from Western Europe, which includes Germany and Northern Germany, where a lot of the Anglo-Saxons come from, are quite related to the people in the British Isles anyway.
You know, they're a similar generation of people, if you know what I mean.
You could map that RU106 to the Protestant Revolution, couldn't you?
You could, yeah.
That's basically a map of Protestantism.
It is, and it's amazing how much genetics actually determine national borders.
You can see the difference between Northern and Southern Italy there, you can see Western and Eastern Europe, you can see the Balkans as distinct.
All of these things that have entered into our language actually have a biological basis.
How are Balkans Proto-Europeans?
Don't pay too much attention to those because there's a better one here which shows you the genetic national makeup of Y-DNA haplogroups and you can see the pie, right, you used the cake analogy earlier, you can also use a pie one, where each nationality has a unique sort of blend.
Of course these are averaged amongst the people but there aren't any countries here that look incredibly similar to the point where you think Hmm.
Should they just merge and become one?
They all seem distinct enough, don't they?
Scotland and England look pretty bloody similar, don't they?
They are quite similar, but then again, you know, that's because a lot of it is Bretonic ancestry, isn't it?
And sure, there was some variance there, but there's still a lot of shared heritage as well.
And so there's less difference.
That's why we're a union, and that's pretty unique in Europe, because we are so similar.
There's not much in it, actually.
I expected there to be more genetic difference.
But yes, all of a sudden the nation-states of Europe make sense if you start looking at it from a genetic level.
And these ethnic groups are tangible and real, and they actually inform very, very real ways in which humans view each other.
Because genetics, I would argue, is the determining factor in how As in if you had to rank order them all it is the determining factor of how people treat each other because As we will see in a minute.
Okay.
Sure.
I'm surprised at the distinction between Spain and Portugal Well yeah, I think that you look at just purely the size of the Spanish nation and the size of Portugal, other than the savvy alliance that Portugal made with us, well done for that, you would think that Spain would have conquered Portugal at some point because... Well they did have unions of crowns and stuff like that.
Of course.
Anyway, sorry.
But they've remained as distinct, haven't they, because of this genetically distinct... Populations.
Exactly.
The identity is inherited through the generations, it's just how it works.
And so you can even get it in this.
So this is a research paper and it's talking about racial categorization of faces and pretty much participants were able to categorize faces according to their nationality with a certain degree of accuracy.
So you could actually look at someone and say they're from this country and it's more accurate than chance.
I can do that.
I know, yeah, it's quite easy.
Which suggests that there is an ethnic component, because you can look at someone and say, they're from this place.
I can pick out the German out of the line-up.
Oh, quite easily, yeah.
Yeah, but I'm not even joking.
You don't even need to see their socks and sandals, either, do you?
I can literally do it by face.
So they also found that categorization occurs quickly and subconsciously, highlighting how innate this is to human nature.
This is our ability to recognize who is part of our tribe and who is not.
And this is part of human nature.
And if you deny the ethnic component to people's identity, you deny something that's so integral to how human beings function, that you sort of castrate our ability to function normally.
And it's... But that's what they're trying to do, isn't it?
That's true, yes, of course.
And this is such a powerful effect that even though there is an own race bias in facial perception, whereby unfamiliar faces from other races are usually remembered more poorly than your own race's faces, and even in multicultural society or multiracial societies, this persists, which suggests that this is biological.
I can't believe nature isn't liberal.
I know.
Can't believe it.
So there's also this as well.
So a new theory of attraction and liking based on kin selection suggests that people detect genetic similarity in others in order to give preferential treatment to those who are more similar to themselves.
And this is 100% true in my opinion.
All of the literature on how human beings interact with genes People give preferential treatment to people who look like them.
Unless they're liberals.
Yes.
In which case they have an outgroup preference.
I think this applies to the whole animal kingdom because they say that when it comes to pets, a lot of people have pets that sort of resembles them.
So for instance, if some people are more like bulldog-ish, they're likely to have bulldog.
If they have other features, they say that it plays a role.
That's very true, yeah.
And it's also worth mentioning as well, there's this sort of colloquial anecdote whereby we say that couples that kind of look like one another, they could potentially be cousins or brother or sister.
I know I'm from Devon, yes.
But they stay together longer.
And it's perhaps because they're more genetically compatible.
And there's a certain aspect of genetic compatibility.
It's why people give primarily the most preferential treatment to their family than to their, you know, their more distant family, than to their friends, than to their community, than to their nation.
There's this sort of onion of layers moving out here and that is just purely based on genetic proximity.
And this paper, which is Cambridge University Press, it's not controversial, It lists a whole host of reasons here, evidence that supports this, and this I think is why we should care about this sort of thing, why we should be a bit more ethnocentric, because people will treat us better if they're more genetically proximate to us.
Unless they're leftists.
Unless they're leftists, who should be crushed, politically.
And so, if we want to be treated fairly, treated in a way in which is in keeping with our culture, there has to be consideration of genetics, because this informs human behaviour, whether we like it or not.
You can't really overcome it unless you become a weird, maladapted leftist, and who wants that?
You know, you can be E.
Keir Starmer or Childless Cat Lady or a spiteful leftist that makes himself look ugly and lives in London and has no property because they're a failure.
I mean, this is not a life that you want to pursue.
However, I think that the notion that English is somehow this amorphous thing, it's just a set of values, it's just a passport, which many immigrants when quizzed on the street will say... Ironically, there's no English passport.
No, there's not.
There's only a British one.
It's only an ethnic group.
There's no English state.
So yes, I wanted to highlight the importance of recognising being English as an ethnicity and how it informs our nature.
There we go.
Okay, we've got... That's a random name says, I was told by non-whites in Canada that I wasn't white because I had a culture as a Bulgarian.
I don't realize that white culture is all around them.
Order, justice, liberty, etc.
Ignorant imbeciles.
Interesting.
But it's very much about conceptions rather than about the reality.
That's the thing.
Yeah, perception informs a lot of it.
I think that our perception is downstream of how we're sort of genetically programmed to think about these things because they're very powerful forces.
It's not just that, like the way, like, oh, you're not white, which is an abstract universal category.
You're a Bulgarian, which is actually quite a concrete thing.
There's a place called Bulgaria.
It's also an ethnicity.
Exactly.
It's an ethnic group and it's a personal identity rather than an abstract description.
So you've come out of the category of white by being temporalized as a Bulgarian rather than a universal, eternal white.
Which is one of the reasons I hate using the term white.
I always use English.
Yeah, you've got to be more specific than that anyway.
I think white is a very poor category, because it could also mean the Ainu in northern Japan.
Yeah, exactly.
But when you say white, what you've done is de-centre it from its context.
Whereas if you say English, you attach yourself to a continuum that travels through time and space, and there's a lot to it.
Whereas white is a very thin concept.
I think usually people either mean like Europe or Anglosphere.
They really mean English.
When they say white they mean English.
I love these videos.
He started life in the 1800s as a...
Another of my industrial heroes is Walter Kreisler.
He started life in the 1800s as a railroad mechanic.
Ultimately, he worked his way over to Alco.
Fascinated with the new invention of the automobile, he oversaw Alco's failed bid to get into the automobile business.
This was enough to get the attention of General Motors Durant, who poached Kreisler with the highest salary of anyone in the world to oversee Buick.
However, Kreisler got sick of the rule of bankers at General Motors, starting the Kreisler Corporation in 1926.
However, his final project was the eponymous Kreisler Building, a personal project he paid for out of pocket.
I'd like more things of you building things, please.
I love those videos.
I enjoyed the story as well.
That was really interesting.
I didn't know about that.
metaphor for modern civilization.
I'd like more things of you building things, please.
I love those videos.
I enjoyed the story as well.
That was really interesting.
I didn't know about that.
Of course they sold it.
There's atrazine throughout our water supply.
If you, in a lab, put atrazine in a tank full of frogs, it will feminize every frog in there.
I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin' frogs gay!
And 10% of the male frogs will turn into fully viable females able to produce viable eggs.
If it's doing that to frogs, there's a lot of other evidence that it's doing it to human beings as well.
Just to be clear, Alex Jones was completely correct.
Oh yeah, I've covered this before.
Loads of things Alex Jones has said have actually turned out to be true.
He just says them in the most insane way.
So people assume, well that was bonkers.
Someone described, I can't remember who it was, RFK having a Darth Vader-like voice.
I can't remember who it was, but it gives him presence in a weird sort of way.
I do want to give him a throat sweet and help him out, but good to see he's right on that.
I wonder what kind of sausages we're even talking about here.
I hope they're not pork sausages.
Sorry, Josh.
They were indeed pork sausages.
Keir Starmer, well, he's got some things to answer for.
Okay, we've got some written comments, I believe.
We don't, we've got four minutes.
Sophie says, many of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Keir Starmer, probably.
No, definitely.
That's definitely his opinion.
Derek says, I think being governed by toddlers is the best description of what's happening.
No, they're genuinely ideological morons.
Genuinely.
Jimbo says David Lammy might genuinely have pedigree chum between his ears.
Just going to show how far you can fall upwards by being a social justice grifter.
Now he's woke-scalding Putin on the world stage.
Clearly we've got our best man on the job.
It's so embarrassing.
It's so absolutely embarrassing to have these morons.
I mean, is this what the left used to say about, like, Trump and Boris?
And I was like, no, they seem fine to me, but obviously they've just got a different perspective on it.
And they're like, oh my god, they're not going along with the managerial order.
How embarrassing.
Or that Boris was.
It's like, no, this is embarrassing.
Looking genuinely incompetent is embarrassing.
Theo says, some complain that we put thousands in prison.
In reality, we set millions free.
Honestly, just brilliant from Bukele.
Yeah, that's how he ended his speech, I think.
So good.
That's so, so good.
Lord Prydwen says, I'd argue it's the spirit of the law that's been abandoned, not the rule of law.
Yeah, that's a good distinction, actually.
The spirit of the law.
I said it towards the end of the segment.
It's the spirit of the law.
Because if you have, you know, insane laws, it doesn't matter.
Yeah, it would be so amazing if we had these guys in charge, wouldn't it?
They would actually be good.
for Millie and Bekele.
Yeah, it would be so amazing if we had these guys in charge, wouldn't it?
It would actually be...
It would actually be good.
Charles says, Carl, I absolutely love when you get talking about Kira and the Labour Party.
It's hilarious how you lay out what happened.
Without any anger or irritation, it just sets itself up nicely for ridicule.
They're just so obviously dense.
I love Kira Starmer giving the game away about the garden parties with Skye and her face where she's like, Don't say that.
You know, it's just like, you're an idiot.
You're absolutely moron.
When a Sky journalist thinks you're an idiot for saying that.
Yeah, she's just like, it's me on the garden party, eh?
You know, it's gold.
Someone online says, you can't deny the game to exist, they can and will.
Will they, Josh?
They can try.
Jimbo says, as a wise man once said, the only time anyone who knows who the English are is when someone is advocating for revenge against them.
Anyone can be English but diversity can never be lumped in with bad English.
They're good English.
Very exclusive in there.
You know what's interesting is that in this country we don't have like the new English.
In Germany and Sweden they have like the new Swedes and the new Germans.
They're trying to integrate them into the The national identity.
But they don't do that here.
They're British.
They're British Angolans.
They're British, you know, wherever.
British Pakistanis.
They never call themselves English in this country.
Colonials, almost, isn't it?
It's a similar sort of ethos, isn't it?
So in a way I think we actually have the advantage on many of the European states because they never say, oh, we're English.
They don't want to be English.
They don't like English.
But that means it's a bit of free real estate for us to walk in and say, no, we're the English.
Well, it was always ours to begin with.
Sure, sure.
Just reclaim it.
Sure, but they're very manipulative and slimy.
But they're not even trying to take the English identity.
And any attempts they've made have been really weak.
So actually we should come out very boldly and say no, the English identity is the property of the English people who are the continuum going all the way back to Bede and beyond and this is ours and you can't have it.
We should be very aggressive about it.
Absolutely.
Okay well it looks like we're out of time so thank you very much for watching.
I believe it's Common Sense Crusade after this and of course tune in same time one o'clock UK time tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection