Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 10, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:33:32

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1018

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Wednesday the 9th of October 2024.
	I can't believe it's that late in the year, but I am your host Connor, joined by Harry.
	Hello! And finally, after such a long time, my friend, good to see you.
	Great to be back.
	Should we have Islander on the table?
	I don't know.
	There's one right- I'm gonna get an Islander.
	Fetch a copy, Harry.
	You can watch Harry's glutes stride across the screen.
	Two leg days a week and they don't do much.
	Excellent. Well, yeah, speaking of which, Islander is still on sale, I think.
	Do we have a week left?
	It's the end of this week.
	Right, okay, so this is the final week.
	So by Friday, get your copy of Islander.
	It's issue two. Remember, it doesn't come back in print.
	Great essays from the likes of Roeg Nationalist and Stefan Molyneux in there.
	And obviously keep your eyes peeled for issue three in a few months.
	And the merch is still on sale as well.
	Yet again, limited edition. Go get your metal t-shirt for whenever you meet Harry and you want to look like a Razor Fist shirt.
	I'll be doing a 90-minute anatomical study of exactly how Truss's government was brought down.
	The reason I'm doing this is because one, nobody else has done it, but two, J.D. Vance brought it up on a recent podcast of Tucker Carlson, and the Americans are on watch for how, essentially, the Federal Reserve and international banking can bring down the Trump administration.
	So I think having this as a resource will be pretty valuable to our friends across the pond.
	And I'm sure Liz agrees.
	But, without further ado, we will be discussing how they're hiding the immigration numbers from us, how reform should learn lessons from Europe, something we both certainly agree on, and Wikipedia's information war, because a trans activist is trying to bury the history of the grooming gangs.
	Very gross. What a surprise.
	Yeah, shock. Oh, I wonder what possible external motivation they could have for covering up instances of child grooming.
	Peas in a pod and all. Curious.
	Anyway, without further ado...
	Turns out the UK government are once again burying information on both legal and illegal migration, and because the data is so difficult to get a hold of, various outlets have tried to compile it, but I will be showing you how they're not only vast underestimations, but also exactly what the motivation is to bury this information.
	It's always used to have this as one big resource that we can cite and that you can share to other people when they accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist, because you don't have these Numbers given to you by central government.
	Before we get on with that, quick plug, Islander.
	If you're watching this on the week that it's out, which is, as of today, 9th October 2024, you have two days left to get issue two, with fantastic essays by Stefan Molyneux, Dave Green, Carl Benjamin, Rorik Nationalist, and all of the merch associated with it, so go click the link in the description.
	Remember, we are demonetised on YouTube, so by selling physical products or subscribing to our website to get all the premium content, that's the only ways that you can support us and help us keep the lights on.
	Thank you all very much.
	Right, we begin with something that you were discussing actually today on the ONS, Charlie, which is the statistics that show that mass immigration has been the leading fuel, yet again, of the only reason the UK population is growing.
	I'll just quickly read from this.
	Net migration drove the fastest population rise for 53 years, with 68.2 million people now residents, not legal or illegal, There's no distinction here, by the way, in the UK by the middle of 2023.
	The 662,400-person increase on 2022 was 1% of the whole population added and represented the largest annual percentage and numerical increase since data began in 1971.
	The growth was driven entirely by net migration because more people died than were born in Britain for the first time in 50 years.
	We can't use the...
	R-word that is a synonym for substitution.
	But it's obvious that this is what's happening here.
	Because if you have a falling birthrate, if you have more of the native population dying than are being born, and then you subsidize, bring in, mass-imported foreign labour, then you get one population being...
	Swamped out with the other population.
	And it's almost like the recreation of various conditions of failed states in various towns and cities across Britain were a directly predictable consequence of this.
	Who could have thought it, eh?
	This comes off the back, obviously, of the information coming out that Britain is now the illegal immigration capital of Europe, having about 750,000 illegal migrants in our country, which is more than any other European nation.
	Finally, we're number one at something, right?
	Indeed. And obviously that's a drop in the bucket when it comes, when in comparison to legal migration.
	But the point is, our country is just being completely swamped with people, with biomass from the third world primarily.
	You can smell the GDP. 80 to 90% of migrants to Britain are from non-EEA countries, right?
	So these are countries that don't have an awful lot in common with Britain, to say the least.
	But what's not included in this story, this story that says the population has grown by 1% in a year, which in and of itself is mental, is that in the previous year, the year to June 2022, the population grew by 0.9%.
	By 1.28 million.
	Which works out if you divide the landmass of the British Isles by the number of people that have come in.
	That's an average of 11 new people per square mile of land in the British Isles.
	That's staggering. And these are just the people that we know are here as well.
	Yes. Because there is certainly people who've overstayed visas, people who got in through other means that we weren't keeping track of.
	Because even with the illegal migrants that we know who did get in, who knows how many got in, that we didn't keep track of.
	Well, this is crucial, because in 2007, the supermarkets, Tesco, Sainsbury's, etc., were predicting that the population of Britain was about 80 million.
	This is 2007, and these statistics that have come out in the last couple of days have Britain's population in 2024 at 67 million.
	So the 70 million from 2007, I mean, the point is we don't know how many people are in Britain.
	We don't know. And it's no wonder, therefore, that our public services are grinding to a halt.
	I have seen some people suggest, given what you've said about 2007, that's, you know, 17 years ago at this point, with the population spike that's happened in the Tory years, we might even be looking at something like 100 million total people who are in the country right now.
	Well, on that, I know that at least the population estimates are factually wrong.
	We'll get onto that illegal migration number in a second.
	I'm just going to read a couple more statistics from there just to put it in scale, because when you say they're from non-EU nations...
	The ONS said that immigration to the UK was driven by work-related arrivals from outside the EU, which rose from 227,000 in 2022 to 423,000 in 2023.
	Bear in mind, before that, it was basically the equivalent number of non-EU students here.
	So the moment they slashed student visas and dependents, the skilled workers, we'll get onto that in a moment, and NHS and social care workers and all their dependents just substituted and made up the shortfall.
	So we're getting the exact same number of record net migrants.
	If I may very quickly as well, of the 1.2 million visas handed out in the last two years, almost half went to India, Pakistan, China and Nigeria.
	So again, these are countries that, apart from the empire, where we ruled these countries, culturally, the idea of cultural proximity, these countries are very far away.
	Not just geographically, but in terms of their history and their culture.
	And they might even have... Active ethnic antagonisms towards the British host population.
	I mean, one that certainly does, which Robert Jemrex pointed out, is that in the last year alone, we gave out more family reunification visas to Somali nationals, because of course we have to battery farm all the Somalians in social housing, than to chemists, physicists, and engineers from all other nations combined.
	Thank goodness. Of all of the ethnic groups that we've always looked into, Somalis have always been the ones who add the least, and that's a really, really high bar to hit, is adding the least to Britain when you come in here.
	But in London, it's still only one in four London Somalis don't live in social housing, and they're the ones that we're trying to really cast the net out and bring all of the rest of them in, because goddammit, there's social housing in London that isn't occupied yet, maybe.
	Yeah, and also for anyone out here...
	It probably is. It's probably they need to fit 15 more people per unit.
	For anyone who has stumbled across this channel and isn't familiar with us before and is using the tired old platitude of, that means you're a racist.
	Check out what my friend Ayan Hirsi Ali, born in Somalia, thinks of Somalians and...
	Then accuse us of the same thing.
	Anyway, moving on to the illegal migration figures because this is something else that's being buried from us.
	They have estimated that Britain is the illegal migrant capital of Europe because an Oxford University study has said there are up to 745,000 illegal migrants in the UK. That's double the 300,000 in France and ahead of the upper estimate of 700,000 in Germany.
	Now, bear in mind two things.
	One, that is almost the same number of illegal migrants...
	As was let in legally last year in 2022.
	This was the revised figure up to 762,000.
	But it's by far and most likely more.
	This is something we've discussed before.
	Because in 2017, Pew Research said, with this little diagram here, that because Tony Blair abolished exit checks in 1998, meaning those visa overstays you mentioned, were not policed, there were between 800,000 and 1.2 million people illegally in the UK. You add, on top of... Even that's almost certainly a massive underestimate.
	Add on top of that, the recorded, because some people obviously weren't recorded on lorries and dinghies, recorded number of channel crossers since 2018 being now 140,000 people.
	That's at least 1.3 million.
	So where did they get that half number from, from the Oxford University study?
	I want to see their methodology, and they're currently saying that means 1 in 100 people is an illegal migrant.
	Well, hang on a minute, not only have we added 2% of the entire population here in the last two years from legal migration, but that means that 1 in 50 people, if we're using that number, is an illegal migrant in the UK. So 2% of the population of the UK that we know of is here illegally.
	And the point on this is that no mainstream party has expressed any real will to deal with these people.
	because any party that wants to stand as opposition to the kind of governing order
	that we've had since 1997 needs to commit to deporting every single illegal immigrant in
	Britain because anything less is weak, empathetic. It means the rule of law means nothing. Yeah,
	because these people, you know, you hear talk of deporting foreign criminals when it's actually,
	well by definition every illegal immigrant who's in the country is a foreign criminal, right?
	I think a lot of people are put off by the more squeamish aspects of what that will entail because
	that would mean actively hunting these people down, which is absolutely a necessary step to
	getting rid of them. Well the thing is, you know, people imagine, you know, there's all
	sorts of images that are sort of conjured into the mind when you talk about deportations.
	And, you know, let's be honest, it's not going to be a particularly pleasant thing to have to do.
	But it's not, you know, there are times in history where civilizations, if they wish to survive and continue and to not descend into chaos, murder, and just anarchy, they have to do things that make people uncomfortable.
	And the point is, we haven't had leaders in this country for so long who have been prepared to do things that make people uncomfortable.
	Now, Keir Starmer... To his credit, which I say, you know, carefully, has said that he wants to do things that aren't popular, right?
	And this would be one such example. If he was prepared to do this, then hey, fair play to him.
	It's just the native British population who he makes an enemy of, rather than...
	And this is one more thing that I will say.
	Mass deportations does not need to be, mainly because the Nazis didn't practice this, Loathing them on a train and shipping them to a very cold concentration camp in Poland.
	Nobody wants that. Instead, you can just uphold the law, like Nii Bekele did, arrest a bunch of criminals, deport them back to their countries of origin.
	If the countries don't want to take them, you do, as Trump and even Robert Jenrick has proposed, penalise them with visas and tariffs and sanctions, and just send them back.
	And you can do it all without needing to be cruel.
	It's just upholding the law as you are obliged to do as the government of the day.
	And by the way, Harry, this study that has as many as 1.2 million illegal migrants in the country in 2017, of those 1.2 million, half, they say, have been here for over five years.
	And I said this on Deprogrammed, I said, I don't, you know, even if they've been here for 50 years, even if they've been here, even if they're, you know, in old age.
	It doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter.
	This is a matter of principle. This was a big controversy that I saw the BBC and other outlets moaning about a few years ago when some man who was part of the Windrush generation had been here illegally since the 60s or 70s, and he was being deported.
	They're saying, this is terrible, he's basically British at this point.
	Well, no, he wasn't. He wasn't.
	He was here illegally, and this is the law being upheld.
	Quite. Just an interesting stat for, again, anyone saying, oh, these are just poor refugees fleeing war.
	52% in 2017 that were estimated to be here were from Asian countries, 1 in 5, 20 were from sub-Saharan countries, and 1 in 10 were from the Middle East and North Africa.
	So they crossed entire continents full of safe countries to arrive in Britain, presumably to exploit our general benefits program.
	And they probably go back home for holiday once a year anyway.
	Oh, many of them go back to Afghanistan.
	So the idea that, as Nigel Farage said, we can't do that because, what, you're going to send them back to the Taliban?
	No, they're going back at their own accord.
	So yeah, we can actually. Interesting.
	Now we've got 1,000 crossing in a day.
	So this was 973 migrants in 17 boats came over the last weekend.
	This was a record for 24, beating the 882 people on the 18th of June.
	French authorities were saying, isn't it tragic because four people died actually during the process of this, including one...
	Yeah, France, why did you let that happen?
	Well, including one two-year-old boy who was trampled to death.
	Now, that detail included in there can obviously make you go, oh dear, oh this is so tragic.
	Immediately you must let all these people in legally.
	It makes me think, why would I want a bunch of child murderers let into my country?
	And it is tragic, but the fact of the matter is, not only are the French not doing anything to prevent this, but in Britain we have an economy that encourages this kind of behaviour.
	It encourages people... To come here illegally and to enter this kind of black market economy, I remember reading a statistic that had something like 50% of Deliveroo drivers as illegal immigrants, right?
	We have all of these various areas of the economy that are not regulated properly and therefore enable people who shouldn't be here, who've come here illegally, to get work and bring their entire families with them.
	Yeah, I noticed down some stats because I, you know, sometimes a bit of a stat nerd like this.
	It's been 140,000, around that, recorded people coming since 2018 across the channel.
	The number of Brits that participated in the D-Day landings were less than that.
	The number of total Allied soldiers at the D-Day landings was 156,000.
	So by this time next year, we're going to get more illegal migrants that have broken in via Dover beaches than we stormed the beaches of Normandy during the Second World War.
	How does that not constitute an invasion is absolutely mad.
	Which is to say nothing of the fact that the Norman Conquest was only about 10,000 men.
	Yeah, quite. Well, again, we've had more immigration between 1997 and now than came between 1066 and 1945.
	So, mass demographic change has not been exactly brilliant.
	There's something else to consider which isn't always brought up with this, which is that...
	One way or another, these people are going to go back.
	It's the circumstances in which they're going to go back which we need to decide right now.
	Because it's acknowledged widely that we're in a decline.
	Britain is in a massive decline.
	We are not the world power that we once were.
	In fact, we are becoming one of the poorer countries across all of Europe.
	And a global laughingstock.
	And a global laughingstock.
	If a decline is not halted, and sometimes it has to be halted through harsh measures, it leads to a collapse.
	At the point of a collapse, do you think all of these people who are from much warmer climates, in places that share their culture, that they feel much more at home in, if they don't have a welfare state to keep everything nice and cozy for them, Are they going to stay?
	We know from history that when collapse comes, the diverse population goes home.
	Rome, by the collapse, was massively diverse in its population.
	They all left after the collapse.
	You could call the end of the Second World War a collapse, and we know that at the end of the Second World War, there was a massive remigration of different European ethnicities back to their home countries.
	This is what happens.
	So I would like to halt things before we get to the collapse, if that's at all possible, if that's something that there is a political will to do, because I would rather that my children and my grandchildren don't have to suffer through the hardships and terror that will happen.
	Very well said. Unfortunately, as has proven by the popular response within the room at Reform Conference to us saying we need mass deportations, there is the support among certain political parties, but not the will to do so from the leadership yet.
	Also, I don't think that the welfare state will go before the collapse, because as we've learned...
	Now as well, the migrants are going to be stuck in hotels for now three years because of the asylum backlog.
	They're saying it costs $4.2 million a day, but I've seen figures that state that to be much higher.
	Damian Andrew Jenkins, before the general election, she worked out that actually the asylum...
	It's costing us $14.4 billion a year.
	And then, recently, Nick Timothy, a Conservative MP, on a parliamentary debate on the 10th of September, dug into the new plan by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.
	Now, there's a big asylum backlog, right?
	So, what you would do is you'd process the claims, or you'd just say, if you broke into the country illegally, you don't get to claim asylum because you're a criminal, and you'd send them back and save the British money.
	Instead, Yvette Cooper, with her throbbing brain, has decided she's going to give flat amnesty to 70%, Which is much higher than all of the other European nations doing so.
	Doesn't really matter about their claims, just going to rubber stamp it through.
	And so that's going to bring the overall cost up to £17.8 billion.
	And that was, what, the £22 billion budgeting black hole?
	Mm-hmm. Magic that, isn't it?
	Now the reason for that is all of the asylum costs are folded into our foreign aid budget.
	So we spend most of our foreign aid budget within Britain on foreigners.
	And that would take two years to pass as an Act of Parliament to cut.
	And the OBR works on an annual cycle.
	So they say, well, you can't cut that because you've got to make savings this year.
	So you can only cut the pensions, which don't require an Act of Parliament.
	Well, just on this topic, I mean, I had this conversation with someone recently.
	You know, there will have been a meeting where Starmer and his spads and his advisors and so on sat down and said, right, we've got this big black hole in the economy.
	How are we going to fill it?
	Okay, let's go down the list of all the things we can cut.
	A, to Ukraine and Israel.
	No, can't cut that.
	Putting up illegal migrants in hotels, feeding and clothing them.
	No, can't cut that. Paying, subsidising the lives of legal migrants.
	By the way, only 29 of whom actually break even and contribute to the economy rather than taking from it, according to research done by the Migration Advisory Committee.
	Can't cut that. Winter fuel allowance to pensioners.
	Yeah, let's go for that.
	Let's freeze the old people. That's because they're all voting Tory though, aren't they?
	That, and also, of those constituencies that were just listed, they are the only ones that won't fight back.
	Yeah, they're not a client group and they're incapable of mobilizing an actual threat to labor.
	The only thing I will correct you on is we don't actually give aid to Israel.
	We give arms sales and they cut, what, about 3% of those in a performative gesture to a militantly Islamic voter base who are going to be abandoning them for Islamic candidates.
	Anyway, also, if you think that this has only the last three years, sorry to break it to you, it stretches back 17 years because we're only now processing asylum claims for people from the Blair years.
	Brilliant. Yeah. Thanks, Tone.
	Even Tony is horrified at this kind of news, though, isn't he?
	You hear him now, and he's with us on this, right?
	He's talking about how, after Brexit, you know, most immigration has come from non-EEA countries.
	That's a Hobson's choice, though.
	Well, sure. What he's trying to do is reinstate freedom of movement, basically, atop Infinity African.
	And he wants digital ID as well.
	That's a part of the stuff. But at the moment, he does look like, if only you knew how bad things really were.
	It turns out the oldest case in the system was 17 years old.
	19 other cases were between 10 and 16 years old.
	So we're actually going to be paying this cost Forever.
	Legal or illegal, though.
	Again, big distraction, because legal is more.
	Turns out it costs us absolutely loads of money.
	The OBR half-admitted the cost of mass illegal immigration and legal migration.
	But the Telegraph, again, had to painstakingly put these details together because the government are hiding this data from you.
	So, here's some interesting facts here.
	A report for the long-term outlook of public finances from the OBR confirms what people have known for a long time.
	Mass low-skilled migration is a financial disaster for Britain.
	The OBR assumes net migration of around 400,000 a year for the next 50 years in this modelling.
	It's at least double that.
	So this is the low-end estimate.
	Or even triple that, often.
	The OBR then models the fiscal profile of a low-wage migrant worker on less than 50% of the UK average wage.
	By the time they each reach 81, they'll have cost the taxpayer £465,000.
	Bear in mind this is the vast majority of post-Brexit migration.
	This also doesn't account for second-generation migrants who are born here, repeat the same economic and criminal patterns of their parents, and go through the school system at extra cost, and it is compared against the native British citizen, who is still a net taxpaying contributor despite having been born here, going through the education and early years healthcare system, and presumably costing more during those times.
	So, The numbers are even fudged.
	Two additional points very quickly there.
	We did some research that had the OBR overstating the annual earnings of migrants since 2021 by about £14 billion.
	This is for the Centre for Migration Control.
	Indeed. Bearing in mind the OBR informs Treasury policy as well as immigration policy.
	So if they're saying that mass migration is this tremendous benefit to the economy, well, the government listens to it.
	May I ask in those overestimates, how were they finding this miraculous extra £14 billion they were adding?
	So they were assuming that the employment, living, lifestyle profiles of migrants is exactly the same as native British people, which of course it's not.
	All those barber shops, they really add a lot.
	And they were forecasting on the basis of things that were actually impossible for migrants, because migrants, especially students, are only allowed to work a certain number of hours a week.
	And they were assuming that students especially were working the kind of average number of So like a 40-hour work.
	Exactly. It's illegal for them to do that.
	It would also be insane if you're actually a student to try and do that on top of.
	And in addition, recently, I forget the name of the bill, it was something like the Budget Responsibility Bill, was passed by the Labour government in order to prevent another Liz Trust mini-budget type scenario from happening, as is this kind of mythos.
	Who would never want to cut taxes, says the Labour Party.
	I'll be going into that later. As they legislate it.
	But what this has done is it's ceded even more power to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is one of these, I think it was set up in the early years of the Cameron administration.
	It's just one of these quango, you know, and it's full of leftists and they don't have the best interest.
	It's an extension of the Blairite project.
	Exactly. They constantly get things wrong as well.
	I mean, one example I was given was that they had said that Non-DOMs were bringing in lots of revenue under the stewardship of Hunt and Sunak at the Treasury, and then immediately now that Labour want to cut it, they've turned around and said, oh actually no, non-DOMs are costing us loads of money.
	So a bunch of leftists can't calculate economics right.
	Sure. Imagine my shock, yeah.
	Yes. So, the Telegraph has done something here because they weren't given the original stats by the OBR, so they've used Robert Jenrick and Neil O'Brien's paper that we've covered before on this show in 2023, and they compared skilled worker visas to native British salary data, And they found 72% of skilled workers were earning less
	than the average UK salary and 54% were on less than half the average salary, equivalent
	to the OBR's low-wage migrant.
	So half of the skilled workers brought into this country, which is the majority, as we
	said at the start, responsible for the population change in the UK in the last year, are on
	less than half of the average UK salary.
	So that means 60% of workers on skilled worker visas are net tax recipients.
	This leaves 5% of all total visas going to higher skilled migrants who are net contributors.
	That's an optimistic estimate.
	Again, by the age of 81, for every £1 contributed to the HMRC, the Treasury, by high-wage migrants,
	the larger lower-wage migrant groups will have costed £1.60.
	So it's just a net outflow of, what, 60%?
	Yeah. And this is to say nothing of the 1.5 million totally economically inactive migrants.
	Which they bring over in their droves in equivalent numbers to the number of skilled worker visas.
	So in the OBR's baseline scenario, because they don't outline this, the Telegraph had to put it together because they're hiding the stats from you again.
	Of the average wage migration, the UK's debt to GDP ratio, even the most optimistic, is going to rise to 274% by 2074.
	It's currently at 100%. That's higher than Japan, who's currently going through a debt crisis.
	In the worst case scenario, where they keep importing the same level of low wage migration, it's 351% of GDP. That is a failed state.
	Well, that's collapse. Yeah.
	So we're not going to avert the collapse, unfortunately.
	Again, notice how MPs in the Telegraph had to compile this together.
	I'll just finish up with this as well.
	We're bringing in lots of criminals.
	Isn't that fantastic? Martin Dormley decided to go through this, spewing some hate facts on Twitter.
	Great man. Actually, one of the best people on GB News.
	He noted that Muslims are 2.5 times more likely to be in jail and black people are three times more likely to be in jail.
	This doesn't break down between first and second generation, though those are basically the exact same stats that we got out of Denmark who do do that.
	And yet, yet again, those are the populations that commit the most crime, and we're now bringing them over en masse as 80% of our record annual net migration and the driving force of population change.
	And then the Telegraph decided to break this down according to a migrant league table.
	Again, this was not brought out by the government.
	They had to compare ONS data, Ministry of Justice data, and do some inferences.
	So it's likely a lot worse.
	But one in 50 Albanians in the UK is in prison.
	That's a criminal state.
	That's just a giant mafia gang.
	That's 1,200 Albanians have been sent to prison from a migrant population of 53,000.
	They are the head of the table of 130 nationalities, ranked on prison population per 10,000 of the population in the UK. They're followed by Kosovans, Vietnamese, Algerians, Jamaicans, Eritreans, known for fighting with sticks on Camberwell Road, Iraqis and, da-da, Somalians, who are clearly busy contributing to the GDP. This shows that foreign nationals are 27% higher than British citizens to be imprisoned.
	There was also the recent thing, was it Centre for Migration Control that did, that it was FOI requests that found it's 34% higher?
	Yes, that was us. That was us, yeah.
	Good man. Good work. So migrants are arrested much higher when it's only 14 per 10,000 according to the UK. Again, government didn't release this.
	This was a painstaking project pieced together by the Telegraph.
	And the last one to annoy you, because we're talking about Albanians, an Albanian criminal who's already deported then broke back into the UK and got given...
	The right to leave, the right to stay, sorry, under Article 8 of the ECHR because he had a baby with his Lithuanian girlfriend and then got married.
	So everyone involved in this is a foreign criminal because she's basically handling stolen goods, right?
	So she's aiding and abetting.
	That's a way of putting it, yeah.
	Oh, cheers. She's an assistant to burglary.
	Because he got done for burglary. So she knows he broke in illegally.
	They then have a child, so basically anchor them into the country.
	They then get married. They then appeal to an international foreign court which was set up to protect Jewish refugees, not migrant criminals.
	And then they just have to live here forever and we're paying for them.
	So in summary, don't expect transparency from the government, because the purpose of a system is what it does, and the system keeps importing foreign criminals that you have to pay the bed and board for at our expense.
	So it'd be great if a dissident political party picked up on this, still waiting.
	We've got some Rumble Super Chats before we dive into yours.
	Okay. So, $20.
	Thank you very much. Very generous.
	From Sad Wings Raging.
	Outworking and listening. Good man.
	You're not Somalian. Can't wait to grasp the hilt of my black sword, chain it to my wrist, and await the God Emperor Trump to declare exterminatus.
	In Minecraft, of course. In Minecraft.
	That was an incredibly high-class fed post right there.
	Thanks. Yes. We do not avow any violence of any form.
	Spiritual crusade. He's talking about 40k, obviously.
	Yeah, of course. Go cross the Tyranids or whatever.
	That's a random name for $1.
	A lot of Bulgarians I know here in Canada hate the West and are only here for the money.
	They then plan to retire back to Bulgaria.
	Now imagine what non-European, non-Christians think of the West.
	Shake my head. Yeah, did anyone read the blog post from Kemi Badenok in 2010?
	You know, our base black woman candidate that even this podcast spent time promoting that says she's going to make it easier for Nigerians to send money home.
	We are literally just an economic extraction zone.
	That's something people don't talk about, by the way, is like remittance payments is a huge problem.
	It's just money flowing out of the country and it incentivizes migration.
	Yep. Ban the lot. Anyway, Charlie, take it away.
	So, as you may or may not be aware, the far right are sweeping across Europe, winning victories in many different countries.
	And this is terrifying and evil and I disavow, okay?
	But I thought it might be interesting for us to take a look at what's happening in Europe, have a look at where...
	So, first of all, in Austria, recently the Freedom Party, led by Herbert Kickl, a very good man, came first in the general election on the 19th of September, winning just shy of 30% of the vote.
	In Germany, the AFD of course, as I'm sure you've covered a lot, Andreas Kelbitz here in the Brandenburg state election won 23 seats, 38 in Saxony and 22 in Thuringian.
	France, the national rally led by Jordan Bardella and Marine Le Pen, won the European Parliament elections in a landslide with 31.4% of the votes, causing Macron to announce a staff election to try and garner more support for him and his party.
	Later that month, an NR-led coalition topped the first round of the election with a record of 33.2% of the votes.
	And on the 7th of July, the National Rally won the popular vote in the second round of the snap election with the third highest number of seats at 37.06% of the votes.
	A lot of these votes as well are led by people of our demographic.
	Oh, we'll be getting to that.
	Don't you worry about that. Good man.
	Next up, the Netherlands. Obviously, this is not quite so recent, but Geert Wilder's Party for Freedom came first in the 2023 election, winning 23.49% of the votes.
	And Hungary, again, not a recent thing, but more of an ongoing force in European politics, led by...
	The Fidesz party, headed by Viktor Orban, is essentially acting as a model for right-wing parties across Europe and what they should be doing.
	And the interesting thing about Hungary, I'm going to speak a little bit more about Hungary here, is that they have, we were in Hungary earlier this year together.
	How romantic. Oh, it was.
	Yeah. Very, very, it was a nice little getaway.
	We walked along the Danube holding hands.
	You walked along the border wall together, pushing out migrants.
	Yep, and we looked into the sunset and we thought, if only people knew how good things could be.
	Don't worry, we burned a pride flag to make sure it's not gay.
	Indeed, yes. But we were at an event called MCC Fest, which was put on by an organisation called the Matthias Covinus Collegium.
	Which is, yeah, styles itself as a kind of, it's almost like a university, a think tank.
	But the point is, MCC is woven into the government.
	They receive funding from the government.
	They're deeply embedded with the government.
	And so what, you know, what you should sort of take from that is essentially in Hungary, what they have is what we have in Britain, but in Britain it's left-wing, where we have this vast network of NGOs, think tanks, media outlets, entertainment, all of which are interlinked.
	It's like in Blade Runner, interlinked.
	And form this kind of absolutely towering, incomprehensibly complex system that seems to exist to act against the interests of the British people.
	But in Hungary, it's the inverse.
	They have this vast, incomprehensibly complex network of based right-wing organisations, like MCC, who are acting in the interest of the Hungarian people.
	And this, I think, is again, as I say, a model to follow.
	Well, there were a lot of young people in the crowd as well.
	And the main message of Fidesz and MCC in that is, be proud to be Hungarian, have more children, be wholesome, and...
	So it's an explicitly right-wing pro-family message, and it's attracting lots of young people, not just to go to concerts and socialize, but because they're actually interested in upholding the values and the heritage and the history of their country.
	So it's possible. And the great thing about MCC Fest was by day, it was a three-day event.
	By day, it was a politics, culture, philosophy kind of conference with various different panels talking about various different issues.
	You spoke on one, Matt Goodwin spoke on one, various others.
	And then by night, it turned into this, which was basically like a music festival.
	And it was great, like the music was fantastic, the vibes were good, all the rest of it.
	Again, if only we knew how good things could possibly be.
	Which brings us on to the Patriots for Europe group, which is a right-wing group in the European Parliament led by Viktor Orban.
	And involved in it is Herbert Kickle of the Freedom Party of Austria, Giorgio Maloney's Brothers of Italy, various others.
	There's a bunch of parties involved.
	The NR. Do you know why the AFD aren't involved in that?
	I think if I recall correctly it's because of tensions between the AFD and Fidesz, so the Hungarian party, but don't quote me on that, you'll have to look into it.
	But I just wanted to read out the Patriots for Europe manifesto, if you'll just indulge me.
	So they say, Institutions largely unknown to and removed from European citizens, along with strong globalist forces, unelected bureaucrats, lobbies and interest groups with contempt for the voice of the majority and of popular democracy, are planning to replace the nations.
	with what? A European Central State. We believe in a Europe of strong, proud and independent
	nations, free in their determination to live and cooperate in concord with each other,
	united through institutions with legitimacy, rooted in nations, mandated by and held accountable to
	the peoples of Europe, sovereign and unwavering in the pursuit of its interests, free from
	dependencies that obstruct the fulfilment, at home and abroad, of the will of its national communities,
	committed to peace and dialogue, while ready to defend itself against any threat.
	That safeguards and celebrates its European identity, traditions and customs,
	the fruits of its Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage.
	That cherishes the inherent diversity among its nations, their history and the way of life, while resisting ultimatums to change according to the fashion of the day.
	That champions real freedoms, fundamental rights and human dignity, while fiercely resisting attempts to limit or redefine these freedoms.
	Competitive, productive, efficient and proud of its intellectual, scientific and economic
	feats as a continent of innovation, excellence and progress, determined to protect its borders,
	to stop illegal migration and to preserve its cultural identity, following the will
	of the vast majority of European citizens. Of nations ready to protect their people against
	any and all potential threats coming from the political, economic, religious and cultural
	spheres. That respects its own mandate and rules, does not act beyond its competencies,
	abides by the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality and ceases to justify its
	attacks on national sovereignty by applying pressure through the European budget.
	You get the idea. There's a couple more bullet points, but these are our guys.
	It's very important to note as well that when people hear diversity, obviously, we have a Pavlovian response to that.
	They don't mean capital D diversity, which just means non-white.
	They're not rewriting sub-Saharans into roaming through the German forests at the times of the Angles and Saxons.
	Instead, what they're describing is an alliance of patriotic, perennialist nations that recognize one another have distinct traditions.
	That they're not necessarily incompatible in allying against a European super-state project that seeks to homogenize and control them all, but will essentially leave each other alone to police their own internal border.
	Yes, appreciating the grand tapestry of Europe and for all its beauty.
	And that does, in part, come from the diversity of cultures that are there.
	as you say this is not the kind of globo-homo version of diversity which views you know
	different sexualities and different skin colours as constituting something you know inherently
	positive. But anyway I thought it'd be interesting for us to look at what all of these parties and
	organisations have in common so that we can perhaps draw out some principles for winning,
	for victory in Britain.
	So first of all, is just a cutting-edge digital game for all of them, right?
	And this is actually part of my day job, so this is something that I personally am very interested in, digital strategy.
	Jordan Bardella, the President of the National Rally in France, is an absolute master at this.
	This is his TikTok page, and you might look at that and think, oh, TikTok, cringe.
	But actually, TikTok is a hugely important force in modern politics.
	One in four TikTok users are under 20.
	TikTok has more Gen Z users than Instagram.
	The majority of TikTok creators are aged 18 to 24.
	And 53.4% of TikTok users are female, right?
	So this is an excellent kind of demographic to tap into.
	I wonder why Bardella is doing so well with young people.
	Well, if you look at this example video that I've got here...
	Philippine avait 19 ans.
	Décrite comme douce, discrète et bosseuse, elle était en troisième année de licence d'économie à l'université Paris Dauphine.
	C'était aussi une jeune catholique, investie chez les scouts.
	We can leave that there, you get the idea.
	The point is, what Bardello is doing is, it's a combination, I'll show you the next video as well, really high quality videos saying things that are just true.
	So the caption of this video in French translated to English was Philippine, this is referring to the Parisian student who was murdered by, I think it was a Moroccan immigrant, possibly Algerian.
	Her life was stolen from her by a predator who should not have even been on our soil.
	How many tragedies will France have to endure before prompting a reaction from our leaders?
	So he is genuinely speaking truth to power in a well-presented, charismatic, and attractive way.
	Because you look at him and he looks like an aspirational figure.
	You know, he's a young guy. He's only 28 years old, Bardella.
	Young guy, well-dressed, good shape, well-groomed.
	And I know these things sound so superficial, but they really do matter when winning votes.
	Vibes do matter. Oh yes.
	You took the words right out of my mouth and I've made this point before which is that I would say something like 85% of voters aren't sitting there on their laptop reading through the manifestos of all the various different parties on offer.
	They're voting based on vibes.
	And so when you have a guy like Jordan Bardella saying things that Even ten years ago would be quite spicy and ultimately beyond the pale for a mainstream party.
	That's incredibly powerful.
	if you move on to the next video um this is uh one that was picked up by
	politico being exceptionally french
	Yeah, very much so.
	You can leave it there. I mean, you see what he's trying to do.
	He's got the combination of high-quality, well-researched political content, and also personalizing.
	It makes him more personable.
	This is what Faraz was trying to do when he kept going to Wetherspoons and did silly things like playing the slot machines down at Clacton.
	And the interesting thing, as you've already pointed out, is if you look through the comments of this video, he is particularly popular among young women.
	Hey, look, Lads are on Lotus Eaters has a large female viewing demographic, so it does work, Jen.
	I thought it was about five women.
	There's quite a few. Okay, okay, more than I estimate.
	Disproportionate for right-wing politics as well.
	Well, I suppose so. I suppose so.
	In Britain, at least. I mean, in France, they seem to have it nailed.
	That's because they've made immigration a women's safety issue, which needs to be done.
	And the brilliant thing about Bardella, by the way, this isn't in my notes, but it's just a point of interest for me on him, is his two main issues, if you listen to him speak and read his speeches.
	The two issues that he focuses on primarily are immigration and environment, okay?
	So environment, if you speak to your average young person, someone under 30, who is broadly apolitical, speak to them and say, you know, what are your political beliefs?
	Eight times out of ten, they will say climate change or environment or something like that.
	So Bardella and the National Rally jumping on the issue of environment and capturing it and making it a conservative issue is just a brilliant strategy.
	This is what I tried to do in my prior career at the British Conservation Alliance and my friend Chris over in the States has had great success with that with the American version to the point of where he's essentially ingratiated into the Republican Party platform.
	What you need to do is rather than make it a proto-communist death cult saying that we need to collapse all of
	civilization to worship the sun god, just say, don't you like this green and pleasant land?
	Wouldn't you rather not build Somalian battery farms atop it?
	The ugly concrete monoliths to GDP? Yeah, vote National Rally.
	Yeah, there we go.
	So this was picked up by the mainstream press.
	This article here, in particular, is from Politico.
	Shall I grab that? It's alright, I don't know.
	Cheers. I need to remember how this thing works.
	So, Europe's far right uses TikTok to win the youth vote.
	And if we just scroll down...
	Oh, yeah, there we go. This article is basically just about how, you know, the quote-unquote far right, and we all know what that means...
	has embraced digital campaigning on platforms like TikTok because it's effective.
	And there is this allergy, certainly in respectable political circles, to digital campaigning in general.
	But the fact of the matter is we exist in a moment now where most people get their information from platforms like X, like TikTok, Facebook, etc., And if we're unwilling to engage with those tools, they're tools in the toolbox, ultimately.
	If we're unwilling to engage with them, then we're going to lose.
	This is what I was talking to Dan Whitten about yesterday on his show.
	It's that, why would you, as an insurgent political force like Reform, schedule at your conference interviews with BBC and Sky, but not have booths for, and I understand there's tensions with some of the folks at Lotus Eaters, but...
	New Culture Forum, or us, or invite Dan Wotton along to do a live broadcast, because they're not Ofcom regulated, they're going to be sympathetic, they will be critical, but they will be friends, and the amount of even boomers that are now cancelling their license for you and not watching terrestrial TV, you only stand to gain from this.
	Yes. They don't want the Nigel Farage-Steven Edgington treatment.
	Indeed. Perhaps. So this then brings me on to the next point, which is so crucial to understand, which is youth engagement.
	And this is something that all of these parties understand really, really well.
	So this is the Young Alternative, which is the AFD's youth wing.
	If we go on these pictures and just take a look at the kind of optics that they're putting out here...
	It's young people, it's young women in particular, with their messaging showing that these parties who are of the right, which is ordinarily typically thought of as being a kind of, well, the politics of old people, ultimately, right wing politics, they're showing that it's cool and and and and kind of punk and rebellious to be right-wing but also something's worth noting is the let's think of the republican party for example it's very masculine coded this is why there is a 51 point gap between young women and young men mainly driven by young women i think it's 38 points to 13 um swinging towards harris or trump yeah and while we have to be very careful about which young women you select to make your spokespeople because there are Let's be fair,
	a lot of grifting e-girls around that have gotten far too far.
	It is very beneficial to have attractive, competent, well-researched young women as part of your movement who can, again, make immigration a women's safety issue.
	And this is what, again, the European parties have just nailed this, because you look also at the Freedom Party of Austria's youth wing.
	Again, it's just respectable young people, well-dressed, normal, relatable, and so on.
	And this brings us finally to the National Rally's youth wing, which, for my money, have it the best.
	Maybe it's a function of them being French and just having, I don't know, just different tastes.
	But this is how we win, right?
	And I cannot stress this enough.
	If you have attractive young people who are relatable, who are fit, who are aspirational, saying your words, then that makes your politics cool.
	And to, again, for my money, 85% of people, if you can make your politics cool, especially in the eyes of young people, and I get that sounds really cheesy and cringe, but it's true, then you will win.
	Especially in a democratic situation like the ones we have.
	And in a demographic situation where the average age of a Tory voter at the last election was 63.
	They are, if you want to be an insurgent right-wing party, the Tories don't pose any threat at the moment, and so they're probably not winning the young people, they're up for grabs.
	Just engage with them on the terms they understand.
	You might not understand it yet, get some of them who do.
	Yes. Now, you'll note that the two strategic kind of elements that I've highlighted so far, digital strategy and youth engagement, neither of those are about ideas, right?
	Neither of them are about our principles and our manifesto and all that sort of thing.
	Our British values. For so long, the right, across Europe and in Britain in particular, has behaved as if all that matters is having the best ideas and that it's a kind of Darwinian thing where the best ideas will always win out in the end.
	And that is just total nonsense, and we need to get over this idea, because there's more to politics than just debates, right?
	There is practical strategy that needs to be implemented and effective.
	But that does bring me on to the final point, which is actually the various manifestos of these parties, which tend to kind of go in lockstep.
	They represent the same political phenomenon, which is emerging across Europe and, God willing, Britain.
	And in the US, Trump's used that phrase.
	Indeed. One is a policy of remigration, right?
	And this is a phrase that is getting more and more popular by the day.
	You're seeing it in more and more mainstream kind of circles.
	This is the AFD advertising their remigration policy.
	The Austrian Freedom Party, who just won in Austria, have also called for a remigration commissioner in the EU. And they will be having a remigration minister in the Austrian parliament.
	Sweden Democrats have played with it.
	Trump even used it in a recent Truth Social post.
	It's gaining ground.
	And that's because, you know, the spirit of the age is inevitably trending towards this feeling.
	The feeling that the policy of mass migration, which has become an article of faith for our ruling class, has utterly failed.
	And it's stealing the future of the youth, destroying our countries, destroying our societies, destroying our communities, to use some Starmerite language.
	But, again, among the youth of Europe, they recognise that things could be so much better if not for these disastrous policies.
	So, that brings us on to the lessons that we should take from Europe, from these parties, from these successful parties.
	The first is that Britain needs its version of the National Rally, or the AFD, or the Freedom Party, because in order for us to win, we need to have this well-organised, well-presented, slick organisation that can actually take our politics and Into the halls of power.
	Because, you know, again, we can have our ideas, but if we have no leadership, if we have no power, then the ideas mean nothing, right?
	And in order to win, right-wing politics must become cool.
	And again, I get that that sounds really cheesy, but it's true.
	And moreover, our movement must be not merely political.
	It needs to go out into the culture more generally.
	And Hungary, again, is the prime example of this, combining, as they do, cultural events, philosophical ideas, music, art, all of these things...
	It all forms a movement, right?
	And that's why Hungary is doing so well, because Hungary, I mean, it's a vision of what could be.
	It's an absolutely beautiful country, clean streets, beautiful buildings, strong economy, and all the rest of it.
	We were depressed when we were leaving it.
	My God, flying back into Luton.
	In Britain, after being in Budapest for five days, was quite the eye-opening experience.
	Really put things in perspective. And this was all the while the riots were happening as well in Britain, so it was a real contrast.
	I stepped back through Gatwick and felt showered in British values.
	I don't know what you're talking about. Indeed, yes. This is my experience coming back from Italy earlier on this year as well, coming back through Manchester Airport.
	And the line back through customs was a sea of foreign faith.
	Yeah, no doubt. We also need to embrace digital politics.
	And again, there's a real kind of aversion to this, especially among the older generations, which I think is probably as a result of not understanding it.
	But actually, this is where the future is.
	If we're not prepared to use platforms like TikTok, and I know you guys understand this very well, if we're not prepared to engage in these kinds of strategies, then we're going to get left behind and we're going to lose.
	And so this then brings us to the question of reform.
	And whether reform will step up to the plate and be AFD UK, be, you know, National Rally UK. I think they have the potential to be.
	As you know, I ran a campaign during the general election pushing reform to start a youth wing, which I still firmly believe they should do if they really wish to have any longevity, is to embrace, because we were at the conference, you know, there were a hell of a lot of young people there, especially at our panel.
	Yeah, we had spillover, so we had a few old people sitting down, but...
	When there were no seats left, there were lots of people that were either just at Reform Conference or were viewers of this show—hello, I know some of you put premium comments as well, so nice to see you—who were just there to ask questions and listen to what we had to say.
	And we got, frankly, as good a response as some of the main stage speeches.
	Yeah, and I mean, our Fringe event was by far the best attended of all of them.
	I know, because I was sitting next to the Fringe event stage for the entire day.
	But the point is, if Reform are unwilling to embrace and harness that kind of youthful energy that is around their party—one in ten under-30s voted for Reform at the election— If they're unwilling to do that, then I don't know how they're going to have the kind of longevity that they clearly want.
	And so again, I would encourage them to embrace that and to do it in the right way.
	Because if you put the wrong people in place, sure, it's going to be a disaster.
	It doesn't have to be that way. Are you implying that someone in reform is paying someone to be the respectable face of young reform, but they couldn't fill a room if they'd actually literally paid all the attendants to be there?
	Don't know what you mean. Don't know who you could possibly be referencing.
	I'm just saying it's a disastrous strategy, though.
	Anyway, so that's really where we are, as I see it.
	That's the kind of place we're in in Britain where there isn't really a mainstream understanding of exactly what we should be doing as a movement, as a political movement, to win.
	And ultimately, victory is the ultimate goal, because without power, our ideas mean nothing.
	So with that, I'm going to leave you with some words from the great orator, Jonathan Bowden, who apparently, the link to which I have not put in the show notes.
	So shall I just stick that in there now?
	Can I guess what these words might end up being?
	Actually, you're probably wrong.
	Can we... Oh, alright, okay. It's in the document.
	Can we pull that up? It's happening.
	Here we are. Here we go.
	If we can get the audio up on this and full screen it.
	Yep, should be fine. You know, you turn the thing around, and the right will only defeat the left and the centre if it's more creative, more energetic, more radical, more intelligent, more sassy, cooler.
	That's the only way it will win.
	And the trouble with right-wing people, on the whole, is they're sort of pessimistic, and they're slightly unimaginative, and they're deeply conservative people.
	They're very decent people, but they're conservative.
	You've got to be more radical than that.
	And I'm, you know, I'm a very conservative person but I'm also a revolutionary.
	And you need the two combined, you see.
	That's why I call myself a revolutionary conservative.
	I perhaps wouldn't take Bowden's particular advice on aesthetics there, but I understand the point you're getting at.
	Indeed. He was certainly a radical and creative person.
	I'd say that Imperium Press on one of their sub-stack essays also had a good way of putting it using Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations, which is...
	That the radical right, however you want to describe it, is made up of people who are both high openness to experience and therefore more creative, but also high disgust response.
	So they have a knowledge of what they like and what needs to happen within society, while also being more open to experiences, open to solutions, and open to creativity.
	They're intellectually curious, but also loyal and have standards.
	Yeah, so I think that really just sums it up because, I mean, you know, one thing I will say is I'm endlessly heartened by the network that is clearly emerging of young people in Britain who are all of these things that we've just been talking about, who are competent, who are driven, who are, they have their heads screwed on right when it comes to things like just taking care of themselves, the idea of where this country needs to go, what needs to be done.
	So, yeah, I mean, anybody who is Duma posting or blackpilling, I would say, you know, where's your spine?
	You know, because things will get better.
	The people are out there. We just need to come together and get it done.
	Excellent. I'll read the quick two Rumble Rants, and then it's both from That's a Random Name for $1.
	Hey, you know, if you're going to send as many in, we appreciate $1, but, you know, you could do a little bit more.
	I disagree about Bardella's good appearance being superficial.
	It's perfectly reasonable to judge a book by its cover.
	He gives off the whole vibe of a strongman with purpose, unlike someone like Farad.
	Yeah, this is what I was saying. Yeah, we weren't saying it's purely superficial or an act.
	We're saying that... I said it to a lot of people, it seems superficial, but it's not.
	He's an avatar of what he speaks for.
	And they say, speaking of this, I think the millennial Gen Z politicians will be way more intense than the current boomers in charge because, unlike them, we want what's best for our children and our nations.
	And also, as we've both said for ages, for our entire lifetime, everything's been called racist.
	Yes. It's meaningless.
	Milk, Kew Gardens, the countryside.
	You cried war for too many times, so we're not actually susceptible to this charge, so we can just get on with doing what we want to do without worrying what the chattering media class thinks.
	Harry? Yeah, if drinking milk and going to the gym means that you're a white supremacist, well then, everybody on this panel right now.
	Zuby, average white supremacist.
	It's guilty, exactly. Ridiculous standards.
	Anyway, so, we all know that as part of the generational conflicts that are going on right now within our own nations, a huge part of that is the information war, because he who controls what information is spread to the masses has an immense amount of societal control, especially within the democratic system, when really the currency is information, more than anything else.
	That's why large interest groups Most of the time they take over financial institutions and also media and entertainment institutions because that way you have the two main vectors of societal control under your thumb.
	Wikipedia is, despite the fact that everybody was taught in school that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia or use it as a reliable source, it is used by most people as at least a basic way to get a cursory understanding of any information that you're looking for.
	It maybe shouldn't be, but I would say Wikipedia pages are about as good as the editors who've edited those pages are.
	So if you've found a page where maybe there's one really dedicated autist who cares about the subject that not many people know about, you're liable to actually get some good information, and at the very least you'll get some good sources from it.
	If you have a Wikipedia page that is subject to mass edits from a bunch of insane leftists, well then you're liable to be being fed misinformation and active disinformation.
	And that is what has happened recently to the Wikipedia page that was available for the grooming gangs crisis within the UK. Two years ago we also covered when the page for grooming was created and it was the Grooming conspiracy theory, the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory.
	We went through the notes and it was a bunch of leftists saying that these obviously predatory practices in schools to sexualize children's education were just made up even though they were readily available to read the materials and they had been widely reported and cited in actual government reports.
	Yeah, so what will happen with something like that, and the grooming gang's page has had very very similar treatment, is that they will completely eschew all of the more reliable reports and sources that you can take, and take the one or two sources that match the narrative that they want to spread, and solely rely on those.
	Oftentimes if you go into the editing history you'll find that there's
	essentially been a war going on but inevitably with these sorts of things
	because right-wingers as a whole tend not to be as switched on to these mainly
	because they have families and jobs and actual responsibilities you'll find that
	the leftists tend to swarm and get the upper hand and the Wikipedia page
	becomes basically unusable for reliable information which is a shame because it
	is a website that is one of the most visited on the internet.
	And this does come back to what I was saying in my segment which is the right needs to
	get to grips with with the digital world.
	You know, so many of us are just completely out of touch on that front.
	We need to understand that even something as mundane as Wikipedia is a battleground.
	It's a castle that we need to capture.
	It absolutely is.
	But what you can do if you're looking for reliable and interesting information is you can buy a copy of Issue 2 of Islander, which is still available for the time being, but by the end of this week, I'm speaking now on Wednesday the 9th of October, by the end of this week it will no longer be for sale.
	Very limited run, so get it while you still can.
	Same with the rest of the merchandise that we have available on the website.
	So, to go into the information of what's happened here, so Wikipedia, as I've mentioned, has the grooming gangs page that was previously titled Muslim Grooming Gangs in the United Kingdom.
	On the 7th of October, interestingly enough, this was renamed to Grooming Gang Moral Panic in the United Kingdom.
	Oh, that's morally despicable.
	Yes. So, moral panic...
	I actually found the Wikipedia page for it, interestingly enough, was a term developed by a man called Stanley Cohen, who stated that moral panic happens when a condition...
	Obviously, I think the phrase itself existed before then, but he popularised it in his modern understanding.
	Moral panic happens when a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.
	While the issues identified may be real, the claims exaggerate the seriousness, extent, typicality and or inevitability of harm.
	It is often considered academically by academics to be irrational.
	So it's clearly a way to try and smear the very, very well-known, factual, documented cases of Asian, and by that I mean Middle Eastern, Pakistani primarily, ethnic grooming gangs who specifically went out of their way to target white British girls and groomed them.
	It's using that as a way to try and smear it by applying this term, which people have been taught in schools.
	Well, moral panic was when Mary Whitehouse thought the rock and roll was for Satanists.
	But moral panic is when we were burning witches at the stake.
	So it's already associated in people's minds with something that is untrue.
	Yeah, I love as well, by the way, that it says, like, yeah, it might be real.
	It's like, yeah, yeah, you know, girls might be being raped up and down the country by immigrants, but...
	Don't panic about it.
	Don't worry about it.
	It's exaggerated. I mean, if it's only one or two, why should you care?
	If it's only a million. If it's only thousands, then, you know.
	Well, it literally is thousands, because Asian-led British government by Rishi Sunak and Suella Braveman set up a grooming gangs task force after the GB News expose done by the excellent Charlie Peters, and they found, so far, 1,500 perpetrators and at least 4,000 victims.
	So, is that a moral panic?
	And another great example of the moral panic...
	That's been embedded in schools is the fact that Arthur Miller's The Crucible is a set text for GCSE English.
	I learned about it during GCSE English.
	Exactly. I had to perform it during drama because everyone in right-wing politics is a failed theatre kid.
	Exactly. But in that, that set the idea that not only was the Salem Witch Trials completely
	made up, which of course it was, but as an allegory, all of the House and Un-American
	Activities Committee's hearings, the McCarthy era, even though McCarthy didn't chair those,
	searching for communists embedded in the US government, were purely fictitious and made up.
	And it's like, no, there were actually lots of them. It wasn't a moral panic.
	It was an allegory.
	Perfect charge.
	Yeah. They were running cartoonist unions and things like that. So this is, you're right,
	completely vetted.
	FDR's administration was made of quite a few communist infiltrators. One of whom
	organized the Bretton Woods Agreement on behalf of the US and screwed over Britain.
	Yeah, so this is completely embedded in, let's say, the default liberal psyche, that as soon as they hear moral panic, they can just write it off.
	It's been rendered radioactive. So this is what this is trying to do.
	It's absolutely trying to give people an excuse to dismiss it, and if you ask why, well, they can either point to the Wikipedia page, or they can point to the source that the Wikipedia page is using, which I'll refer to in a moment.
	First, they point out in this unheard article that every Wikipedia article has a talk function which allows users to request and debate edits.
	The change was confirmed by a user named Scepter, who wrote there is a consensus that if the article is to be kept and for the meanwhile it is to be kept, so they might actually just delete the page off of the website altogether.
	That moral panic should be included in the article to reflect how the subject is dealt with in reliable sources.
	So, apologetic press for the establishment that imported all of these groomers.
	Yes, leftist media and leftist infiltrators within government departments writing reports, which is the main one they'll be referring to, That's a total lie.
	There's an actual light. Well, I've got it.
	I've got it in the next link, so we can go through that in a moment.
	In the announcement of the article's title change, the question of ethnicity is addressed.
	Quote, there was a late discussion about the possible title of ethnicity and, but, I cannot find a consensus for the inclusion yet, writes the same user Scepter.
	Nor can I find a consensus for the inclusion of the word Muslim.
	However, if after informal and possible formal discussions such a consensus emerges, that can easily be revisited.
	So complete appeal to popularity, appeal to this imaginary consensus, well, I've not been able to find anything that suggests that lots of people agree with me, so therefore, well, agrees with the idea that it should be ethnicity, therefore I'm going to leave it out altogether.
	I don't mean to be cliched, but I think there was a mid-century English socialist who might have written a book about this kind of thing happening.
	Was it 1987?
	1945? Something like that.
	I don't know. Anyway. I don't know what you could be on about.
	Interesting. Yeah, but it's just fascinating how we do now live in this time where information is...
	Because this might as well be saying, when the party says, then we will change it to these various different types.
	Ironically, Prevent put that on its watch list of texts frequented by the far right, the exact kind of people they say that are spreading this moral panic.
	Without a hint of irony, 1984 was on that.
	I remember how... What was Prevent started to prevent as well?
	Why was it preventing? What was it preventing?
	Was it British people standing up for their own interests?
	No, it was supposed to be against Islamic terrorists, I remember.
	Well, you say that, I mean, look at my expose on the website.
	It was ostensibly about Islamic terror.
	It has since, under Raikou, become an exercise in propagandising the British people any time there is a Muslim terror attack to, quote, don't look back in anger.
	Because remember, the response to Manchester Arena was centrally planned by the government using our tax money.
	Yes, so the whole reason that Prevent was started in the first place was a lie.
	So the government lied. Big surprise.
	While the title change request was granted, it wasn't unanimously supported, one user wrote, It seems to me that I don't like it or it's too offensive to me slash others are at play here, and I ask the community to be wary of changing the article's title on that ground.
	If sources say Muslim Asian grooming gangs, then we should leave it as is.
	It is irrelevant what the far-right groups say or how it may or may not play into their narrative.
	So this person, I assume, is probably also a leftist if they're saying far-right groups, but at least they're somebody with a bit of honesty and integrity to them.
	So fair play for speaking up.
	Let's not change the Wikipedia page from being changed, because as you can see here, this is what it looks like at the moment.
	Moral panic about groups referred to, yada yada, right-wing and far-right activists, as well as more mainstream individuals.
	No... That's a nice vague term there.
	Well, BBC Newsnight. Yeah, helped popularize the terminology in 2010s.
	Here is the paper that they are referring to.
	Group-based child sexual exploitation characteristics of offending from the Home Office in 2020.
	This was a large report that was done under Preeti Patel.
	No, it was commissioned by Sajid Javid, himself, Pakistani heritage.
	Yes, I believe I saw that Preeti Patel had, when she was Home Secretary, had said that this report was very, very disappointing.
	But if you look, I looked through this, you can search for the terms.
	Not once is there a use of the word religion or religious, so they're not even looking into that as a factor.
	The word Muslim only appears once in the whole document, and that's in a reference note quoting the Muslim Women's Network, I believe.
	But they do have a bit here.
	About ethnicity, because the key findings are basically that ethnicity doesn't really play into anything, and even if you do really consider ethnicity, well, the majority of these cases are done by white people anyway, and it ignores the disproportionate nature of some of the cases.
	But there is some quality information that you can find under the subheading of ethnicity.
	Would you like to say what you're looking to say?
	Yes.
	Many of the actual acts that have been put through the courts and resulted in far too lenient prosecutions
	have involved the girls saying they made me stand in a corner and look at the floor, called me on white slag,
	they made me read Quranic verses, they deliberately plied me with drugs and alcohol because they knew that I was a
	non-believer.
	And so they and the families of the grooming gang perpetrators who, in the recent trial in Rotherham,
	had the daughters who knew what their dad had done say, I love you dad, as he was sent to prison, have covered this
	up as a community, and the community is Pakistani and Muslim.
	And, thanks to, again, Charlie Peters, if you dig into the statistics, it's something like one in every 1,000 Muslim men in Rotherham, and one in every 700 in Telford, were guilty of this.
	I actually have a number for Rotherham.
	It was one in 73 Rotherham Muslims.
	One in 73? Yes.
	Blimey, okay. Can I just say, I mean, this is a point that I like to make, because I think that it's a really interesting and useful perspective to take, but thinking about how this period of history through which we're living will be reported and taught to our descendants in, say, 200 years' time, this story in particular...
	I think will be viewed as being one of the most insane and evil things to have ever taken place on this country's soil.
	Because, you know, you think about how it will be reported, oh yeah, well, in the early part of the 21st century there was this thing that happened where the government made it a policy to bring in millions of foreigners from the Middle East and thousands of them set about raping the indigenous population, primarily young girls, because they were white and because they were English.
	And then at every level of the state, from the actual police officers at the bottom level right the way up to MPs in Parliament, they covered it up because they were scared of being called racist.
	MPs and Lords were actually involved in this at one point.
	Yeah, it's absolutely unbelievable.
	I mean, words can't put into...
	I can't put into words how angry this story makes me.
	And it's difficult to not get worked up about it, but it's...
	I'll go through a little bit of the information that's in here because a lot of the reporting from outlets like The Guardian speaking about this really harped on the editorial writing that was included in this to try to dismiss the information that they do include because there is a lot of good, hard data that you can find in this report that mainly comes from previous studies.
	It's kind of a collation of different studies.
	But they add a lot of editorialising around it to try and dismiss it by saying things like So women like Ella Cockbane, who wrote for The Guardian when this report came out, Saying that, oh, it's more to do with power dynamics and the attempts of patriarchal men to submit and oppress women, which I would say, yes, definitely was a factor in it, but mainly it was an ethnic factor on top of that.
	They use these bits of editorializing to dismiss all of the rest of the information, because really, let's be honest, that's all that most people were reading for when they were trying to look at this report and what it said.
	So that they could just find anything possible, like the Wikipedia page has done, to exclude the idea that ethnicity had anything to do with it.
	They also say, Yeah, but it's not about majority, because obviously in a majority white country, The majority of the offenders of any crime you would expect to be the native ethnicity.
	Yes, per capita. Yeah, per capita.
	But not just that. Over-representation is the problem that we're pointing at.
	Every single crime committed by a foreign national was optional.
	Yes. It has been brought here by the government so it is their fault.
	So none of these crimes needed to happen.
	If you have a British-born rapist, I agree...
	Given the harshest possible penalty or the death penalty, because that is our problem to deal with.
	It doesn't mean, because they exist, import more rapists.
	It doesn't follow.
	It's not about tasty recipes, though.
	Oh, that's a great point. So many people find this so difficult to understand, though, because I've had conversations with people where I've said, the Manchester Arena bombing, for example, didn't need to happen.
	It was a result of a government policy.
	And they'll say to me, well, we had bombings in this country in the 90s and before.
	We had bombings because of the IRA. And it's like, yeah, but that is fundamentally different because those people are native to these isles.
	It was a homegrown problem.
	We didn't need, then, the additional problem of foreign terrorists in the country.
	We had enough of our own to deal with.
	And so this is the key point, is it's part of a government policy.
	And this is so crucial.
	Whenever we talk about issues around immigration, it always has to come back to, yeah, there are problematic individual immigrants, but the actual culprits, the actual people who have to be brought to justice in our lifetimes for these problems...
	Are the elites? Are the governments that we've had for the last however many decades?
	Civil servants that have stayed there and deliberately obstructed the data getting out, obstructed the will of ministers that try to reduce it.
	And any time one of these terror attacks happens, they give money to Raikou and tell us, don't look back in anger.
	Yes, there certainly does need to be punishments for what's happened, but this page of this report is actually quite interesting because it does include a lot of the information from large-scale studies that have been conducted looking into this phenomenon.
	And again, if you ignore the editorialising around it, the information that they give here is very telling.
	So, CEO P in 2011 undertook a data collection with police forces, children's services and specialists providers from the voluntary sector looking at those allegedly involved in street grooming and child sexual exploitation.
	Data was returned on approximately 2,300 possible offenders, approximately 1,100 were excluded from the analysis, But in the remaining 1,200 cases, ethnicity data was unknown for 38%.
	Of the available data that we do have, 30% of the offenders were white, while 28% were Asian.
	Due to the amount of missing data, blah-de-blah-blah.
	In 2013, CEOP undertook a second piece of work in this space.
	Data was requested from all police forces in England and Wales on contact child sexual assault.
	And responses were received from 31.
	Of the 52 groups where data provided was usable, half of the groups consisted of all Asian offenders.
	Half of them.
	26 groups.
	11 were all white, 4 were all black, and 2 were exclusively Arab.
	So, they say here, looking at the offenders across all groups, of the 306 offenders, 75% were Asian.
	However, as with the 2011 study, these figures should be treated with caution due to the amount of missing data.
	So they do say that despite the fact that we do have some substantial data, and of that data that we do have, it seems to point very clearly to a massive over-representation of Middle Eastern Asian ethnicities.
	Committing these sorts of crimes.
	We still can't draw any conclusions, right?
	We can't draw any conclusions from it, and that's what The Guardian runs with.
	But then, just a few paragraphs later, they come out with this line, which does suggest
	that even without the information available, we can draw some conclusions though.
	Based on the existing evidence and our understanding of the flaws in the existing data, it seems
	most likely that the ethnicity of group-based child sexual exploitation offenders is in
	line with CSA more generally, and with general population, with the majority of offenders
	being white.
	So, three things on that.
	Number one, we're investigating the grooming gangs, which is an ethnically and religiously motivated crime in particular towns and cities, so the perpetrators are of a particular ethnicity.
	So just saying, but all child exploitation...
	No, no, that's not the point. If you're trying to quash a problem, you get specifics.
	So they're just hiding this, they know it's the problem, and they're lying.
	Secondly, it's not Asians.
	It's not the Japanese doing this.
	It's not the Sikhs doing this. Well, yeah, it's an incredibly broad term.
	Yeah, it's deliberately vague.
	It's Pakistanis and it's Muslims.
	And it's every single time.
	Which means... But again, they didn't even look into any religious element that went into this when they did this report.
	Which means it's an insufficient report.
	But it does mean we know the group that are doing it.
	We shouldn't import more of them. We should import all of them.
	And the final thing about this is that, okay, we don't have enough data to get a conclusive number.
	Alright, so then why do you assume one way?
	Because I could quite happily assume, if you don't have enough data, then it means that it's probably more.
	And you have an ideological motivation to To not suppose it's more, so it probably is.
	Well, this is a really important point, right?
	So being in the kind of think-tanky circles that I occasionally move in, there's a real consensus that the UK is what gets called a data desert.
	We just don't have so much data, especially on issues like this, which is an enormous failing because there's plenty of countries, again, looking to Europe, for examples, who collect data in the most granular detail when it comes down to things like ethnicity and so on.
	And we just don't do it in this country because, if we did...
	There would be outrage at the findings because it would show the entire project that the elites have been undertaking for the better part of 30 years is a total failure and the entire apparatus and infrastructure of the state exists to justify its failure.
	Can I be difficult and correct you on that?
	We do actually collect it, they don't publish it.
	Because any time internal civil servants have asked this, Stephen Edgington did an expose recently, Rycroft and our old friend Jess Phillips are completely shtum.
	Patrick Christis and the show over at GB News tried paying, because they put in a Freedom of Information request, they tried paying the Home Office the full fees to compile and publish the data, because the Home Office said, and the Ministry of Justice said, too expensive, can't afford the manpower.
	When they offered them all the money for it, they still said no, they just don't want it out there.
	Well there is a certain scale that means that I can understand from the perspective, if I think of myself, I'm an evil civil servant, let's put myself in that perspective.
	There's a measure of scale that means that even Raikou wouldn't be able to put a lid on what happened, because if you actually had that information out there, judging by some of the reactions that happened to situations earlier this year, it would be Southport by a factor of a hundred.
	And I don't think there would be any amount of propaganda once you release that information.
	And honestly, when people like us and GB News and other outlets began to make that more well-known among the public, there's nothing that could put that back on.
	Yeah, and of course, none of us encourage violence, but the only thing that stops those riots weren't even the Raikou efforts that had, which you publicised, all of the newspapers simultaneously showing stand-up to racism demonstrations as a purely organic thing in response to the hundreds of far-right protests which Nick Laws admitted were hoaxes.
	It was just Keir Starmer getting even more draconian in applying two-tier justice standards and giving two-year sentences for Facebook posts while Letting out the exact kind of perpetrators of these sexual crimes, they realise their propaganda efforts aren't even working anymore, so they need to get even more punitive in terms of the justice system.
	But even then, we're such a country in such decline, we're so useless and incompetent on a national level, That they won't even really be able to practically enforce that past a certain point because of the lack of infrastructure we have to house criminals.
	We covered this on a roundtable that if you have a membership on the website, which you should do, you can watch.
	I think we all included some really good information in that.
	But anyway, back to the Wikipedia article.
	Would it surprise anybody to find out that this was the person who edited it?
	Grooming Gang page change was made by at Sarah Licity, who self-describes as trans-feminist, atheist, and progressive-minded student, who also in their Twitter bio calls themselves...
	I'm assuming it's a he, really, so I'm going to go with a he.
	He calls himself a non-binary dyke.
	X, E, they, she, and a European flag in there, and a muxtress of mathematics.
	And wrestling fangirl.
	Wrestling, that incredibly feminine pastime that girls across the country love.
	Interestingly enough, I wanted to make sure that I have verified it myself.
	This is the right person, because I didn't see much verification going on.
	On Wikipedia, you can find the page, the user page of the person who edited it, Scepter.
	And I went on it, and there is a Twitter link linking to that account.
	So this is correct information.
	Unsurprisingly, he locked it.
	What a big surprise.
	But somebody in the replies to this linked something very interesting, which is a 2015 Breitbart article about this person.
	Because Mr.
	Sarah, Mr. Sarah Noble, has been quite notorious.
	Sorry, you sound like a Nigerian scammer.
	Yeah. Mr. Sarah. He's been quite notorious for a good few years at this point, because back in 2015 he was a Lib Dem activist who almost got kicked out of the party, I think did get kicked out of the party, because he was sharing on his Twitter page, Kill all men, F men, die cisgendered scum.
	Now this was a man who was sitting on two National Party committees, and he was suspended from this.
	He was sat on the LGBT Liberal Democrats and the Secular and Humanist Liberal Democrats.
	He'd also been elected to the Executive Committee of the National Union of Students, LGBT wing.
	So, a usual suspect.
	The former Lib Dem, I can see there, leader, then-equalities minister, Joe Swinson, who herself didn't know what a woman was, has even come out and condemned Noble's comments personally.
	So, this is a high-profile nutcase.
	But because of how Wikipedia operates, with its kind of decentralized and democratic mode of working, it means that this person has an outsized amount of control over the information that is available to people On the Wikipedia pages, including the grooming gang one, this is the kind of person who is editing those pages and trying to make you convinced that it's just a moral panic that you should dismiss and not think about further.
	There was a time when we had asylums in this country.
	Yes, better times.
	These sorts of people, right, you know, you can look at them and you think, oh, they're a political enemy and they're sort of scheming.
	No, this person is deeply, deeply mentally ill.
	Or he's just a porn addict who's got a job as a Discord mod or a Twitch mod.
	But you repeat yourself. And does this on the, yeah.
	Either way, mental, not to be trusted.
	And to go back over some of the information that proves that it's not just a moral panic, it is something that people should be deeply concerned about and outraged about.
	Again, Jack Anderson was the one who shared that information.
	One in 73 Muslim men who live in Rotherham have been prosecuted for grooming gang-related crimes in the past two decades.
	Keith Woods, who I'm not always in agreement with, but sadly has had his YouTube channel taken down recently without any reason given other than hate speech, even though his channel was actually very mild for the most part compared to his other platforms.
	So that was completely unfair.
	He shared this and he shared, of course, the headlines.
	Over almost 19,000 children identified as sexual exploitation victims in England.
	Interestingly enough, Peter McLaughlin, who is the man who's recently written the manifesto with Tommy Robinson, has previously done a study and book about the grooming gangs called Easy Meat, and he estimated it might actually be closer to over 100,000 in total.
	Probably more than that.
	I wouldn't be surprised if it goes up to a million.
	Well, I think the cornerstone, no matter what the numbers are, because we've got different numbers, the cornerstone should be that Charlene Downs' name should be as well known as George Floyd.
	Charlene Downs was the young girl...
	Oh, far more well known. Yeah, quite.
	Charlene Downs was the young girl in Blackpool who was sexually exploited by a grooming gang and whose body was ground up into kebab meat and sold and used as tile grouting for the kebab shop.
	And her abusers laughed about this and boasted about it and they got off on a technicality because of improper evidence-gathering methods.
	Never had justice. I learned about that story when I was probably...
	I don't know. I was young when I learned about that story because she had the same name as me.
	And as you do, I was Googling my own name.
	And I was like, oh, there's a Wikipedia page on a Charlie Downs.
	Let's read that. And then I became aware of the kind of stuff that goes on in this country.
	And if you want to be more aware of what goes on in the country, it's so well documented and so not a moral panic that you should throw away that we actually have a premium video on the website giving a breakdown of the timeline of the grooming gangs.
	That's how well documented it is.
	You can go date by date and draw this out in a very straight line.
	It's very, very clear and very, very well documented.
	100% diverse.
	And there has been some justice for this.
	There was a recent segment that you did, The Silence is Deafening, about the grooming gang's trials.
	There has been some justice on this, but nowhere near enough.
	And with that, we'll move on to the video comments.
	As they're getting loaded up, I'll read the two rumble rants from That's a Random Name.
	Quote, Moral panic grips the Shire as Orcs are accused of eating Hobbit children.
	This has been debunked by Saruman the Wise as Orcophobia.
	In other news, more refugees to come from Mordor fleeing persecution.
	I'm sure we'll all be paying to house Uruks in Osgiliath.
	And That's a Random Name for $2 says, Connor, I'm trying to save dollars because I'm trying to start my own business while paying a mortgage in Trudeau's Canada.
	Oof. Poor you. But since you are so nice, here's another dollar and thanks for reading them.
	Yeah, I was just winding you up, don't worry.
	We appreciate your support, everyone's support.
	I did not know that you were undergoing a literal Sisyphean trial, so good luck to you, friend.
	It's like the black woman pushing her throbbing brain up the hill trying to understand the capita.
	Anyway. That's wholesome.
	Oh, there's a squirrel.
	Yeah, we saw deer on our train ride down.
	That was nice. Please do more wholesome content, I agree.
	This is what I do on weekends, because I don't really like people, and I don't drink anymore, so I just go to parks and, like...
	Oh look at the ducks!
	Did a Haitian write that left hand caption?
	And cut.
	Yeah, they took the Alex Jones movie a bit too seriously.
	I was recently in Turkey for a week, sorry, and we stopped off at some terrible little restaurant while other people were going in a mud bath on an excursion, and we found a little colony of five ducks who were really inquisitive, so we just stood there for an hour taking photos and saying hello.
	Aww, that's very sweet.
	Next time...
	No cap towers, the gorgeous palaces, the solemn temples...
	The great earth itself...
	By all the generous...
	This would be lovely without the trap beat.
	Did Rory edit this one?
	Bit of a clash. Very nice landscape, though.
	We're getting some good, wholesome comics.
	Ooh, it's a bit of Life is Strange music.
	Yeah, you're right.
	I'm recognising that guitar line.
	Have you seen Next Week?
	Is there something new to do with...
	Oh, is it my first two episodes are out of double exposure?
	Three. Dude, we've got to do it.
	You're such a big girl with this.
	I mean, look at you. Look, look, look.
	I think if they're releasing the first two episodes, I think they're going to leave on a big cliffhanger and they're going to bring Chloe back and it's going to be good.
	Okay? I believe it. Don't shake your head, Samson.
	I believe... As a straight man, I don't know what you're talking about.
	This is the purest form of cope I've ever seen firsthand.
	The first game was accidentally right-wing.
	Maybe they'll do it again. Maybe.
	Admittedly, the other ones suck.
	Let's not go there, but...
	Alright, alright. I want to believe, dude.
	I want to do it. If they just do an adaptation of Twin Peaks and leave it as it was originally in the show, and then maybe I'm interested, because they ripped off enough from Twin Peaks to begin with.
	Can we just do a full game of, like, David Madsen nonce hunter?
	Because that's basically what his role was in the first game.
	Yeah, that'd be... You know what?
	You'd win me over with them.
	Anyway, on the next one. John Kerry, our moronic, entitled, former Secretary of State, recently stated that the First Amendment is a quote-unquote problem for good governance.
	And every Republican should play this for every campaign ad.
	And as Elon said, the Democrats are the biggest danger to democracy.
	And in another Lamyentation, David Lamy is like an ass hamster.
	You know it has to be removed, but explaining how it got there is really embarrassing.
	I like a lamentation.
	Very, very clever. You should do more of those.
	As for explaining how the First Amendment gets in the way of democracy, I did a really good essay for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Substack.
	Anna Tomlinson talks on this, which is basically, they think that everyone's a blank slate.
	They think that populists are imposing division upon society.
	It's like a false consciousness. So if they just censor people like Trump or us, then everyone will come to the same progressive, egalitarian conclusion.
	Information control. Yep, exactly.
	Exactly. Anyway, on to some of the written comments before we wrap up.
	Probably got about five minutes. The Letter M supports the native Red Scrolls reconquering England.
	Another podcast, another brilliant thumbnail.
	How do they keep doing this? Thank you, Samson.
	Genuinely, not to kiss his arse, Samson's been fantastic since he's joined.
	It's been a wonderful prayer for fresh air of professionalism, and he really does do a really good job.
	I'd compliment him, but I don't want him to get too big for his boots.
	I'm glad that it's dozens.
	Josh's mum does. 444,000 subscribers.
	And at least 24 women.
	You get a disproportionate number behind the paywall, because YouTube's a very male-dominated one, but in our comments, you get a lot of female...
	It just happens. A lot of thirsty women.
	Many such cases. Rob Bayliss.
	On fire today, gents. Good work.
	Yeah, I thought this was a great show.
	It's good to have you back, man.
	It's been too long. Thomas Howell.
	Tax the remittances to countries that won't take their criminal class back or police migration through the land and watch how quickly they deal with it.
	Well, if you just ban remittances, they'll stop coming.
	Do that, rescind the welfare state, ban cousin marriage, which Sweden's just done.
	Have they really? Sweden's just banned cousin marriage.
	Taxing it isn't even a tarot. If you tax it at 50%, that's money going to the government, which is always good.
	Yeah, but they're going to spend it on gay race communism.
	This is in a world where we are the government.
	Yeah, but when we're the government, I will actually remove the majority of taxes for most things.
	Because let's be honest, the patriotic British public will probably just pay a voluntary protection fee to the military because they like it.
	Like, I don't need to be taxed to, you know, pay for it.
	Most taxes are completely unnecessary when we consider what the money is going for.
	Oh, 100%, yeah. Warlord Wutai.
	Jesus, I see what you've done for the Hungarians, and I want that for us.
	Absolutely. I can't wait to go back out there.
	It's going to be so good. Fauxpas.
	Can Hungary get away with their anti-diversity pro-family rhetoric because they're merely a stepping stone on the way to more desirable lands for diverse hordes to loot?
	No. I think Hungary can do this because they're still a homogenous population.
	So they survived decades of cultural erasure under Soviet communism.
	But you, as a culture, can rebound if you still have a people.
	If you replace the people, because we're behind the paywall now, so we can talk about the Great Replacement...
	Which isn't an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, by the way.
	If you just replace the people, then the culture can never recover.
	So this is the problem we've got at the moment.
	I bowed and spoke about this, I don't remember who said it originally, but he says that communism rots the body, but liberalism rots the soul.
	And this is what you see in the Eastern European countries.
	You see these countries that were under the boot heel of communism, but in the aftermath still retain their spirit.
	You feel it in places like Hungary.
	Liberalism is an autoimmune disorder because it can't exert preference for the personal, the particular, and the national.
	And so it attacks the host while allowing foreign pathogens to come in and corrupt you and take you over.
	Liberalism is AIDS, I agree.
	Sven, Britain is a laughing stock.
	I had a guy on the phone yesterday tell me that his bank in Switzerland had laughed and described the UK as a third world country when he called them.
	Yes, they're laughing at us. Yeah.
	Again, I've just been to Turkey. They've got, you know, some tourist areas are quite well built up and they're an aspirational second world country.
	Some areas are still third world.
	They're rural, there's rubbish everywhere, things don't work, cars break down.
	I came back to the UK and went through some of the suburbs in London, which 10 years ago were really quite nice.
	We're a second world country now.
	Yeah, for sure. Without a doubt. Because we've imported third world people and that's what you get.
	Bleach Stephen, if the option is being cool while winning elections and saving a nation, or being erudite whilst being pushed out of the homeland and ground under the boot of stormtroopers, why call victory cheesy?
	It's because cool is a cheesy word.
	Yeah. We haven't got a better word yet.
	What about exciting? Yeah.
	Sexy. Sexy, exciting.
	Things like that. I think cool is essentially...
	How do I put this?
	It's been co-opted by Cool Britannia.
	It's an American import from jazz lingo.
	Yeah, it's like hip. It's black American language, basically.
	And I want to try and remove as much of that from my vocabulary as possible, so I'd rather use a word like exciting.
	Exuberant. Or vital. Yeah, vital.
	It's good, yeah. Colin P. Why are there people wanting to take us back into the EU if Europe in general, and France in particular, is such a hellhole that people are risking and losing their lives into the channel to escape it?
	Because they don't conceive of France as a hellhole, they just conceive of every single country as an area in which values and material prosperity can be showered upon blank slates.
	Yeah, can I just say, on this topic, this was actually something I meant to bring up in my segment, but I didn't get round to it.
	I actually am interested, I know we've only got a couple of minutes left, but I am actually quite, in principle, in favour of a European Union.
	This is Harrison's line as well.
	Yeah, I think the notion of a united Europe as a bulwark against the dark forces from the East and the West...
	Is a good and desirable thing.
	Just the current incarnation of the EU is rubbish and acts against, at every turn, the interests of the European people.
	But actually, and I'm not talking about like a European nation type vision, but I'm talking about not even a federalised Europe, just an idea that it's desirable for the European peoples to be united and to be pointing in the same direction.
	The European peoples being essentially an extended family unit.
	With a shared history.
	With a shared history, yes, we've had lots of conflicts in the past, but I think at this point of modernity we can recognise that we have to band together to survive in the modern world.
	And this is the point. Moreover...
	We have more in common than we have that separates us.
	And we're all in this together.
	There is an ongoing attack, a war against Europe and against European peoples.
	And division between, you know, petty infighting, petty nationalism is only helping the cause of the people who want to see Europe literally razed to the ground.
	I'd quite like a Five Eyes, which isn't just a spying agency on their native populations, but as a sort of...
	You know what? I would actually be happy, as long as it was just the native populations of those countries, I would almost be happy with a free movement scheme with Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand...
	Totally. Pan-Angloism. Yeah, I'd be happy with it.
	But at the moment, we're not going to get that, and instead, it just inflicts Globo Homo on us.
	Harry, do you want to do a few of yours before we wrap up?
	Yeah, sure. Derek Power says, make Encyclopedia Britannica again.
	Encyclopedia Britannica is still a decent source of information.
	Some of the pages are really excellent, some of them are like the one on Yasuke.
	The main character of the new Assassin's Creed is edited by literally the guy who wrote the book on him, which is bollocks.
	That was a bullshit book. Jimmy Mack, the societal level of rage over the rape gangs is woefully inadequate.
	It makes my blood boil whenever it's discussed, just as will be done one day, one way or another.
	I agree. Ewan Baker, I was always told whilst at college, 2006-2009, never to cite Wikipedia as my source in my work.
	I always roll my eyes when some lefty gives it to me as their source as a gotcha moment.
	Can I go back to the prior one?
	This is going to be very contentious, it'll be eclipsed out of context, but in the same way that October the 7th has become a redefinition of the Israeli political paradigm for Jews both living in Israel and abroad...
	It's become never again again.
	Exactly. The grooming gangs should be that for us.
	Agreed. It should be...
	If we were allowed to...
	As a uniting political formula, we need our own never again.
	Yeah, and I think that's the grooming gangs.
	And the final one that we've got on the document here, Arizona Desert Rats.
	The parents and families of these girls being groomed or raped are panicking.
	Their daughter slash sister is being abused.
	You can't ignore the cost to individuals in order to protect what you believe is the best for society, which really isn't best for society.
	The sad thing is lots of them didn't even have parents.
	Lots of them are for care homes. So they preyed on the most vulnerable in government institutions and the government let them get away with it.
	Anyway, be back.
	On that cherry note. Yeah, in 25 minutes I'll be doing Thomason Talks on an equally cherry note.
	Some practical advice on how to avoid your government being taken down after Liz Trussis was dispensed with.
	Charlie, thank you very much for being back.
	Great to be back. Where can people find you these days?
	You can follow me everywhere at cfdowns, D-O-W-N-E-S, with an underscore on the end.
	And I've got some quite interesting and exciting content coming out in the next few weeks, so stay tuned.
	Fantastic. And also look at the Center for Migration Control for some excellent stats.
	Harry, thank you as ever, my friend.
	Thank you. We will be back tomorrow at one o'clock.

▲