Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

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

01:34:30

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1019

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 10th of the 10th, 2024.
	It's the 10th of October.
	That means it's almost Halloween, if that matters to you for whatever reason.
	But I'm joined by Harry.
	Hello! And Beau. Alright.
	And it's going to be a good show and I'm going to talk in rhymes the whole time.
	Please don't. Please don't.
	I'm not actually. And today Beau's going to talk about the new Tory leaders.
	Harry's going to talk about his newfound love of Che Guevara.
	He's not actually. For reasons that might surprise you.
	Watch to the end! And I'm going to be talking about why I think overpopulation is a serious problem.
	So, yeah, I think it's an aspect of immigration that we don't touch on very much.
	But I have some announcements.
	It's still the last week for Islander 2, so if you're one of the few people who haven't bought it yet, please do.
	I'm not going to push it that much because I imagine most of the people watching on the website I'm going to beat you up a little bit.
	Oh, and mild beatings.
	Good for everyone. But anyway, Lads Hour this Friday.
	The quiz. Sending questions to quiz at lotuseaters.com.
	Same as the last one.
	And upload video comment questions with answers to the relevant page, which we have up on screen at the minute.
	Lads Hour number 49, pub quiz.
	So you can upload them there, and they will be played.
	I think it's going to be me and Stelios versus Carl and...
	Harrison Pitt.
	Harrison Pitt, yeah. Carl's relying on outsiders to take down the strength of the Lotus Eaters.
	He's like a tyrannical ruler that way, isn't he?
	He's hired mercenaries against his own population.
	Carl's literally the Weth.
	Harrison Pitt's like a ringer, like he's secretly won University Challenge or something.
	I don't know. He might be clever.
	I think he is clever, but...
	He seems clever, yeah.
	No, he definitely is, sorry. He seems like a clever guy.
	No, he definitely is. Let's speculate on Harrison Pitt's IQ for a few minutes, lads.
	He's probably higher than mine, to be honest.
	Stelios was a phenom last time.
	Stelios was really good. He was better, but we've got to be careful of Samson's questions.
	Yeah, that's true. Deliberately misleading questions.
	Bastard questions. Also, Common Sense Crusade, three o'clock today.
	Calvin is here. He is in the office right now from America.
	He's flown in especially for this show.
	I don't know what he's actually doing, but he's here and he's going to do it in person in the studio, which I imagine isn't going to happen a lot.
	When he's living out in the States.
	Father Robinson is in the building.
	He is, yes. So make the most of it while you still can.
	And with all of that out of the way, tell us about what the evil people are doing, Beau.
	Okay, well, just because it's in the news cycle, I thought we're kind of obliged to be bigger stories to cover, at least for British politics.
	so there is the Tory leadership race obviously after they did terribly at the
	last general election the leader is obliged to step down.
	They don't always do they but when you really get a shellacking at a general
	election the leader has to step aside so old Rishi brilliant leader that
	he was leader of men that he was moral leader. Inspiration. An inspiration
	dominating the political scene for a generation Rishi Senak.
	Pocket PM. Has had to step down, and so there's been a leadership race.
	And now, finally, it won't be completely finished until November, I believe.
	But we're now down to the final two.
	And there was a...
	I thought we'd better talk about it.
	So, I mean, our position here at the Lotus Seaters was very much zero seats.
	We want to see the Tories completely annihilated, destroyed as a movement and an organisation.
	I still feel that way. I think everyone at Lotus Eaters does.
	So, in one way, don't really care who becomes a leader.
	I hope, if anything, whoever it is sinks them quicker and faster.
	But there's a couple of different angles you can take on this, so I thought we'd talk about it a bit.
	So, the last four, I believe, was that Tugganhat cretin, James Cleverley, arch-traitor James Cleverley, and then Kemi Badenoch.
	Arch Trader can be bad enough.
	And Robert Jenrick, who's also been in the party for a long time.
	So, it looked like...
	In fact, I did a tweet which was within hours completely out of date.
	It looked like Cleverley was leading the pack.
	Well, he was leading the pack. And I sent a tweet saying, oh, it looks like Cleverley's probably going to win this.
	And then, when it was down to the last three, this is like 36 hours ago or so, And then yesterday, there was a vote just among the Parliamentary Party, i.e.
	just among Tory MPs.
	And there's only, what, 120?
	121? There's only 120-odd of them.
	So there's actually quite a small number.
	So five votes here or there can completely swing this thing.
	So Chukenhat got booted out because he couldn't be more wet.
	He's a nothing person. More loyal to Ukraine than he is to Britain.
	He also couldn't be less notable.
	Right, yeah. What comes to mind when you think of Tom Tugendhat?
	Traitor. Other than traitor, all of the negative Tory words we associate with the entire party, what comes to mind?
	Because I'm drawing a blank. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I only know of him because I do this job, right?
	Your average person will almost certainly not have heard of him.
	Your average American watching almost certainly won't have heard of him.
	And they're better off for it. Yeah, right, yeah.
	People would assume he was a children's character, Tom Tugganhat.
	Yeah. He's a man without trousers, a man without a chest.
	He's a nothing. So anyway, but he got to the final four.
	Tells you what you need to know about the Tory party, doesn't it?
	And so it looked like Cleverley was leading the pack, but then...
	Surprise! Yesterday afternoon, to whittle it down to the last two, cleverly gets booted out, because you know how it works.
	Once one person's booted out, it goes down to three, and so his 20 or 30-odd MPs that were voting for Tugganhat then split up amongst whoever, and the whole balance gets redrawn.
	And cleverly lost. So he was the frontrunner.
	From an actual political perspective, I do think if the Tories want any sort of hope of electoral victory in the future, Jenrick would be who you would go for.
	He's the only real candidate that I would think of who could bring some votes back to them.
	If you were pro-Tory and wanted them to succeed in going forward.
	If you were pro-Tory, and if you were an undecided moderate who sees the problems in the country and see that Jenrit's actually speaking about them, I can see that he would win people over.
	I was not expecting the Tories to go for him, though, if only because I imagine the sentiment...
	I got this wrong, but I would have imagined the sentiment within the Tory party would have been, look...
	Both of our candidates are black.
	Yeah, I'm surprised they didn't do that.
	Yeah, there would have been the smugness coming from it.
	They would have been trying to lord it over Labour.
	Look at how stale, pale and male Labour are, and look at how diverse and forward-thinking we are.
	To be fair, Labour's very stale, pale and female these days, isn't it?
	It's Keir Starmer and his harem of incompetence.
	Yeah. So before we go on and talk about the various angles of it and how the rest of it will play out, we do have to, in the middle of the actual YouTube segment, show The Islander, our magazine, because people will actually see it then.
	So buy this magazine.
	Loads of work's gone into it.
	There's loads of great people that have written in it, like Roar Egg Nationalist, Morgoth, AA, that Carl Benjamin fella, Dave Green, the distributor, Stefan Molyneux and others, including that big Josh Firm off Lotus Eaters.
	He's not that. Look at you, little man.
	You're also in there, aren't you, midget?
	Would you like me to put my seat up full?
	No. If anyone doesn't know what they're talking about, I'm a normal-sized human being.
	I'm like 5'9", 5'10".
	These two guys are giants.
	What are you, 6'3", and you're 6'5", or something stupid?
	Harry's actually 8 foot tall.
	Calvin's 6'5", I'm 6'3", Josh is, you know, 5'11", or something like that.
	I am not. They're both well over 6'.
	It's unfair.
	They're hogging all the height. You're bogarting the height.
	I stole it from you.
	I absorb the height of others around me.
	It's a zero-sum game, and you've stolen it from short men.
	If you leave food, Harry will eat it.
	He's like a cat.
	No, I'm actually very fussy.
	But Dubai Islander, because it's one of our revenue streams, despite what some people say, like Dave Morgan or Jada Franson or Nick Cotton, we're not funded by either Tel Aviv nor Moscow.
	Or Tehran, either.
	Or Tehran. It's all from our subscriber base.
	And things like the Islander magazine and a little bit of merch and a few super chats we get.
	Which is why I live in it. It doesn't make a big difference, just please do buy it.
	That's why I live in a miserable flat in Swindon.
	Right. He lives in an Indian hovel.
	I actually do. Please help me.
	Spent a lot of our money on this video screen.
	It's worth more than me. I think we should be talking about the Tories.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good save.
	Good save, Harry. Alright, so the Tories.
	Here's the BBC. So it's down to Badenoch and Jenrick.
	Both of which I've got no love for, of course.
	They're both sort of crazy people, as far as I'm concerned, who haven't got our best interests at heart.
	Never have. They might pretend they do.
	Sometimes say words to that effect, but I don't trust them, don't believe them.
	So, there's two main schools of thought.
	One, that Kemi wins, and hopefully then, at the ballot box, at the next general election, the Tories stay annihilated, if not lose more.
	So that's one angle.
	So if you want that, then you'd probably want her to win.
	You know, if you really were all in for complete Tory annihilation.
	So I think on the strength of it, I'm in two minds about what I would prefer.
	There's either that or the other one is, Jenrick wins, and then he has some sort of based arms race with Nigel.
	Over who can be more based.
	Now, maybe that.
	I wouldn't mind that either. If it does actually draw reform to the right.
	Because despite my long and storied relationship with the right and how much shade I throw at them on Twitter.
	Oh sorry, with reform. How much shade I throw at reform on Twitter.
	It's not about me. If they are in any way, shape or form drawn to the right and start talking about deportations and re-migration, then I'm happy with that.
	I don't care what it takes to do that.
	This isn't about me and my vanity.
	It's about getting our country back.
	So if Generic is able to act as a vehicle to do that, Then great.
	Well then the question becomes, do you trust either a generic-led Tory party or reform in that situation to actually uphold their promises and not stab you in the back?
	Yeah, no, still not really. I think Farage, in the Stephen Edgington interview where he says that it's politically impossible, I think that Farage is very much married to his very liberal ideas.
	And I think that he is...
	Genuinely presenting his beliefs authentically there.
	Just based on his political track record, he's been pretty consistent on these sorts of things.
	It's kind of difficult to walk that back.
	That was one of the things that was surprising about that Edgington-Farage interview, was that Nigel seemed to give himself no real wiggle room.
	Did he? He said it two or three or even four times.
	It is impossible.
	So, I mean, politicians can, of course, do 180s and go back on their, what they've said previously, and do often, but I don't feel like that's one of them.
	That's why I'm edging towards I would probably rather Kimi win, Kemi, and completely destroy, not Kimi Raikkonen, Kemi, and so just destroy the toys, because I don't think, even if Jenrick wins, and he's saying all this based stuff about remigration and everything, I don't think that would move Nigel.
	Still don't think Nigel really moved much.
	Yeah, I agree. So if that is true, if that take, that guess of what the future holds is correct, then it's not worth it.
	You may as well go with Kemi then.
	There are likely factions within the Reform Party, the younger factions, who would want to pull the party, and probably already do want to pull the party that way, Because, you know, of course we know people who are in reform themselves, and they do want to pull the party that way, and they might be able to point towards Jenrick's rhetoric as a reason to shift rightwards.
	Reform is sort of a dictatorship of the boomers at the minute, isn't it?
	And they haven't really cottoned on to the nature of electoral politics at the minute, and they're going to have to have a wake-up call if they're going to remain relevant.
	So the thing is, just as you say, exactly that.
	I mean, we had that young Charlie Downs in, didn't we, just yesterday, talking about it.
	So yeah, that's absolutely true.
	A lot of the youngers, a lot of the Zoomers want to go that way.
	Charlie and Honour were specifically at the Reform Party conference, and they were speaking about remigration and the need for...
	Lots and lots of people, illegal criminals, people who are in this country illegally in the first place, to be removed from the country, and supposedly what they told me, and I think I saw the clip as well, they were in a room that were full of the younger reform members who all gave them a very big cheer for it, and it was the older elements of the party that winced when he said it.
	And all that's well and good, and I will cheer them on, and I'm behind them, and I back them up in all their endeavours.
	The reality is, though, the party leadership, particularly the party leader, has basically got last say over policy.
	Nigel's a very stubborn person.
	Often, it's a good thing, right?
	That's how he got the... He was very stubborn about Brexit, and that was great, right?
	I don't see...
	I hope it's not the case, but I don't really see him being swayed on something like mass re-migration by even many, many loud voices like those of Connor and Charlie.
	I hope he does. I say I'm behind them, 100%.
	I'm one of their cheerleaders on that.
	I don't see Nigel sort of folding under that kind of pressure.
	And that's the way it is with the party politics, is that the leadership, and particularly the leader, and particularly with reform, What the leader wants, that is what the policy will be.
	So you're actually genuinely changing Nigel's mind.
	That's hard. That would be hard.
	I feel like regardless of all the pressure from the likes of us, from the likes of the young reformers, from the likes of Jenrick, I don't think any of it will sway Nigel, really.
	He says it's impossible. And I think, as you said, he really believes that.
	He absolutely believes that. I think Nigel thinks that...
	It would be electoral suicide to start talking about mattering migration.
	When I say things like this on Twitter, there's always a small 10% of people saying that.
	No, that would be insane.
	They'd lose the few MPs they've already got.
	They'd lose millions of votes if they started talking about that.
	I think the exact opposite.
	I think they would gain millions more votes if they started talking about that.
	But there you go. I think that's the calculation in Nigel's mind.
	Anyway, back to the Tory race.
	So, now it's down to two.
	It actually gets thrown open to the Tory party membership, which is tens of thousands of people.
	We're not sure exactly how many they are, because I think whenever the Tories themselves release how many members they've got, they always exaggerate the number.
	It's certainly in the tens of thousands.
	A few decades ago, it used to be a couple million, but nowadays it's probably something more like 50,000 or 90,000, something in that ballpark.
	The massive problem whereby they lost a lot of funding because they lost so many members recently.
	And it'd be interesting to see which sections of their membership had lost.
	Because in the past, normally the Conservative base, the members, would normally be on the right-hand side of the party.
	Sometimes a lot further right than the actual parliamentary party.
	And so you would imagine that they'd probably go for generic.
	However, it's difficult to say, because I've not necessarily been looking into it in great detail, whether that disposition has remained with the Conservatives or whether they've jumped ship to reform or just left the party, which is entirely possible.
	It wouldn't be shocking if it's mainly the wets remaining as members.
	I would say so as well, yeah.
	I think that's the worry. So the exact number isn't clear.
	I think they claim they've got 90-odd thousand members, something in that ballpark.
	But if you actually look at their company's house stuff, it can't be much more than 50,000.
	Anyway, it doesn't really matter. It's a few tens of thousands of Tory party members get to actually vote on the final two.
	And it is a real litmus test, isn't it?
	Do you want first-generation Kimi Badenoch?
	Or do you want Jenrick, who at least pretends to be a bit based?
	Now, actually, Samson, can you go to the tab that is the YouGov tab?
	I think it's three further on from there.
	And on that page, if you scroll down a bit, there's some data.
	And it looks like maybe Kimmy is, you know, slightly edges it.
	Which would mean, if that is the case, if it turns out that that is true.
	Scroll down a bit more, I think there's another one where it shows a bit closer.
	Things like this. Well then, it would be the wets that are left.
	The boomers that are terrified, not only terrified of being called a racist or anything like that, but they're dying to have a woman of colour lead them.
	Right. Has there ever been a more worthless set of individuals than current Tory party members?
	I think Father Robinson...
	They already like... I don't include him in that because I think he's still...
	They already like bragging about these things.
	He's a member of UKIP now. Oh yeah, sorry, that's right.
	Yeah, he's a UKIP man now. Sorry, that's right.
	I was going to say, the Tories already like bragging about these things.
	First Jewish Prime Minister with...
	woman Prime Minister, second woman Prime Minister, third very very temporary woman Prime Minister,
	and then also the first Prime Minister of colour with Rishi Sunak. And look how that turned out
	for them. So I would not be shocked if simply for the sake of social justice virtue signalling,
	they desperately- there's a massive portion of that party that desperately want first black woman.
	So that even skips over first black Prime Minister.
	That's one notch above in their estimations.
	Yeah, Cleverley wasn't virtue signaling enough for them.
	Yeah. They need...
	They were looking at him and going, well, he's a bit pale, but Badenoch?
	Yeah. She's, like, Nigerian black.
	Plus he's a male, which means toxic, so...
	not him, please.
	But if I had to put a tenor on it right now, I'd probably put it on Genric, because I still feel like, and it could totally be proved wrong in November, I'll probably revisit it then, But I feel like the average Tory member still is sort of a little Englander, probably a rural person living in a village.
	And they may be sort of a boomer virtue signaler, but their gut still probably wants someone like Jenrick over Badenoch.
	But I don't know. I think all the data says it's going to be close.
	Right, that's what I was going to say.
	I think it'll be really close. And I don't, personally, I don't really mind one way or another.
	I suppose what I really had to say, I'd probably rather Kemi, because that is a truer path to annihilation for the party, for them.
	I think, I hope. No, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
	We were talking about this yesterday, weren't we?
	And I basically said exactly that, that I want to see the party destroyed.
	It doesn't matter if they rehabilitate themselves.
	They're too tainted with treachery to ever warrant any electoral success whatsoever, in my opinion.
	In Australia, I think it was, the Conservative Party that got trounced a while ago now, 10 years ago or something.
	And everyone said, oh, well, you know, that's a low ebb.
	But they'll come back. Obviously, they're an institution.
	They've sort of been around forever sort of thing.
	They'll surely come back at some point.
	And they haven't really. They haven't ever really recovered from that.
	I'm hoping that's what will happen.
	So would we very, very quickly like to explain why it is that this podcast in particular has had such a complete 180 from a few years ago when Carl was cheerleading Kemi?
	Because I think we should just make it very, very clear to people who are watching who might be a bit confused.
	Do you remember those years? Is it simply that none of us agreed with Carl at the time?
	Well, yes, but still.
	Yeah, so Kemi back in the day, and I think she still does, made a very, very strong front on the trans issues.
	But the trans issues now are a much lower order of priority in comparison to mass migration, which is the thing that will destroy this country if it's allowed to continue at the pace it is currently.
	And second of all, ah, you've got it.
	Yeah, Kemi is not an opponent of mass migration in the slightest and has in the past made moves and actively supported measures to open up visa routes for people to get into this country, as we can see here.
	Let's play this little clip. The great Steve Edgington on Twitter.
	Give him a follow-up for sure.
	Mr Speaker, as a first-generation immigrant, can I welcome the Home Secretary's statement, which I feel this immigration white paper is a move from the 20th century to a much better future immigration system.
	In particular, I'd like to thank the Home Secretary for removing the annual limits on work visas and also on international students, both of which I lobbied for on behalf of the Wellcome Sanger Institute and Anglia Ruskin University, which serve my constituency.
	Could he elaborate on how removing the work visa cap in particular...
	Shut up, shut up. So this is the same perspective given by that recent interview with Preeti Patel, where she was saying, when she was questioned about why is it that record numbers of people came in while you were Home Secretary, and she went, oh, well, the NHS needed it.
	Don't you want people to get the care that they need?
	Do you want to let old people starve?
	Is that what you want? Do you want to let them die in the hospitals?
	That was essentially the sort of hand-wringing excuses that she was giving.
	I'd rather just lower the national levels of sex crime and street crime and organised crime.
	I'd rather that, actually. And fix the economy and make houses cheaper.
	Loads and loads of things. Roads easier to try.
	Nearly all our social ills, yeah.
	One thing to say, just to finish up on why Carl was...
	Even not too long ago, and Conor and a few others sort of still saying, you know, we can take, before they were thrown out of the party themselves, unceremoniously dumped from the party.
	We take them over from the inside and stuff and a lot of us didn't agree at the time.
	Some people think, still, even I had this on Twitter from an old reform guy just the other day, saying that, like, Carl's like some sort of party leader who sets policy and we all get in line with what he says.
	It's the furthest thing from the truth.
	Karl lets us completely have our own opinions.
	We disagree about, all of us disagree about all sorts of things constantly.
	And he's never ever told us this is the line, this is the low-seated line that you must follow.
	Not at all. I've explained to people outside who are always really shocked because of how other businesses like ours or the media industry businesses operate, we have a remarkable level of editorial freedom.
	Massive credit to Karl. Yeah, so thank Karl for that.
	Yeah, yeah, thank you. Yeah, yeah, it's great.
	There's a few red lines where we know we'll just get yeeted if someone says something like that, right?
	Beyond that, we're free to say more or less exactly what we want and feel.
	Certainly Carl never tries to put words in our mouths, the furthest thing from it.
	So he's very enlightened as a boss in that way.
	Got to give it to him, got to give it to him.
	So okay, I think that's all I'm going to say on this.
	Let us know in the comments if you'd rather Generic or Badenoch or whether you don't really care.
	Alright, shall we go through some of the Rumble Rants before we go to my segment?
	And indeed. And would you like to read them, Bo?
	No, you go ahead, if you wouldn't mind.
	That's the most awkward way of reaching for it.
	I couldn't see it. That's fair.
	I thought it was closer than it was. Do you want me to read the Rumble Rants?
	Sure. Go ahead.
	Okay, I'll read it. You can do the honour.
	So all three are from That's a Random Name, who sent $1 each for them, so thank you very much.
	Thank you. We're like sheep hookers here.
	We've explained it.
	We mentioned that yesterday, and then he donated an extra dollar on one, so he sent one $2 one.
	Said that he's currently saving up for something that I can't remember off the top of my head.
	Don't know. We'll take it. I think he's in Canada, and I think he's trying to save up for a business or a house or something.
	So, you know, he's doing that thing that we all do when we, you know, go like, oh, I can throw a pound here and there, but actually we are probably draining all of his money anyway.
	We do appreciate it. So thank you for that.
	We're not ungrateful. So the first one, I haven't bought the magazine because of my Sisyphean trial.
	That was how I referred to it yesterday.
	But I'm thinking of 3D printing a statue of Bo's head, which will probably be cheaper, and rubbing it for good luck.
	Thoughts? Question mark. I do that all the time.
	Before I go on the podcast I give Bo's head a rub for good luck.
	Like the, I think, is it in India, or it's sort of the Far East, where if they see a dwarf, they rub their head.
	You're obviously not a dwarf. A bow is the equivalent of a dwarf, for Josh and I. I'm a normal size, these guys are freak giant men.
	See, I've known other follically challenged people in the past, and I've rubbed their head as well for good luck sometimes, and they get really annoyed about it.
	It's a compliment, really.
	I wouldn't mind. Bo's are very open to it, actually.
	Like a little boy again when an adult goes, here you go!
	Who's a good Bo? If you see Bo in person, then you know what to do.
	Well, I mean, yeah. I'll start throwing hands if I don't know you.
	If it's from a friend, it's a different thing.
	Oh, there you go. The next one.
	I want whichever leader, prostitute in a suit, is worse for the Tories.
	As far as I'm concerned, both the Tories and Reform are containment.
	None of them will help Josh escape his hovel.
	That's true. Vote for whichever is Josh's best bet.
	Please. Vote for Josh.
	That's a random name again.
	What about the first black-faced Prime Minister?
	We had one here in Canada, and although his third-worlder politics have been disastrous, the diversity was well worth it.
	Alternatively, I would accept a white-faced Kemi.
	That'd be great.
	Kemi doing whiteface?
	She just breaks out the sun cream.
	Yeah. We've got the shoe polish, she's got the sun cream.
	Do you remember that film, was it called White Chicks, where the Wyons brothers dress up as white girls?
	Have you seen that? Have you watched that?
	It's the travesty of a film.
	I've watched it because my missus really likes it and finds it very funny.
	Okay. I never watched it, but I've seen clips somehow, and it'd be funny to see, can we do that?
	But anyway, that's probably one of those red lines we shouldn't cross and talk about.
	Wait, so would she, instead of being like a white woman, would she dress as a white man to really, really try and improve her chances?
	Yeah, I guess so. Actually, that would reduce her chances.
	Anyway! Hurry up! Josh is telling me to hurry up, so...
	The legacy of Che Guevara.
	I wanted to talk about this because it turns out that yesterday, Glorious Day, was the 57th anniversary of his death.
	Hooray! 9th of October, 1967.
	I celebrated with a glass of wine.
	As you should, I'm sure many did, across the country and across the world.
	And I thought we'd look at the legacy of Che Guevara, and I wanted to ask the question, why is it exactly the left still really like him?
	I know that he's been turned, ironically enough, into a bit of a capitalist symbol, because he is the face of a lot of products out there.
	Caps, t-shirts, logos, I believe...
	I believe his image has been used for advertising things...
	That is ironic, isn't it? Things like washing detergent, so, you know...
	Yes, when I was looking into this...
	Venezuela or something? Possibly, maybe even in California.
	You use that detergent and it makes your clothes more dirty than what you are.
	It makes them smell terrible, yeah.
	I bet. Smell like a Bolivian jungle.
	Yeah, because when you look into the guy, it's remarkable, one, how much his social views, outside of his virtue signaling to the UN, were out of step with today's left, and two, how remarkably bad at whatever he tried to do, he was. Because I was looking into it and they all celebrate him as this amazing guerrilla revolutionary.
	He helped Castro brothers to overthrow the Batista regime with his amazing guerrilla warfare.
	He wrote the book on guerrilla warfare.
	I've read that. Yeah, but it's rubbish.
	And his advice seems terrible and every other campaign that he engaged in went terribly and eventually got him killed.
	Yeah, well, taking advice on guerrilla warfare from someone who died doing guerrilla warfare is probably not the best thing you could do.
	Well, also, from everything that I know about the conflict, it was mainly because Batista's army was rubbish and very easily bribable that they won in the first place.
	In such cases. He did fight many guerrilla campaigns and the only one that met with any real success was in Cuba.
	The final one in Bolivia was an abject, abject failure.
	I don't think they turned one Bolivian Indian native over to their cause, not one.
	Well no, there are remarks he made in his diaries saying about how annoyed he was that none of the peasants are siding with him.
	One of the things I would say, I'm fascinated by Che Guevara, in the same way I'm fascinated by Stalin or Pol Pot or something, not that I agree with the man on anything, but still fascinated by his life and fascinated by the story of it all.
	I have been for a long, long time.
	I did all of Central and Mesoamerica in the 20th century, late 19th, early 20th century.
	I'm going to do some epochs about Mexico.
	And this is on your epochs series, available for premium subscribers to the website?
	I did a Brokonomics with Dan not too long ago, or six months, a year ago or so, talking about a book called Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
	It talks all about the 50s, 60s, more 60s and 70s, about America's involvement and the CIA, the intelligence services involvement in Central and Southern America.
	So, know all about that.
	It's a great book. Very, very interesting book.
	Just to say, before I go on, there's no real goodies in this story.
	It's not like America are the goodies.
	Like 1950s CIA under Alan Dulles are the goodies.
	No, no, no, no. They were supporting military dictatorships who murdered a lot of people.
	I think Che Guevara is a monstrous figure.
	But I think Alan Dulles is similar, for example.
	Batista is a monstrous figure, in my opinion.
	As is, there's no real goodies in this, right?
	That's my opinion. So, anyway.
	I am a riotist, so I'm not going to be any sort of apologist for Shea Guevara.
	But I would say, I did another bit of content with Conor, one of my earlier reports, all about Lucky Luciano.
	There's the big connection between the mob and the second Batista premiership.
	So I know about this topic, in and around this topic a fair bit, hopefully.
	Well, you probably know more than I do.
	I've done some very, very cursory research into it.
	But again, from the research that I have done...
	Guevara just seems a bit rubbish.
	I honestly do think he was something like a psychopath.
	Oh, yeah, judging by some of the stuff that I've found, yes.
	Apart from the details, and we can get into and argue about the exact details of what he ordered, you get some modern-day commie apologist saying he only ever executed guilty people of things.
	Anyway, we can get into it. But one example, during the Cuba Missile Crisis, or just after, he said openly...
	If our government, because he was in the Cuban government, if our government controlled those ballistic missiles, I would fire them, it was up to me, I would fire them on America.
	So that's insane.
	That's insane. The Soviets were embarrassed by his police state.
	The Soviets in the 60s.
	I do see him as a barrier type figure.
	A monstrous person.
	But there you go. People out there might disagree with me and you will get modern day apologists, bread tubers or whatever who say he didn't do nothing.
	No, he's a terrible person.
	We know how to qualify their judgements though, don't we?
	Yeah, and I think your judgment is brought out by the facts as well that I've got in front of me right now.
	So we'll get into that in a moment.
	First, though, don't buy Che Guevara's book.
	What you can do is spend your hard-earned money on Islander instead, which you still only have a very, very limited time to buy.
	By the time this goes out on YouTube, you will likely only have about 24 hours or so to buy it, because this is the last week it will be on sale.
	£14.99, well spent if you pick up a copy.
	So do that right now.
	Or you're going to La Cabana.
	So yeah, Jacobin put this out, which is what got me thinking about this in the first place.
	It was a very smiling picture of Che Guevara.
	Look at how well made up he was.
	Look at how iconic he was.
	I mean, yeah, he looks like...
	A Reddit mod. He looks like a scruffy cleaner for whatever TV studio that he's in.
	These look like cleaner's overalls.
	And he is vaguely Mexican looking, so...
	Vaguely Mexican looking.
	I know he was Argentine. He was an Archie, wasn't he?
	Yeah, he was an Archie, but still.
	Spanish of Spanish. He looks like he would be, you know, asleep, leaning against his broom.
	Oh, I saw sleeping. I'm so tired.
	I'm so tired. I can't believe it.
	I'm on my break. But...
	They pointed out, you know, they were celebrating his life.
	Revolutionary Che Guevara was executed on this day in 1967.
	The life of a single human being is worth more than all of the property of the richest man on Earth.
	I'm sure he lived by this.
	Oh, yes. This was one of his leading first principles of the value of a single human life.
	He would never take a single human life.
	It always had to be multiples at a time.
	Right. I was going to say, unless you're a counter-revolutionary in a revolution he was involved in, in which case he would all do your execution without a blink of a light.
	Oh, he was ruthless. I mean, even then, counter-revolutionary, that suggests that he'd done some form of process of determining guilt and judicial trial or anything.
	No, no, if he just had a gut feeling, this is a wrong gun, he'd only very occasionally shoot people himself.
	Like all brave men.
	He merely ordered thousands to be shot.
	The families of people they thought were counter-revolutionary.
	I mean, it's a Robespierre-style reign of terror he oversaw there.
	Well, it's hard baked into all communist revolutions that any counter-revolution must be stamped into oblivion.
	Well, it's also an ideology overwhelmingly driven by envy and resentment.
	And so, of course, when you get people who are from the worst bottom rungs of society where they don't really have morals...
	And it's all just the crab bucket problem where they'll all just pull each other down.
	Of course, if you're out of the bucket, they'll just try and pull you in.
	And if you refuse, they'll kill you.
	Or bougie middle class people that never really got over the guilt of that.
	He was born into a family much richer than mine.
	He was brought up in much more affluence than I was, for example.
	He was a doctor, wasn't he? He lived in a big house.
	I think they had servants. I'm pretty sure they had a servant or two.
	He went to a medical uni.
	His father did quite well for them.
	He was bourgeois. Psychopath bourgeois.
	Yeah. Yeah, so this got this kind of response that you would expect.
	Memes of Che Guevara sending people to camps.
	Oh, you're so sweet. But when Adolf Hitler does it, all of a sudden there's a problem.
	You know, and it makes you think, well, people still go out of their way to try and defend him.
	People still go out of their way to try to praise his legacy.
	And so I thought, okay, what is it people are still saying about him?
	So I go to the one place, you know, here's one of the more iconic photos of him.
	Basically dead. Brown bread in that one, right?
	That might be one where he's dead.
	Yeah, I think that's after he'd been killed.
	So YouTube, please don't demonetise us for that one.
	This is a Guardian article.
	Might have to pixelate that out.
	Yeah, might have to pixelate that.
	So this is from 2017 and they're talking about his legacy and what it was all for.
	What was all the death for, Shay?
	What did you kill all of those people for?
	What were the children- what did they die for?
	Freedom, of course. Yeah, so they say, you know, he did things.
	He toppled Cuba's US-backed dictator, Batista, or helped.
	He lectured the United States from a UN lectern, so he, you know, virtue signalled on the grandest scale imaginable.
	Can do that without killing people. Just quickly to say, Batista, again, in his second premiership, was extremely corrupt and murderous himself.
	He was running that type of police state.
	10-20,000 people were executed or murdered for political reasons under Batista.
	And he's extremely, extremely corrupt in letting the Matthews, almost government by gangsters, and letting the mobsters, people like Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano run a lot of things, gambling and all sorts of stuff.
	So it's not like Batista was a good guy.
	Let's just be clear about that.
	But again, just because the guy the toppling is a good guy doesn't automatically make you...
	Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?
	No, of course. And the US should be criticised for supporting a regime like that, of course.
	But also he penned treaties on Marxism and guerrilla warfare and sought to export socialism worldwide.
	So these are the things they're praising him for.
	I don't see anything praiseworthy in that.
	Obviously you could say, oh well he toppled a dictator, helped topple a dictator, but again the regime that it was replaced with was no better.
	Many would say much worse.
	I'll give you the measure of the man. In the 50s as a younger chap, he put his hand on a picture of Stalin.
	And swore that he would be a revolutionary, a lifelong revolutionary from that point onwards.
	Now, anyone in the 1950s that does such a thing is crazy, in my opinion.
	Ever since the show trials and the purges of the 1930s, anyone that tried to keep up the pretense of Stalin was anything other than a terrible, terrible tyrant.
	It's just not being honest with themselves or reality or history and things.
	So if you do something like that in the 50s, Well, yeah, because during the Second World War and the 1940s, obviously, there was the whole Uncle Stalin picture that the US and Britain was trying to promote of Stalin.
	Oh, yeah, well, the Soviets were bad, but now they're helping us fight the Nazis.
	They're great. Uncle Stalin, he's a good guy.
	They're fighting for freedom. I've seen pictures, literally, of a Soviet soldier, and this was American propaganda, where it said in big, bold letters,"'This man is your friend.
	He fights for freedom.'" That's not what they were fighting for.
	They were just basically fighting to throw out Germans who had tried to invade them.
	Remember, that was only a moment of time during the war, both before and after that period, the Soviets were the enemy.
	As soon as the Cold War becomes entrenched, then all of a sudden they go, okay...
	Stalin was. Maybe he was a good guy a little bit during that period because he helped us fight Hitler, but now he's a bad guy again.
	Remember, the show trials of the 30s were done openly, effectively.
	So there's just no denying what Stalin was.
	Then by, you know, his death in 53, you get, what was it, Khrushchev with his de-Stalinisation and the anti-Stalin speech that was supposedly secret but got leaked immediately.
	So everybody knew what a bad person he was.
	Yeah, yeah. And overgrown, emotionally bankrupt children like Che Guevara see a mass murdering tyrant who managed to wield power with an iron fist who crushed all of his enemies and go, well, I want to be that.
	That's what I want to do.
	Same with Mao. I mean, Che Guevara was a cold warrior.
	That's what he was. He was a man of his time, as everyone is doomed to be.
	He was a cold warrior. And he did see lots and lots of poverty.
	But he just incorrectly puts that down to capitalism.
	That's the fault of capitalism entirely.
	It's not how it works.
	In fact, you know, the profit motive, these places would have been much worse off if it wasn't for the profit motive.
	Well, yeah, the free exchange of goods and services was not the problem.
	Right, exactly, exactly.
	So, well, just look at the example of Cuba itself, how it stayed backwards, essentially, economically speaking, in all sorts of ways, because they don't have a free economy.
	There's no better thing to raise people out of poverty than a free market.
	But they just won't accept, they just don't accept that, do they?
	Well, I mean, some of the people in the kinds of countries that he was attempting to liberate, now maybe have changed their tune a little bit, because amusingly in this article they include some figures now, and these would have been from, you know, 2017, so we're talking seven years old.
	But at the time, Pew Research had done some work looking into the opinions of Latin Americans aged 18 to 29.
	They were, about 72% of them, viewed the US favourably.
	By 2017, which is basically the opposite of what Che Guevara wanted, probably because the sorts of policies that he had promoted for so long and tried to implement everywhere are so obviously disastrous and leave you in poverty and unable to feed or clothe yourself and you die too young.
	No, absolutely. Absolutely.
	I mean, if you look at earlier in his life, before the Cuba period, he goes to Guatemala.
	And again, in the Brokonomics I did with Dan, all about Confessions of an Economic Hitman, we talk all about Arbenz, Arbenz Guzman, who is the leader of, sort of a populist leader of Guatemala.
	And he threw out the United Fruit Company, which was a CIA front company.
	And there was all sorts of exploitation going on.
	Right? So it's not that that's not the case.
	It's not that quote-unquote capitalism was completely pure in Central and Southern America in the post-war period.
	It wasn't. The United Fruits Company, it was a pretty terrible thing.
	But it doesn't mean let's bring in Maoist style, sort of having no private property and all that sort of thing.
	Because one thing he did in Cuba, once after they became the government, one thing is he...
	We asked everyone to hand in their agricultural implements, agricultural tools, and they would smelt them down into the original materials and make other things.
	Classic Maoist policy, that is.
	That's straight out of the Great Leap Forward.
	And completely mad!
	Completely mad. It doesn't work.
	It just simply doesn't work. Well, the decision that you're describing there is the decision to take all of the tools that you know works and then reforge them into something that we hope works, question mark, or maybe just reappropriate them for some other use opposed to agriculture.
	Well, the materials you get out of them, the iron or steel you might smelt down, is going to be of a really poor quality.
	And now the people just don't have the tools to work the land anymore.
	So famine may well ensue.
	It's completely bonkers.
	Lots of people say about Che Guevara that he was some sort of political genius.
	Not at all. Not at all.
	He was some sort of philosopher. When he was in the equivalent of high school, he was hanging with undergrad students and he was more clever than them.
	Yeah, well, it couldn't have been a very high bar then because this guy was...
	Generally, people like that that I've found tend to just be pretentious arses.
	They think they can hang out with people who are older and cooler than them, but really they're just talking out of their arse and have no idea what they're talking about.
	What you said right at the beginning, other than the Cuban campaigns, everything he turned his hand to, it sort of was either a very big, or if not an abject failure.
	So I don't think he was very good in any respect.
	So that might be why leftists like him so much still.
	You know, oh my god, he failed at everything he ever did, just like me.
	Maybe I can have my face on a t-shirt one day.
	The one thing he was successful at was standing next to Castro in a picture.
	That's the thing he's most remembered for, really.
	He also gave a speech at the UN by December 1964.
	Wikipedia describes him as a revolutionary statesman of world stature.
	As, you know, all of the communists were in the 1960s, because for some reason the international community seemed to hold quite a few of them aloft.
	Interesting, in an anti-communist period.
	On 11th December, during his hour-long impassioned address at the UN, he criticised the United Nations' inability to confront the brutal policy of apartheid.
	Again, I've got to ask, why are you letting this man...
	If the UN is supposed to be a large international bulwark for peace in the world, why even let him give a speech?
	By this point, everybody knows that he's essentially a mass murderer.
	Not a good person.
	But the UN does anyway. Probably because, you know, he gives voice to all of these things that the international community already supported, which was anti-colonialism.
	The British Empire is dying.
	The US needs more rhetoric to support the destruction of the British Empire.
	Well, okay, let's put this guy up and he's going to give a massive virtue signal social justice speech, which he did.
	And then he criticised the US as well, saying, those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the colour of their skin, those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them and furthermore punishing the black population, because this is after the Civil Rights Act as well.
	So this is all rubbish.
	This is all outdated rubbish by this time.
	And there were already massive riots going on in the US each year.
	You had like the Summer of Love in 2010 times 10 each year for most of the 1960s in a lot of US cities.
	The viral is simply an agent of chaos in my opinion.
	It goes from Argentina to Bolivia to Peru to Guatemala to Cuba to the Congo.
	Trying to just ferment chaos and then talk about apartheid and then talk about civil rights in America.
	Just in any possible way here we can sow division and chaos and misery.
	Well, and his writing since have been used a lot for that as well, because he did write a lot.
	He wrote a lot of his diaries, and he wrote a few books as well.
	Mostly Marxist nonsense about the need to divest humanity, of the necessity of working for profit motives.
	Work, I suppose, in this will just be done because it's done.
	People will just work because they'll work.
	They won't need any reason to work, they'll just do it, which is Marxist fantasy nonsense.
	You read the guerrilla one, didn't you?
	Yeah, of course. Yeah, it was obvious, just like, if you capture people's communications, you can stop them from communicating, or making sure you have enough food is very important.
	It was so common sense as to be a waste of time.
	There wasn't anything that I read and thought, wow, that's interesting.
	And it's also very out of date as well, because a lot of the technology is talking about the importance of having certain kinds of medicine and things like that.
	And it's just like, oh, if you're fighting in a jungle, you need medicine.
	Well done. Slow hand clap for Shay.
	Yeah, I did see some excerpts that some were posting from it as well, where he was advising, don't wait for the conditions to be right to attack.
	If the weather's not on your side, just do it anyway, because you feel like it.
	I think the idea was that he made it as simple and basic as possible to try and get as many people to read it.
	But in so doing, it made it far less valuable.
	Perhaps he could have written something a bit better, but at the same time, knowing that he wasn't really that adept at what he did, I don't think he would have been the best person for this sort of thing.
	I read some of the motorcycle diaries.
	It was dull. Earlier in his life, he went on a long...
	They made a film about that as well, didn't they?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah. A couple of long trips on motorbikes.
	I've seen that, actually, that film. I've not.
	The book, isn't it...
	Dallas Dishwaters, isn't it?
	I'm imagining the film is going to be...
	It was a long time ago.
	It was like 2007. I suppose the film, I would assume, is idealising it quite a lot.
	Yeah, basically. He's a good guy, just sees injustice in the world, wants to fight against that.
	Yeah, he just hated South African apartheid and what was happening to his fellow people, his fellow workers of the world.
	They needed to unite to break their chains.
	Thank you, Hollywood. Very cool.
	The left have since gone back and assessed him, though, like this Jacobin article from 2016, which I found very interesting.
	There's not really much point reading it because literally his only point is he wasn't socialist enough.
	They see the guiding principle of organization, meaning that you have to have leaders at the top actually organizing the people below.
	Which, even for somebody as rubbish as Guevara, was obvious because, well yeah, you need leaders.
	It's too good, that's not good enough.
	Not good enough for Jacobin.
	They say, well you weren't democratic enough.
	People just, in the same way that Marxists thinking is, well people will just work because they'll just work.
	That's as far as the principle goes.
	Organised movements will just kind of happen without leadership.
	So that's as far as their criticism goes, that he was a leader, therefore bad.
	Because leader is hierarchical, therefore hierarchy bad.
	You know, nonsense. I would have thought the fact that he, you know, ordered the execution of 12-year-olds...
	Would be the things that you would want to criticise him for?
	Or even from a modern leftist perspective, like is written about in here, the fact that he was not exactly socially progressive in some ways.
	He worked with a lot, he worked in the Congo, and he worked with black revolutionaries.
	They hated gays, didn't they?
	They tried to eradicate all gays from Cuba at one point.
	Was that They were rounded up and put into concentration camps, which Guevara helped set up, yes, but they're not going to mention anything like that.
	That's inconvenient. But they don't mention also, you know, he wrote about when he was in the blacks living in Caracas, Venezuela.
	He said that they were magnificent examples of the African race because they didn't bathe at all.
	And he praised their racial superiority because of that.
	Very interesting. That's the most commie thing I've ever heard.
	He praised them for not washing.
	Yes. I mean, can you imagine this guy who spent most of his adult life smelly in the bushes of a jungle somewhere, praising people for not washing?
	But the most interesting stuff comes from this article, which has a lot of good information.
	So I'll just read some of this and it'll talk about some of the stuff that you've been talking about there as well, Bo, and explain kind of what he did after the Cuban Revolution, which really cements his legacy in leftist sides.
	Not because he was any kind of social progressive or actually good at what he did, mainly that he was a childish psychopath who did everything he could to butcher his enemies at every opportunity.
	Which, of course, we know is the real guiding principle of the left.
	A good member of the Jacobin Club.
	That's why I say I think of him like a Robespierre.
	At some point, you have to murder everyone that's standing against you.
	And he did. Go ahead.
	So in April 1967, speaking from experience, he summed up his idea of justice in his message to
	the Tri-Continental, saying, Hatred as an element of struggle unbending hatred for the
	enemy which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations making him into an effective
	violent selective and cold-blooded killing machine.
	That's pretty out there, pretty psychopathic.
	And they give some examples of him being a cold-blooded killing machine.
	So after the collapse of the Batista regime, Castro put him in charge of La Cabana prison.
	Guevara presided during the first half of 1959.
	And there's some examples given here, so Javier Azuega, the Basque chaplain who gave comfort to those in the prison who were sentenced to die and personally witnessed dozens of executions, spoke to the author of this article recently and he said that there were about 800 prisoners in a space fit for no more than 300, former Batista military and police personnel, some journalists, a few businessmen and merchants.
	The revolutionary tribunal was made of militiamen.
	Che Guevara presided over the appellate court.
	He never overturned a sentence.
	I would visit those on death row.
	A rumour went around that I hypnotised prisoners because so many remained calm, so Shay ordered that I be sent to be present at all the executions.
	After I left in May, they executed many more, but I personally witnessed 55.
	There was an American, Herman Monks, apparently a former convict, who was called The Butcher because he enjoyed giving the order to shoot.
	I pleaded many times with Shay on behalf of prisoners.
	I remember especially the case of Aria Lima, a young boy...
	Shea did not budge, nor did Fidel, who I visited.
	I became so traumatised that at the end of May, I was ordered to leave the parish where La Cabana was located and where I had held mass for three years.
	I went to Mexico for treatment.
	The day I left, Shea told me that we had both tried to bring one another to each other's side and had failed.
	His last words to me were, when we take our masks off, we will be enemies.
	Pretty forceful.
	And the first forced labour camp, Guanahacabibs, don't know if I'm pronouncing that right, was set up in western Cuba at the end of 1960.
	This is how Shea explained its function.
	We only send to this camp those doubtful cases where we are not sure people should go to jail.
	People who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals, so political thought crimes, to a greater or lesser degree.
	It is hard labour, not brute labour.
	Rather, the working conditions there are hard.
	This camp was the precursor to the eventual systematic confinement, starting in 1965, of dissidents, homosexuals, aid victims, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Afro-Cuban priests, and other such peoples under the banner of the military units to help production.
	So just any political dissident, anybody they didn't like, gets sent to the gulags, basically.
	And the Great Revolutionary, it says as well, when he's talking about his economics, Marxist economics always end well, as we know, how did they end in Cuba?
	His idea of social justice, he was the head of the National Bank of Cuba in the Department of Industry at the end of 1959, and starting in early 1961 as Minister of Industry, Most of the Cuban economy saw near collapse of sugar production, the failure of industrialization, and the introduction of rationing.
	And this is at the point, you know, where just whatever you want to criticize Batista for, it was one of Latin America's four most economically successful countries since before the dictatorship of Batista.
	And that's what, you know, his economic policies reduced the country to.
	So well done! Well done.
	So, leftists love Shay because he was a useless, petty, childish, cold-blooded killing machine murderer who never achieved anything good in his life.
	That's his legacy.
	There we go. Okay.
	So obviously we discuss mass migration and its negative effects all of the time and yes, obviously we point out the negative effect it has on the economy and society constantly.
	It's all we do and one of the major factors I think in this that we don't address as much is the effect of overpopulating certain areas and specifically in Europe because it is more densely populated than perhaps other areas.
	You can see Some of the overpopulation effects in some American cities, for example, but countries like the US, Canada, Australia still have a lot of uninhabited land and so perhaps it's less of an issue, but that doesn't mean that I think you need any immigration.
	That's not what I'm trying to say.
	But I think that this sort of discussion is actually very important and I'm sort of surprised it's taken me this long to do this segment.
	So what we're going to do is look at the situation in the UK as a bit of an example because it's what we all know best.
	But we'll be identifying factors that should apply to any society because I think that there's something common in human nature that we can identify here that is true of all human beings.
	And some of the questions we'll be asking and answering is why is continual population growth undesirable?
	And also why are native populations either remaining static or declining?
	And we have some pretty compelling answers to some of these.
	But what I do need is that magazine there.
	This, speaking of answers, has a lot of answers to a lot of questions that you want answering.
	You don't know you want them answering yet, but they will give you answers.
	It's only on sale for a very short amount of time now, only perhaps even a few days until it goes off of sale and then it's gone.
	You'll never be able to buy it again.
	So make sure to get it.
	That's all. Anyway, there was this that was doing the rounds on Sky and Carl shared this yesterday.
	I want us to watch it because I think it's interesting and it highlights the point.
	And it's also surprising as well that this was played on the mainstream news because it's quite important.
	We've just had some extraordinary population figures that have come through.
	Some of it might be unsurprising, but some of it, I think, is pretty shocking.
	This is showing you the overall picture.
	So this is the UK population going back the last 100 years or so, and the latest number, mid-2023, 68.3 million.
	That increase, actually, if we look at this, okay, so break it down.
	Don't just look at the level, but look at the changes, so anything going up or down year on year.
	This particular bar here, That is the single biggest increase that we've seen, just under 1%.
	The single biggest increase in the population that we've seen going all the way back to 1948.
	Okay, so a massive year in terms of the increase in the population.
	Why did it increase? Well, let's drill down.
	Okay, so what we'll look at is, here's the bar for 2022.
	We'll take this over here, And explain why it is, what contributed to it going up.
	So 2022, 67.6 million.
	Usually one of the main things pushing up the population is what's happening with domestic births and deaths.
	So you've got domestic births, that was 664,000.
	So that pushed it up. But here's what's pretty much unprecedented.
	The number of deaths in the UK over that period was actually higher, so 680,000.
	And so just look at that bar.
	It is below where it was last year, if you're just looking at the UK, the natural population.
	It's the first time we've seen that in a serious sense, basically ever, going back to recorded history.
	And the main thing that, in the end, pushed this number, this bar up, so it got to that record level, It was net migration.
	So, you know, we knew that net migration was really high.
	You get the idea, right? He's saying it like he's shocked.
	Yeah. Oh, we've just noticed.
	Oh, the numbers are in.
	Oh, no. I'm shocked he even put it down.
	I'm shocked they admitted it was net migration.
	Because I was half expecting a Tom Harwood, something happened, explanation.
	And of course that number is not the real number.
	It's way higher than that in reality if you go to any town or city in this country.
	Of course. But if we have a look at the UK population here, I don't know why that's so zoomed in, Samson.
	Could you zoom out a little bit?
	Cheers. To 100% if possible.
	That should be fine though.
	So here we can see the population going all the way up.
	Here's the current population.
	But we can just see it sort of going up.
	And what I want to compare this to, because obviously that's a video, it's moving around, this is easier to compare, is the real net domestic product per capita, which is this.
	So this measures the value of all final goods and services produced within the country, adjusted for depreciation and inflation, so fiscal fluctuations, and divided by the population.
	And why this is useful is that it provides a clearer picture of economic health and individual well-being within an economy rather than, say, the nominal GDP per capita.
	And what we can see here is that despite having a massive spike in population, the actual benefit to individuals economically, you know, there's not been one.
	There's no benefit, of course.
	This is old news, of course.
	But the UK's economy has basically never recovered on individual basis since 2008.
	Since the 2008 crash, we've never returned to that material level of well-being for an individual in this country.
	And in fact, if anything, it might even go down.
	And if we look again at this, and then at this, I mean, yeah, it's pretty stark, isn't it?
	And you can also compare this to graphs of other countries that show similar patterns as well.
	This one's formatted slightly differently, but you can see, for example, France, Germany, other European countries following a similar trend to the UK here in green, where they rise a little bit and then drop here and plateau or go up a little bit.
	But it's more or less the same sort of trend where it's not like the US, which is a unique case due to lots of unique economic factors.
	Being the world hegemon provides them having the world's reserve currency, although that's changing somewhat, allows them to avoid these problems.
	And so I wanted to talk about this purely from the sense of, well, clearly people's lives are not getting any better, and in fact I think they're tangibly getting worse, because of course, looking at the GDP, that's the economic health, the amount of money people are earning relative to the cost of what they're doing, what they have to buy, is changing.
	And it's obviously not going well.
	I think that's safe to say.
	And if we can actually go to the question of why is continual population growth undesirable?
	There are lots of things. Can you stop doing that?
	Sorry, it's really distracting.
	We can go to having a look at things like, why would you accept the framing of neocons and neoliberals about why you want population growth?
	And I've seen people on our side saying that we need a replacement birth rate, we need a You know, 2.0 basically, to continue things growing.
	Whereas this notion that we need to grow the economy constantly by continually churning out people to the point whereby we're going to concrete over everything, that just doesn't make sense to me.
	I think it's accepting the framing and propping up a broken system.
	And I think that that is not a clever idea at all.
	And I think that if you were to give me 100 industrialists over a million Somalis, I could build you a country, right?
	And I think that it's not about the quantity of the people you have.
	You want to foster quality.
	And I think that's a really important thing.
	I think that the economics of that are pretty clear, that not everyone is as equally productive.
	You want to maximise the people who do the most.
	And the reason I use industrialists as an example is that their role in making the economy far more efficient is It's far, far more significant than even, say, tens of thousands of people.
	One person could have that effect.
	So we need to lean into that because I think that innovation and making the economy more efficient, which ultimately generates wealth, I think?
	And of course, continually growing the population.
	Also, you don't want the idiocracy effect, whereby if you have a welfare state, it allows people who are on lower incomes to have lots and lots of children that they wouldn't otherwise afford.
	Be able to have, which in turn creates more and more dependence in a sort of snowballing effect.
	And that, of course, is showcased in that film.
	And I think that it doesn't quite work exactly as shown in the film, but it's something that is important.
	And of course, to reiterate on the point I was making earlier, reducing well-being of people already here, if growth outpaces real net domestic product per capita...
	It just doesn't work out, especially when it comes to increasing costs for expanding infrastructure.
	And of course, automation and AI means there'll be less need for human oversight in lots and lots of different professions, and therefore we actually...
	We don't need as many people in the workforce as things go on because we have increasing efficiency.
	So this notion that we need to grow the population more and more just doesn't make sense to me.
	I'm not suggesting we should go around killing people or anything like that, so please don't take it that way.
	But what I think should be done is we should...
	Let the population correct itself naturally.
	It seems like the healthiest thing to do this happens in nature whereby if a population expands too much then it
	contracts Organically and I think that there may be an element of
	this and one thing that is very close to my heart is that if
	We continue growing the population then we destroy nature We destroy the world around us and you know
	I did a thread about Wisman's wood which is one of it's a tiny little sliver of
	Ancient woodland and it's beautiful. There's nothing else like it
	In the surrounding areas and this used to cover Miles and miles and it's relegated to a small valley which
	you can see it in its entirety and it's really quite Haunting all of the barren area around this beautiful woodland
	and it's one of those things that I think we should actually focus a lot more on but
	What do you do you think? Oh, sorry I have thought for a long time the argument that the population must go up or rather if it declines in any way That's disastrous.
	That just equates to a backward step in civilisation or something.
	Or that your country's doomed if the population shrinks a bit.
	I've always thought that sounds, on the face of it, like nonsense.
	Like, oh, you know, the older population's dying out and the child replacement rate isn't enough.
	So... Yeah, organically go up and down a bit over the centuries or millennia or whatever.
	Okay. We certainly don't need hundreds of thousands or millions of strangers or foreign people to prevent the number from going down, heaven forbid.
	I've just never ever bought that.
	The birth rate is below replacement rate a touch.
	Well, there are more people on planet Earth than at any point in human history.
	The notion that all of human civilisation is going to collapse because we don't have enough people to sustain it is absolutely insane.
	I hear people supposedly on side say this all the time, and it's utter nonsense.
	And it's not like our economy is based upon labour.
	So if there was actually some sort of gross decrease in just the number of labourers we got access to, then in very real sense we're able to manufacture less and everyone's poorer.
	We don't live in that world.
	So it's never made any sense to me that if a birth rate is a little bit below death rate then That panic must ensue, or that GDP is doomed to go through the floor or something like that.
	Keeping the population growing just to generate economic growth is keeping an economic system on life support that is meant to die, as I see it.
	Like, the system doesn't work.
	Quite possibly, I mean...
	It obviously doesn't work.
	If you need to continue importing in people, it's a sort of pyramid scheme.
	That's basically what it is, is that you need to keep on recruiting in people to keep it going so the people at the top can make money.
	That's fundamentally it.
	What do you reckon, Harry? I dislike any economy that's explicitly founded on keeping Deliveroo in business.
	But what about the sort of projections that you need to continue growing an economy and things like that?
	Do you reckon that Well, again, we can see from the figures that you've presented that growing the economy in terms of sheer GDP numbers is a form of a pyramid scheme.
	It's a complete scam because you can just fold government spending into GDP and you can basically have infinite growth forever by just having the government print more and more money.
	And spend it on things that it wants itself.
	Of course, that will eventually lead to some form of hyperinflation and then a collapse of the economic system.
	So that's not really a good idea and we can see that it doesn't actually make people richer.
	Just printing more and more money and giving it to people doesn't make people richer.
	It just makes your money worth less.
	And then with the lack of quality that we're importing and the lack of quality that we're creating within our own country, the amount that you can spend and get more for is going down.
	You spend more and you get less these days, and what you do get for your money is typically of lower quality anyway.
	So yeah, everything is getting worse, and importing people has been the solution for at least 30 years now, and it's not worked.
	Do you think that this is all deliberate from a select few elites that actually make a significant amount of money from this?
	Because I can certainly see a compelling argument whereby if you import lots and lots of people into a country, not only are you pushing down labor costs and allowing yourself to maximize profits, you're also...
	Then sort of weighing down the potential people that could compete with you, because then they never get the capital to get a snowball effect to build a multinational corporation that could rival one of the existing ones.
	There are a lot of different factors that go into this.
	I do think that that is one. It's no coincidence that the Tory party, who oversaw an even larger increase in the population than the Labour Party, are mainly funded by a lot of housing developers and companies of that sort.
	Companies that have a vested interest in making sure that there are more people in the country, because it means that demand for their own products goes up.
	I think there are other aspects that go into this as well.
	I think there are non- Economic reasons for why some groups want there to be more foreign populations in European countries, possibly as a form of...
	No, I'll leave it at that.
	Take the Radimid Trust, for example, been around for ages since the 50s or whatever, explicitly says we want Britain to be a different ethnicity, multi-ethnic.
	That's their raison d'etre.
	There are reasons for this that come down to a form of ethnic revenge for people who feel that they've been victimised by Europeans for potentially up to thousands of years.
	There's also the fact that we've imported in a lot of people from countries that we used to administer who have a bit of a bone to pick with us because we made their country too good and they're very resentful of that.
	And so they have been put into positions of power.
	Woke policies have meant that they have been onboarded into large government programs and large company schemes, which means that they're in a position of power to be able to continually import more people.
	Again, I mentioned it earlier in this program.
	Preeti Patel was our Home Secretary for a while and oversaw a massive importing of Third Worlders into our country.
	Now, She gave the reason as being that we needed them for the NHS. Because the NHS is the perfect excuse for anything in this country.
	Because if you need to ban smoking, NHS. If you want to import hundreds of thousands of people, NHS. If you want to shut the entire country down for two years, it's the NHS. It all comes down to that.
	But the real reasons, I think, are that these people are of a different...
	A heritage, a different culture to us.
	They have no sentiment, no positive feelings towards us, and don't care if they break it and in fact get a bit of a sick thrill from it.
	Was that on LBC, that interview with Pre-Tip Cell, was it?
	I think it was GB News, because they were trying to ask her, why don't you feel ashamed?
	Because LBC wouldn't do that.
	James O'Brien would be like, oh, you're a horrible Tory, but I need to applaud you for the diversity that you brought into the country.
	She did a good acting job of pretending to be annoyed, of even being asked about that.
	What do you think of the idea that a lot of the sort of cultural or social justifications, this notion of it's ethnic revenge, is a sort of face that is put on?
	It's a sort of formal rationale for, I feel like, A lot of this is financially motivated.
	I think that there's a lot of economic motivations by the people that are sort of controlling the politicians, because of course the politicians are not necessarily the people who hold the most power in our society, because of course they need to rely on capital to determine whether they see electoral success.
	Well, it can be money. It can also just be the accumulation of power.
	So, like for instance, inflation, printing more money, is something that's dealt with by central banks.
	People in charge of the central banks exercise an enormous amount of power by being able to control the money supply of the country, and also through institutions like the OBR and other economic institutions that have the ear of the government, they're able to influence the government even more by saying, They give projections to these organisations saying, well, if the government doesn't do this that we think that they should, the economy will collapse.
	And then if the government decides not to, they manufacture the situation to mean the economy looks like it's going to collapse to make the government do it.
	So there's a lot of power as well as money that can be made from it.
	Absolutely. I would say something similar.
	The line between power and money is often blurred.
	But I think, unfortunately, to say, because it's very dark, But it does come down to a type of resentment or a type of revenge.
	Sometimes they let the mask slip.
	Famously, there's that Ash Sarkar clip.
	Oh, yeah. And some figures come out that we are, in fact, being replaced in our own ancestral homeland.
	And how did you put it? And we will become a minority in the land of our forefathers.
	And she's saying, we're winning lags, gloating about that.
	Quite often you find lots of clips, if you try, of various, all sorts, I was going to say Muslims, but all sorts of foreign people Saying explicitly, this is our country now.
	Just straight up, this isn't your country anymore.
	This is our country. Well, that's purely some sort of intergenerational revenge for some perceived slight they've been told that their ancestors took at the hands of our ancestors.
	All of it is obviously disgusting and insane.
	Absolutely. So the final question I wanted to address is why are the native population remaining static or declining?
	And I think one of the things is just the sheer amount of population density.
	And we can see in most mammals, for example, I did this with Connor back in 2023, talking about lots of rodent studies looking at overpopulation, in that once Even if you have all of your resources provided for you, so food, shelter, water, you have a large choice of mates in the sort of mouse utopia, rat utopia, it reached a critical point and then the population decreased and then it started decreasing quite rapidly.
	And this was entirely due to the behaviour of the rodents.
	This wasn't any environmental condition.
	They still had enough resources.
	It was... It seems to my mind that in all mammals, there is something hard-coded into us that once a population gets too dense, it activates certain mental models, if you will, and behaviour changes.
	And I think that this could well be a product of just how dense some of our cities are.
	And I've talked about this as well before, about how cities change how people think about things, just the actual environment itself.
	And this is an example that I think people might have anecdotal examples of.
	People are given so many options with things to do that they take far longer to, say, find someone, settle down and start a family and things like that than they might otherwise.
	And I know people that live in, say, London that have done exactly this and they're sort of missing the boat a little bit.
	In southern cities as well, there's such a greater opportunity to, one, be anonymous and to have an exciting social life at all times.
	You know, I lived in Manchester for a little bit.
	So many clubs, so many pubs, so many places that you can go constantly to just basically get a nice thrill and enjoy yourself.
	Having a family can seem like, well, it's just going to stop me from being able to go out and enjoy myself.
	That's a very selfish reason, but selfish reasons are the reason for people doing a lot of things.
	There are a lot of selfish reasons for things in the world, aren't there, unfortunately?
	I think also... It's the lonely cat lady who's reached her 40s with no family because, well, she was just too busy enjoying herself up until then.
	That's definitely a very strong aspect of it.
	I think it's also glorified culturally.
	I think also there's an aspect of choice paralysis as well.
	This is a phenomenon that I know from my sort of discipline in behavioural decision making, whereby if you're presented with too many choices, people are so concerned with optimising their choice that it sort of paralyses them and makes them feel like they can't actually make a decision.
	And I think that this may well be going on.
	And if you're in somewhere like London and you're trying to find a partner for the rest of your life, The stakes are so high about getting it right that it paralyzes people to the point whereby sometimes they might not even be able to do so until it's too late.
	And that might be part of the reason.
	And then people come up with post hoc rationalization saying, well, I actually chose this, you know, I wanted to do this, which might not necessarily be the case.
	When you're in like small village life or small town life...
	Your options for a woman around your age is going to be a good match or a lot more limited in terms of what you're talking about there.
	So you're almost forced earlier to make a full decision because you know that eligible young women in a smaller population are going to be snapped up a lot faster.
	And I think that that is an important thing.
	And in fact, there have been plenty of research papers looking at population density and how it affects people.
	And there's such a phenomenon known as a life strategy.
	You know, the slow and fast life strategies.
	These are terms that people are probably familiar with.
	Martin talks about them quite a bit.
	Yes. And I'm going to read a little bit from the abstract here because it's very important.
	They say, we find the dense populations exhibit behaviours corresponding to a slower life history strategy, including...
	Greater future orientation, greater investment in education, so it's not all bad necessarily.
	More long-term mating orientation, another potentially good thing.
	Later marriage age, which might not be good.
	Lower fertility and greater parental investment.
	So there are aspects of it that are good, and I think we're seeing some of this in modern societies now, in that people have fewer kids, but they invest more time in them.
	Which I actually think is a really good thing, that you're making sure that they develop into better human beings, well great, that's actually really good.
	I think that if you can do that for as many of your children as possible, fantastic.
	But there is clearly something of this going on, and this seems to be caused by the scale of population density, particularly in, you know, Europe.
	You can see lots of areas here that have the lowest birth rates also happen to have the highest population density.
	And other things as well, just having a poorer economy is a significant factor because less responsible people have children, and I think that this is a very important one as well.
	It's part of the reason I talked about material well-being.
	The people who want to have children are the people who are going to consider these sorts of things.
	If they're actually considering, am I going to be able to provide a good life for my children, then that's going to impact their decision.
	As well as, of course, one of the elephants in the room is contraceptives.
	I don't think this is as big an issue as it is made out to be by some people because it allows people to still intentionally have children if they want to.
	It just stops people accidentally having children.
	And although there are lots of questions about the ethics and morals of them That's how they seem to function.
	As well as the people who are trying to have children and can't have them are increasing as a percentage of the population.
	And there are arguments that there's hormonal interference here, things like pesticides running off into water supplies, microplastics, and also birth control runoff.
	So birth control, about 90% of it goes into the toilet, which then gets recycled into the water supply.
	And there are arguments to suggest that it doesn't get filtered out.
	I think all of these things are having an effect.
	What do you both think?
	Yeah, I mean, all those things, yeah.
	I can't find anything to disagree with.
	Yeah, yeah. Okay.
	But what I want to do here is just talk about something that's worth considering.
	I'm not necessarily saying we do anything drastic here, but I'm saying that perhaps a slightly declining birth rate is just what you get.
	Of course, this is taking out the question of mass immigration.
	Obviously, I want mass deportations.
	It's taking that sort of out of it and just looking at why are these native populations staying static or slightly declining?
	Well, it could well be a response to lots of different environmental conditions that are perfectly natural and perhaps it is to our benefit to, if we eventually sort our countries out, to allow this to happen.
	But it's just some food for thought because I thought it was something that we haven't addressed in great detail and I thought it was very important.
	Okay, we've got a bunch of comments here.
	There's a few from my segments.
	Oh yeah, of course, go ahead.
	I'll read mine first.
	VinnyD95 for $2 says, Gentlemen, good luck with your free and fair parliament system, as we will have luck with the presidency in 27 days or so.
	God save the king. There is something to be said that, yeah, the way that the representatives are elected within the party of the Tories...
	Is probably, or was probably fair, because Liz Truss actually managed to get in, but then she got kicked out as soon as possible, immediately after.
	Which Connor explains in his latest Tomlinson talk, which he did last night.
	I mean, fair-ish. They just make sure, if they really don't want you, they make sure you never make it to the final two.
	Well, of course, but when it gets to there, you can vote the person of the two that you want in, but then the Bank of England might decide to sabotage your Prime Ministership.
	So, Ryan Rumbles, 1993.
	Rafe, Haydell, Mancou...
	Is it Rafe or Raph?
	Rafe. Rafe. Okay, just wanted to make sure.
	I thought it was. Mancu said that on the Mike Graham show that he thinks white Brits will be a minority in 25 years.
	Yeah, if things continue, and if we had the real population figures and knew how many illegals are actually in the country, it might be much sooner.
	Also, is Harry still reading James O'Gammon's book?
	I've already finished it. Josh, Carl, and I have recorded a book club on it, and that will be coming out whenever it is out and done by the editors.
	That's a random name.
	The value of human life is worth more than any material possession, eh?
	Then why are you murdering thousands just so you can steal their property?
	Literally nothing of value was lost.
	True, yes. One of my great-grandpas as well had to hide in a chimney for three days because the Bulgarian commies were looking for him.
	Another one of my great-grandpas had his mill in farmland redistributed.
	Communism kills. V has a lot of stories like that as well.
	V's Romanian, right?
	That's why we guard our pockets whenever he comes in.
	But yeah, he's got a lot of stories like that from when Romania was under communist rule as well.
	One of the facts you don't often hear about World War II is that Romania and Bulgaria both got it terribly.
	Well, Ceausescu was even worse than Stalin, didn't he describe Stalin as like a moderate?
	Well, both during the war, the back and forth of the front lines of the war, and then in the Cold War as well.
	Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all these places, the amount of human misery generated is incredible.
	You don't really hear about it all that much.
	I know it was like Mengele-style human experimentation going on in Romania, wasn't there?
	Well, yeah, right. Yeah, all sorts of things.
	Is it Romanian orphanages?
	Is that what I'm thinking of as well?
	That was a thing for a while in the 90s, yeah.
	There's places that you don't really hear about much, like Burma, Romania.
	These, in terms of per capita, have gotten it the hardest out of all of the world.
	Of all of the war. The millions and millions that the Russians lost.
	But it was obviously from a much bigger pool.
	So per capita, places like Bulgaria and Romania.
	Yeah, terrible. Terrible.
	But then again, you know, Germany was giving orphans to paedophiles in the name of anti-fascism in the 1960s.
	And so, you know, we weren't that much better.
	The liberal democracy, very, very liberal.
	I keep looking at this map and trying to work out what the black spots are.
	That's London. Berlin, London.
	I think those three dots there, is that Berlin, Munich and Vienna, would that be?
	See that one up there's Moscow.
	Is that the black dot? Kiev, is that?
	I don't know. A country Germany is.
	It's a lot more densely populated in a lot of it than I was expecting it to be.
	The Netherlands is the most dense country in Europe, I believe.
	It's only small. It is, yeah, and having gone there recently.
	That black one down there must be Istanbul, I imagine.
	I don't know what that black one up there.
	Maybe that's St. Petersburg. I don't know.
	I think so. It must be.
	But we've got some comments here.
	The mentality of pop must go up is midwittism.
	Populations fluctuate. By the end of this century, there will probably be another baby boomer, if not sooner.
	You can see it in nature with every species.
	Thank you. Who says that?
	I agree with that. Me. And also, that's a random name.
	Currently, conditions are difficult, so just like all animals, people have fewer offspring but focus on their upbringing.
	Yes. When conditions ease, people will have more kids.
	Quality versus quantity.
	Yes. And OPH says, Harry is right.
	I will only vote for a leader who won't apologise for our ancestors trying to improve their...
	Who related expletive?
	Countries for them. Thanks for that one.
	I think you meant shit. Yes.
	S-hole countries, right? We have some video comments.
	I recognise that screenshot.
	I took that.
	The left likes to throw around a lot of Chamberlain accusations when people propose a peace deal that might be favourable to Russia because it will encourage their expansionism.
	Yet they never seem to be all that bothered with Chagos becoming a Chinese puppet or the Azeris taking over a bunch of Armenia when you would assume that they would think that would encourage their expansionism as well.
	Or is it only a problem when it's Russians doing it?
	Absolutely. I've said a few times about the idea of Chamberlain and appeasement and all that sort of thing.
	No, the narrative has to be, the boomer truth narrative has to be that Chamberlain was utterly, utterly wrong, morally wrong, and that appeasement will never ever work, and he's just wrong-headed, always.
	Of course it isn't.
	Of course it isn't.
	Wanting to avoid an enormous European war only 20 years after the last one.
	Terrible. How could he? Samson, do we have an extra five?
	I know you've got Common Sense Crusade.
	Okay, no worries.
	So with the encouragement of Connor and Harry, I offer another of my lamentations.
	This is from the wisdom of Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian.
	Barbarism is the natural state of mankind.
	Civilization is unnatural.
	It is a whim of circumstance, and barbarism must always ultimately triumph.
	Hmm, goodness. What evidence might we have of this?
	Oh, Haiti, Rhodesia, I mean, uh, Zimbabwe, etc.
	You know, the places where David's ancestors came from.
	Hear, hear. Isn't he Guy Arnon?
	I think he might be. I don't know.
	God knows. Find an IQ map of Africa.
	Find the lowest place.
	Hi, Lotus Eaters. Sorry I haven't been able to send in a lot of video comments lately.
	I came across this place quite recently and I wanted to show you guys.
	You never know what you find when you go out exploring.
	It's getting colder out here and the leaves don't really change colour as much, but I think they still look quite
	beautiful.
	I love oak woodlands like that. Yeah it does look like a really nice spot. And it's lovely.
	I find that if you ever...
	Oh, what was that?
	Sorry? That's it. Oh, that's it.
	Okay. So we've got some regular comments as well.
	Theodore Brewer says, here from Florida, got hit by the eye wall and still here.
	Oh, well, I'm very glad to hear that you're okay.
	My parents, I think, are still on holiday in Florida right now.
	I did get a message from them saying, we're all right, but it's very windy.
	Sorry. I really hope that they're okay.
	I didn't know they were out there.
	I told them over the weekend, I heard that there's going to be a massive hurricane hit Florida.
	Please get out of the state.
	And they said, oh yeah, we will.
	And now they're like, oh, well, you know, it's just a bit windy.
	Don't worry about it. That's like the most northern thing ever.
	It's just a bit of wind. My dad's in his 70s.
	He can't manage a hurricane.
	Apparently he can. The Robinsons are made of stern stuff.
	Yeah, I suppose so. Simon Phoenix says, do you plan to offer a subscription for Islander?
	It would simplify planning and logistics somewhat, I assume.
	I don't know. It's not for me to say I'm nothing to do with that.
	I think it's been considered at the very least.
	That's all I can say. And Onimi says, you say Carl never puts words in your mouth, but we know one particular product that wasn't allowed in the building.
	In fact, you guys were finally allowed to eat that product on stream when he was away.
	Yes, bread. Oh yeah.
	That's a throwback, yeah.
	He won't put words in your mouth, he will steal bread from it though.
	Right, yeah. The bread snatcher.
	It's like the common term.
	Anyway, new Tory leaders, would you like me to read a couple of comments for you?
	Sure, yeah. Lord Neroval says, no matter how based some of these new Tories may seem, they're not, and they hate you and you shouldn't trust them.
	That is all. Absolutely.
	Afraid bentos for every Haitian.
	Is that Karl? Yeah.
	That Carl's Anon account on his own website.
	Let's go Kemi zero seats 2.0.
	Alpha of the Beta says if Farage stops being a wet blanket and becomes a serious nationalist, he has a real chance of betraying the electorate in 2029.
	Yes. And then a final one from this section.
	Captain Charlie the Beagle says, I thought the reason that Kemi was endorsed was also because she was based on BLM and Woke.
	That is true, yes. On the cultural stuff, it is true, but she is still pro-Infinity migrants, which trumps all of that, I think.
	And for Che, would you like to read the Che ones?
	Yeah, Nerovar again. What I find funny about Guevara is that he is eminently hateable to every corner of the political compass.
	Top right, commie. Bottom right, also commie.
	Top left, rebel insurrectionist.
	Bottom left, well, maybe they should Google La Cabana.
	Well, I already mentioned that.
	That was the quickest reading out loud I've ever heard.
	You should have been an auctioneer.
	Perrin von Warpenguin.
	I should read sleazy adverts for the radio.
	That's what I need to do. We did the Spanish Civil War one time, didn't we?
	Yes, where they were raping and murdering nuns.
	Yeah, digging up dead nuns.
	Ugh. Yeah. What are you expecting?
	They're commies. Like you say, when they asked that Polish guy, how does it feel having killed so many people?
	He said, I wouldn't know.
	I only killed communists. Omar Awad, communism is like some kind of giant Dunning-Kruger experiment.
	They think you can take the theory out of a book and apply it to the real world as proficiently as the experts of the practical experience.
	The Chaz slash Chopper Garden comes to mind.
	Yeah, that's always a good reminder, actually.
	Classic example. That was an amazing practical experiment.
	It was. It was. The real world.
	Hilarious. Turns out these people...
	Suck at growing things, can't feed themselves, and will eventually start raping and murdering one another.
	The first warlord comes along with a gun, just gets to be king of it, and then it immediately implodes.
	And finally, chase ball Che Guevara on laundry detergents, but communists don't shower.
	Good point. I wish they did.
	Let's read some of yours. Sure.
	Okay, so Captain Charlie Beagle says, I think another aspect of people having kids late is a result of life being too good and easy.
	It means people haven't had to grow up and mature faster.
	And so the idea of a family is forgotten until they're older.
	That is true. I very much agree.
	And Sophie Liv says we should talk about how Europe was already overpopulated in the 19th century basically, which is why so many migrated to America.
	Already the land couldn't sustain that many people and we had so many resource wars against each other too until the technology for food importation was available.
	They outright paid people to just go to Australia to get population numbers down.
	Yeah, I was going to mention, people don't talk about how we, even after the Second World War, we were still a little bit overpopulated.
	So we were going, well, there's not enough jobs, go to Australia instead.
	Which is remarkable to think about.
	But no, no, of course, even though we were doing that, we needed to start bringing in as many Africans as the transport for London could handle.
	Well, I think that that's a good point to end on, and I hope you have enjoyed this, and don't forget to go and watch Common Sense Crusade, because Father Robinson is indeed in the building, and he is here.
	He's in for a good show.
	Thank you very much for watching.

▲