Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 29, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:28:38

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1053

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Friday the 29th of November 2024. Best day of the week, folks.
	I'm joined by Harry and Stelios.
	Hello, everyone.
	And today we're going to be talking about how Kisara is actually deporting people, which is...
	Better news than I was expecting.
	How the UK may well end up regulating itself off the internet, which is brilliant.
	And how the UN ignores the global persecution of Christians, because people seem to think they're like some sort of global majority or something, don't they?
	They don't matter.
	But before we begin, today is the last day that you'll be able to get the merch for the election off the merch store.
	So if you would like to get that, go and get it now, because otherwise it's going to be gone forever.
	I actually have my merch off there, because I did want the Trump grilling one, in particular, actually.
	And also, after this, we will be having our monthly Gold Tier Zoom call.
	So if you'd like to come and talk to us, and you're a Gold Tier subscriber, go and sign up, or come and join us then.
	And we will see you soon.
	But let's get on then.
	Alright, so there's been a new raft of statistics released, and we all like to see statistics come from the government.
	They're always so honest about everything that they're doing.
	But Labour are using it as an opportunity to brag about how well they're doing on the problems of illegal immigration and even legal migration.
	So this is my public service announcement to remind everybody do not trust Keir Starmer simply because he's throwing out red meat to try to satiate the gammon does not mean that he is on your side.
	They're still going ahead with the winter fuel allowance being removed.
	They're still going ahead with the destruction of British farming.
	They still had a terrible response to the riots back in August, and they had problems with everything, essentially.
	But this is the one thing...
	We could carry on with that list, but I'll...
	For the sake of time, Oleg.
	Everything is a problem, but the Tory government have made it so easy for them to announce that they've won on migration that they're trying to reverse a little bit of the narrative.
	People are wondering why they're announcing this, why they're taking a hard line, which we'll see in a moment, but I think it's because of the fact they've had such bad PR over the past few months, they need to at least try and score one victory, because Keir Starmer's approval rating is in the toilet.
	Before I get on to the rest of the information though, if you're watching this on YouTube, this segment will probably go out at about 4 o'clock, which means you have a few hours left to buy the merch that's on the website, which is the Trump merch.
	After today, this merch is gone.
	Gone forever.
	So pick it up while you still can and support the website.
	We appreciate every one of you doing so.
	So this is some of the information that's been released, which is that the Labour government has returned 9,400 people with no right to be in the UK, including 2,519 forced returns, which is an increase of 19% in the same period in 2023. And Mr. Labour MP for Dover and Deal, follow me on Blue Sky, says, ah, we're taking illegal immigration seriously.
	If there's no right to be here, they'll be deported.
	They're getting their jackboots on, folks.
	They're making sure that Labour are proving that the left are the real fascists this time.
	They're going all in.
	But really, is it as good as they say it is?
	Just a quick thing on here.
	Okay, so they've returned 9,400 people, including 2,590 enforced returns.
	So with the rest of them, are they just sending them a letter saying, we'd like you to leave?
	Paying them, maybe.
	Paying them?
	Like, how do they know they've actually gone if they aren't enforced returns?
	I don't know how it works.
	I mean, a lot of the system seems to be quite opaque, but this is taken from the government information that they've released on here, where they say, you know, here's the figures that you've got.
	The problem is that the likelihood is that a lot of this will have been done under the Tories before they lost in July.
	It's not like Starmer got in and immediately got on the phone and said, time to get them out.
	You need to go home, says Keir Starmer.
	That's not what's happened.
	Yeah, they didn't say our government, they said the government.
	So it could well be part of the Tories.
	Yeah, so it is not- But are they prevented from coming back in?
	Like, are they no right of return or anything like that?
	I don't know.
	But also, there's the fact that, yeah, 10,000 sounds like a good number.
	It's nowhere near enough.
	It is nowhere near enough to deal with the problems that this country has faced through illegal migration and asylum seekers who are falsely claiming asylum here after travelling through Potentially dozens of safe countries when they get into Europe.
	And what's going to happen?
	They've said that they want to clear the backlog, which as we've seen from the asylum decision makers from some segments recently, will just mean approving them.
	The difference between rejecting an asylum decision and approving an asylum decision is that you might miss your targets in the Home Office if you decline them, but if you approve them, you're going to get all of your targets hit in a single day, exceed, you might even get a bonus.
	Who knows?
	It's worth talking about just how small a number of this is as well, compared to the actual problem.
	I mean, we've got somewhere about 180,000 illegal channel migrants who have invaded Britain and are now being put up in hotels at our expense.
	But also, we know that there is at least a million other illegal immigrants who are just here because they came via plane.
	And so they're just milling around somewhere in our country as well.
	So 10,000 sounds like a lot in the abstract, but when you put it in context with the rest of just how many illegals we have, that's a drop in the bucket.
	I think those numbers that you gave are probably woefully underestimating the problem.
	Well, that's the thing.
	I'm going from the official estimates of a million-plus illegals.
	It's going to be way more than that, obviously.
	Again, you can look into it.
	There have been estimates provided by sewage companies and phone contract companies which suggest that the UK has a vastly larger population than official estimates would suggest.
	In regards to the asylum, how many people there are, They revealed that government spending on asylum in the UK was at 5.38 billion pounds from 23 to 24. Up 30% from the year before, which was 3.95 billion pounds.
	So, destroying British farming, drop in the bucket.
	I completely agree with at redwall pleb there.
	Richard says, absolute insanity and completely unsustainable.
	Meanwhile, we're freezing pensioners who paid into our system their entire lives to pay for these grifters.
	Yes, that's exactly what's happening.
	They don't want you to focus on this.
	They don't want you to focus on the enormous cost.
	They say that they're going to bring the cost down.
	What they do want you to focus on, though, is that legal net migration numbers are down 20%.
	Woo!
	20%!
	Yes, down 20%.
	We're getting the numbers down.
	This is the mandate that we were voted in for, says Keir Starmer.
	But in terms of real numbers, real numbers, not just the percentage, what does that mean?
	Well, it's down to...
	Let me guess, let me guess.
	I haven't seen it.
	So, the net migration was somewhere around 800,000, so it's going to be around 650,000?
	Another massive underestimate there, Carl.
	They revised the numbers from last year to mean that June 2023 had net migration figures of 906,000 people.
	Almost a full million.
	And that's net as well, because every year, for anyone who doesn't know, about six or seven or eight hundred thousand people leave, and yet the Conservative government was just cramming as many people into Britain like we're a clown car.
	And apparently that was nearly a million net.
	Yes, and that's fallen 20%, woo, we're getting it down to 728,000.
	Which is what they told us the net was anyway for that year.
	Yeah, and they point out in Politics UK, they updated the estimate for last year because they looked over the figures and found that there were some problems with that.
	The total for the 12 months to June 2023 was initially 740,000, but it's been revised upwards by 166,000 to get the 906,000 figure.
	So again, when you say, we don't know how many people are in the country, it's because part of the reason is that they keep revising these figures.
	We don't know why they keep revising these figures, presumably because they got it wrong the first time, or found clever ways of calculating.
	I wouldn't be surprised if under labor.
	Under the Tories, they wanted to make sure that it looked like it wasn't as bad.
	Obviously, it still looked terrible.
	They didn't want it to look as bad.
	And then Labour have gone, alright, factor in all the stuff that they missed out, and then give us the new figures, and then it'll make us look better.
	Because really, if the initial figure was 740,000, there's only a reduction of 12,000 this year.
	But, if you get it up to 906,000, then you can have the big, nice, round 20% number.
	The ONS says it's because they have more complete data for this period and have improved how it estimates the migration behaviour of people arriving in the UK from outside the EU. Would you like to guess where most of those non-EU people are coming from?
	India?
	Well, I guess.
	How did I know?
	Yep.
	India.
	240,000 people.
	A quarter of a million Indians.
	Nigerian, 120,000 people.
	Pakistani, 101,000 people.
	Chinese people, probably under student visas.
	That's probably the same with Nigerians as well.
	78,000.
	Zimbabwean, for some reason, 36,000 people.
	Reasons for coming to the UK, work, study, asylum, humanitarian, and 6% family.
	And we know that there's plenty more people coming in from the country, because we've seen the figures that, say, Robert Jenrick looked up, where it was a ridiculous number of people, about 30% of them, were coming in as dependents.
	Yeah, well, that's the thing.
	So, 35% work, okay.
	31% study, so that's 66%.
	13% humanitarian asylum, so that's 79%.
	And then 6% family is 85%.
	What's the other 15%?
	It's not 100%.
	It's probably included in the actual sources that they're getting this from, but these are the main reasons.
	But the point is, only 35% of them are coming to work!
	The economy would collapse without them.
	Two-thirds of the people coming to this country are not coming to do anything meaningful to contribute to the economy.
	What would Britain be without Indian corner shops, Carl?
	Wealthy.
	Where would we be?
	We'd have an empire.
	Would the overpriced Indian corner shops don't contribute to the economy, says Carl Benjamin?
	I'm just saying, without all of these dependents coming, sorry.
	No, no.
	Carry on.
	We would have wealth.
	Go on.
	I really think that the 13% of asylum humanitarian is underrated because a lot of the people you say come to work.
	Yes, some people work, some people come to study, but there seems to be a really large number of welfare beneficiaries.
	Because some people may come to work but also their family may just constantly demand benefits and social housing and all forms of benefits.
	So 13% seems really low.
	I also still doubt that 35% for work are going to be net contributors to the economy, when you factor in the stuff that you were talking about there.
	If they're bringing family over, who are going to be dependents, who might take state support, then they're going to be taking out more from the economy overall than they're putting in.
	I can understand the study, because you have really great universities here and lots of people come here for studying, but it seems to me that the 13% there is way underrated.
	Also, again, all of this that we're discussing right now is from an economic standpoint, and part of my annoyance with a lot of this is that our elites only view it from an economic standpoint when there are other factors to take into account, such as cultural cohesion, homogeneity, the lack of integration of cultures, the difficulties that come in any multi-ethnic society, the stuff like we were talking about there, they only ever try and see it as a net benefit to have more migrants in the world.
	The most important questions fly under the radar of policy because if you just talk about people as passive containers of benefits and passive containers of well-being, all the questions that are important like what specific cultures are called to coexist, Why do it in the first place?
	How many numbers?
	What is the population mix?
	How is the population mix going to develop in the future?
	All these really crucial questions.
	Also, obviously the most important is the one of values.
	All this flies under the radar of policy at the moment in the Western world.
	We're governed by bean counters, but the problem is these people who live by spreadsheets don't even really know how to calculate the spreadsheets properly.
	I mean, they're missing 15% of the bloody reasons on this one, so yeah.
	Well, yeah.
	Also, it seems that they can just misplace 166,000 people when they're coming up with the initial figures for last year's net migration, and then it takes a reassessment of that to find those 166,000 people.
	Somehow, don't ask me, the system works.
	But they've sent 10,000 people back, guys.
	Ooh, ooh.
	Yeah, well, on that 10,000 people, again, the Telegraph reports here that Suella Braverman had pointed out that the 20% drop in immigration came since June 2023 as a result of changes that she claims credit for, that she fought for and introduced in May 2023. 1.2 million arrivals a year is still too high, it's unsustainable, and why we need radical change.
	So the Tories are saying, we'll solve the problem, they won't.
	Well, no, no, to her credit, she did go to NatCon and say, well look, it was Rishi Sunak who just stopped me from doing anything.
	Rishi Sunak demanded that we have immigration this high, I tried to change it, he directly intervened, and there was nothing I could do because he was the Prime Minister.
	Okay, for some reason, the Conservative Party is completely trapped in this, probably because of the Bank of England demanding that more bodies means more economic growth.
	Completely outmoded paradigm, not true.
	This has been proven over the past 30 years to be a very successful way to run a country.
	And on this great news that we got it 20% down, we're solving immigration, guys.
	We're giving you what you, the people, wanted.
	Where is it?
	This is not the link that I put in here, Samson.
	Could you go into the document and get the link that I put here?
	Please.
	But I tell you what, do we really want to hear Keir Starmer's statement about it?
	Good grief.
	Well, yes, actually.
	Oh, do we?
	Well, yes, because he made some very, very interesting remarks during this, right?
	He basically copied our talking points.
	Oh, I'm sorry, I put the wrong bloody link in there.
	I'm ever so sorry, Samson.
	Do you mind carrying on a chat for a moment while I just find the link?
	Because it is important to listen to what he said about this.
	Apologies.
	Right, okay, you find the link.
	Okay, so I just want to say that, yeah, this is the Conservative government's fault.
	For some reason Boris completely opened the borders.
	As soon as in 2019 he won and we were supposed to get Brexit done, what that meant was, you know, far less productive European immigration and far more non-productive non-European immigration.
	But also the major problem goes way back.
	Was it Blair who started in 1997?
	Oh yeah, it was Blair in 1997. And then also the Tories, am I wrong in saying that for 14 years they said that they were going to bring it down?
	No, you're not wrong at all.
	They did the exact opposite.
	That's what they said and did, as you say, exactly.
	The thing is that under the Blair government, net migration was about 250,000 a year, which is an insane amount.
	That's a town the size of Swindon every year.
	250,000 people that's net and so sorry I'm not well today alright and uh I apologise So, yeah, that's an insane number of people.
	And then for some reason, the Tories were like, we're going to ramp that up.
	And so they ramped up to, you know, more than half a million.
	And then after COVID, they were like, we're going to ramp that up even more to nearly a million net a year.
	Okay, here we go.
	So apologies for the wait there, folks.
	That was entirely my fault.
	Uh, but I- You can edit that out.
	Yeah, yeah, you can edit that out on the YouTube clip.
	Uh, but here's what Keir Starmer had to say in the speech that he gave about the resounding victory that Labour is celebrating.
	When we came into office, we immediately conducted an audit of the public finances.
	And we found a 22 billion pound black hole.
	Now, The Independent Office of National Statistics has conducted vital work on the state of immigration and found the previous government were running an open borders experiment.
	As the ONS sets out, nearly one million people came to Britain in the year ending June 2023. That is four times the migration levels compared with 2019. Time and again, the Conservative Party promised they would get the numbers down.
	Time and again, they failed.
	And now the chorus of excuses has begun.
	We heard that from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.
	But what we didn't hear, what the British people are owed, is an explanation.
	Because a failure on this scale isn't just bad luck, It isn't a global trend or taking your eye off the ball.
	No, this is a different order of failure.
	This happened by design, not accident.
	Policies were reformed deliberately to liberalise immigration.
	Brexit was used for that purpose, to turn Britain into a one-nation experiment in open borders.
	Global Britain.
	Remember that slogan?
	That is what they meant.
	A policy with no support, of which they then pretended wasn't happening.
	And now they want to wave it away with a simple, we got it wrong.
	Well, that's unforgivable.
	He's stolen our talking points!
	He's been watching loads of seats!
	Faced far-right Keir Starmer gives the speech I would have given were I in his place.
	Okay, I'm here for it.
	Hope not haters gonna do a piece on him.
	Keir Starmer joins the far-right.
	But the problem again is this.
	Yeah, he's saying everything that you've wanted to hear.
	He's going, I'm a populist now, by the way.
	But we've heard politicians do that before.
	I, Keir Starmer, defender of terrorists, socialist savant, am now on your side.
	I am a far-right populist.
	In the same way that Mao, when faced with opposition...
	I'm a rightist now.
	...that I am now on the right.
	Keir Starmer, working man of Britain, is on your side.
	And they're going to fix it by authoring...
	No, Rwanda, out the door.
	Iraq.
	Iraq!
	That's what we're doing a deal with now.
	They're authoring a deal with Iraq, authored by David Lammy.
	I can't help but notice that the Iraqis aren't the majority of our immigrants.
	No, I also...
	Why Iraq?
	I don't know.
	Why Iraq?
	I'm interested to see what comes of that.
	We'll see what comes of that.
	There will now, as appropriate for a government run by mindless bureaucrats, be a new white paper published about this.
	That's going to be...
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	It's going to solve all our problems.
	And they're also, again, going to try to get all of the processing of asylum claims done, which will mean more accepting.
	But still, this is everything you wanted to hear.
	Ignore The riots.
	Ignore the attacks on farming.
	Ignore that meeting with Blackrock the other day.
	Who knows what that was about, eh?
	Just sweep that one under the rug.
	Ignore removing the winter fuel allowance.
	Keir Starmer is speaking to the working people of Britain, and he's on your side.
	The problem I have with this is that Keir Starmer's like, oh look, 900,000 net a year is way too many.
	It should be 300,000 net a year.
	Still too many.
	It's way too many.
	Net migration needs to be negative.
	It needs to be people mostly leaving.
	There's another issue that a lot of the times when you have, you know, people with socialist inclinations criticizing other sorts of experiments, the criticism often comes from the position that they didn't plan well enough.
	Yeah.
	So I'm sure he is pro-mass migration in a way.
	Of course he is.
	He still says he sees it as an economic issue.
	It's nothing to do with culture, nothing to do with demographic change or anything like that.
	He said he still wants high-skilled areas of the economy to have migration where they need it.
	So again, it's a case of management.
	We just need to manage it better where there's places, where there are gaps in the economy.
	We need to inject high-skilled High-skilled migration, which means more Indians, I assume, into those positions, and then the economy will work.
	Imagine if it's the same as the Rwanda deal, which was actually the deal, if you actually read it, was an exchange, was that we send them over there and we take Rwandans.
	Now we're going to get Iraqis, maybe?
	Are they going to be related to the same people that we were at war with?
	A few years ago?
	The thing is that he is pushing forward welfareism in a ridiculously high form of welfareism with high spending.
	The objection really that fundamentally underpins this He's angry at the Conservatives, because the Conservatives have just been trying to be like, oh yeah, we allowed immigration to get out of control, guys.
	That's going to change under the next Conservative government, we promise.
	And so he's just basically dropping a big political sack on them, and being like, no, I'm staking out the anti-immigration thing, because you did this, I'm against this, this is bad.
	Labour's getting the armbands on for this one, boy.
	But why is he against it?
	He's not against it because, of course, he's against mass immigration.
	Because, I mean, what he's saying is, right, we're going to get immigration down.
	So all of those millions of foreigners who are crammed into the country by the Conservatives, they're staying, obviously, and we're going to bring in millions more.
	We're just not going to do it in a year.
	We're going to do it in four years, right?
	Because that way, the Blairite project will sustain itself.
	The project of completely destroying and dissolving Britain and turning it into a massive, overpopulated economic zone Will succeed if the Conservatives are allowed to run out of control like this.
	I mean, this is just going to cause the far right to stop the Blairite project altogether.
	And that's what he's saving.
	Yeah, from a managerial perspective, the problem with the Tories was that they made it way too obvious what the plan is.
	And the plan is still the plan, but Labour will just do it better.
	That's exactly what he said.
	It's the promise.
	They're still doing a deal with Blackrock to presumably sell off half of the countryside once they've got it away from those damn hoarding farmers.
	So that they can then pave over it and put migrants there.
	Instead, you and your green and pleasant land know it'll be a blocky grey land.
	That's what you want.
	That's what Blairism promises you.
	The problem is, though, this rhetoric for normie idiots and NPCs works.
	And you used this example.
	I saw you responding to it, Carl.
	I wasn't trying to be mean to the guy.
	No, no, you weren't being mean to me.
	You were pointing out the truth, which was that this guy says, very pro-immigration mum.
	She's always been upset at me about talking about migration.
	Mention what Starmer said today.
	She replies, yes, I've been saying for years that immigration was too high.
	It suits the business owners by keeping wages low.
	Sudden populist...
	The road was clear to her now.
	She had the wool pulled over her eyes and it's been removed.
	Ah, now I understand the evil far-right populists were right the whole time.
	I would never admit it, but actually I've always been saying this.
	I was always Farage's top guy.
	Her guy said it, so it's okay.
	Yeah, exactly.
	People are so easy to switch.
	At least they're on our side now.
	Yes, I agree.
	It suits the businesses by keeping wages low.
	That's a good point.
	Good point.
	Good point.
	Let's end immigration.
	The problem is that they're not on our side.
	And the second that Starmer and anybody in Labour says the exact opposite, they go straight back to what they believed in the first place.
	What is the Tory response to this?
	Yeah, we screwed up, guys.
	We screwed up.
	Yeah.
	We shouldn't have let so many people in.
	Whoopsie-daisy.
	If you let us get in again in 2029, we promise we won't do it.
	Do you trust them?
	No.
	There is something mildly ironic that the Conservatives have now elected an immigrant to come and go, yeah, so we let too many immigrants in.
	It's like...
	Yeah, I guess so.
	She made basically the same speech twice, and then...
	There's something genuinely quite clownish.
	For literally the Conservative Party of Britain, to put an immigrant in front and go, yeah, so the Conservative Party is letting too many immigrants...
	I mean, how did they get to the top of the Conservative Party?
	Well, this is after Kemi was chosen because of the checklist.
	Because she's an immigrant!
	The Kamala Harris checklist.
	When they announced that she had won the vote among the members, they were so chuffed to be able to go, see, we've not just got another woman in charge, now it's a blast!
	A black woman, and they were all patting themselves on the back.
	A black immigrant woman, brilliant.
	It's just clownish.
	It's so clownish.
	And it's not that I have any particular dislike of Kemi Badenock.
	Actually, she seems okay.
	It's just there's something kind of thematically jarring about it.
	And she fought pretty hard to lax up visa routes for Nigerians in the past, so we can say that she's probably...
	Probably because she's Nigerian.
	Yeah, probably to do with the fact that she's Nigerian, so we can say a nice number of these are probably directly thanks to her.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Nigerians or anything like that.
	They seem alright, actually.
	But if...
	Bringing in 900,000 net immigrants is too many.
	Maybe putting an immigrant in charge of...
	It's not great optics.
	It's kind of crazy.
	And then to have Jacob Rees-Margon question time as well, going, yeah, we screwed up.
	We screwed up.
	We just thought the economy really needed it.
	Sorry, look at this, though.
	Look at this.
	Like, immigration policy failed.
	It failed to do what the British people had wanted.
	Okay, but since the 60s, British people have been saying no to immigration, thank you.
	No immigration, no immigration.
	And so, the fact that we have any immigration...
	A Conservative MP became so popular, saying maybe we should stop this immigration stuff, that you kicked him out of the party to stop him from becoming the leader, because he was so popular.
	Yes.
	That has been the Tory playbook for too long, so do not trust Keir Starmer.
	He is throwing out red meat for you, and do not trust anything the Tories say.
	They still hate you.
	A. Miller says, have you covered the Bill Gates cow methane supplement being given to dairy cows yet?
	You know, we haven't covered that.
	My wife mentioned that to me yesterday.
	She was like, what's this Bill Gates...
	I'm like, oh god.
	I don't know, it can't be any good.
	Isn't he trying to stop methane production from cows?
	Probably.
	Yeah, it's cows.
	Uh...
	Connor Smugmug says, Harry, read Creature Girls, a hands-on field journal in another world, and tell Carl how base the author is.
	Okay?
	And Labour is trying to...
	Labour is a snake trying to save image, no matter pretending, we'll save the Ciaminator.
	Where is my Islander 2?
	You should have your Islander 2, or at least it'd be on its way.
	We realise there's been a bit of a delay with them, but we've had a bit of a problem.
	We're going to change distributors, basically.
	Samson, is there an email address that people who haven't received their copy yet can get in touch with?
	There will be a contact email address we'll be able to give you a little bit later on in the podcast.
	Yes.
	Because we do want to get this sorted, obviously.
	But anyway, let's carry on.
	So it seems that the UK is running up to the point of basically regulating itself off the internet because our government is full of lunatics who think they're in control of the entire universe and think the universe should bow down to them because they managed to get into power under a Chancing Labour government.
	This, you will be surprised to learn, began with the Conservatives.
	This is the Competition and Markets Authority.
	What they do is make sure that the market is fair.
	As you can say, we help people, businesses, and the UK economy by promoting competitive markets and tackling unfair behavior.
	Right.
	They carry on to tell us.
	We take actions against businesses and individuals that take part in cartels or anti-competitive behavior.
	Okay, fair enough.
	That sounds like a useful thing.
	We protect people from unfair trading practices.
	Sounds good.
	We investigate entire markets if we think there are competition or consumer problems.
	Okay.
	I can see why this agency exists.
	We encourage government and other regulators to use competition effectively on behalf of consumers, and we carry out regulatory appeals in relation to issues like price controls.
	Okay.
	This seems like a very useful thing to have.
	It seems like it should have some authority over the market, but not complete domination of the market.
	You can see why it exists.
	And then...
	Kemi Badenot came on.
	And she...
	Created and sponsored a bill called the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act 2024. This was brought in by Kemi Badenoch under the Conservatives.
	You can see her sponsoring it from the Department for Business and Trade and Lord Offord of Garvel from the Department of Business and Trade also co-sponsoring it.
	And what this is to do is provide regulation and competition in digital markets to amend the Competition Act of 1998 and the Enterprise Act of 2002 and to make other provision about competition law to make provision relating to the protection of consumer rights and to confer further such rights for connected purposes.
	Now, that, of course, is just legalistic, bureaucratic waffle.
	That means nothing.
	What is that actually going to do?
	Are we going to update an act from 1998?
	Okay, fine.
	But in what way?
	And so, there have been people bringing attention to this saying, hang on a second, this is actually kind of crazy what this is going to do, and it's hypothetically going to give the UK government, we say it will give them sweeping control of US tech, but it won't actually give us control over it.
	It will make us make demands over US tech companies, which they aren't actually obligated to fulfill, and they could just say, screw your market.
	You're only 65 million or 69 million people.
	We're not going to do anything for you, and we don't have to.
	What of the UK's soft power?
	What of our soft power?
	If we can't get Musk under heel, what is the use of our soft power?
	That's the point, and so I'm going to quote quite extensively from this, because I haven't deep-dived into it, but this author has.
	I can't remember who it is, but we'll find out who it is.
	I think it said Ashley Rinsberg at the top.
	That's right, Ashley Rinsberg.
	And it's kind of crazy.
	Just how far they're going.
	So she starts with the example.
	In 2020, Adobe announced that it was going to acquire interface design software company Figma, which I'm sure there's a real name, for $20 billion, right?
	And this seems fine.
	It was in the depth of a tech recession.
	And then, little more than a year later, the companies would pronounce the deal dead, killed by insurmountable regulatory hurdles.
	But it wasn't the FTC in America that did this, no, it was the UK regulator, located thousands of miles from the company's Silicon Valley headquarters, called the Competitions and Markets Authority.
	The scuttling of the biggest American tech deal in months by a foreign regulator provoked outrage in the US, understandably so.
	With commentators arguing that if this continued, American companies would eventually have to abandon the British market entirely.
	And if you're someone like Facebook, you've got 3 billion users and 66 billion of them, or 69 billion, whatever it is, become a bit of a problem.
	And that means you have to restructure and reorganize and pay out huge amounts of money as well, which we'll get to in a minute.
	Do you restructure your entire world business based in the United States that isn't making you do this to the tune of billions and millions of dollars?
	Or do you just accept that's a market segment as very small?
	65 million, 69 million out of 3 billion is a very small number.
	Do you just accept that as a loss as you carry on?
	As we know, an economy that is increasingly poor.
	Americans constantly, I've seen, are staggered by what the median wage is in the UK and what the average wage is, because compared to America, we are staggeringly poor.
	Well, Britain is currently a developing country.
	It's a country that's going backwards economically.
	It's not good.
	And so, she carries on.
	In May, the British Parliament passed the Digital Markets and Competition Act.
	It'll be in here somewhere.
	I already have that on screen.
	Oh, right, sorry.
	Just a little bit.
	Yeah, yeah.
	In May, the British Parliament passed the Digital Markets Competition Consumers Act, which gives the CMA sweeping new powers over the companies around the world.
	Or at least it claims the powers over the companies.
	Again, the companies don't have to do it.
	They will just have to not operate in Britain.
	Okay.
	You know, what power does the British government have to force Facebook or Google or YouTube or Apple or whoever to pay fines in Britain?
	And the answer's none.
	Could you imagine...
	Does the BBC broadcast in other countries?
	Yes.
	Could you imagine if they all of a sudden demanded a claim over the right of how the BBC operates?
	The BBC would say, well, I will either have to agree to it or stop broadcasting in your country.
	Yeah.
	No, go ahead.
	No, I think that this is just a strategic failure on behalf of the government.
	Yeah, and it's not like there aren't precedents for this.
	The European Union has tried this with Google, like with Google News, and they just pulled out of Spain.
	And in Australia as well, they've tried this, and they just pull out.
	They say, no, screw you, we're not going to do it.
	And so the EU and Australia have walked back on these, and the UK will do that too.
	This is just incredibly short-sighted.
	But anyway, we'll carry on because, again, I just want you to understand the scope of this, right?
	So the DMU has the power to create bespoke regulatory conditions for companies.
	So, for example, Apple will have a set of regulatory conditions developed specifically for Apple, whereas Google will have their own set of rules to abide by, and so on.
	That's kind of crazy, isn't it?
	Okay, so we're going to give preferential treatment to certain companies and not others.
	So Apple, with woke Tim Cook, will get an entirely different set of regulatory apparatus that applies to him than, say, based Elon Musk and his ex.
	That's not good, because obviously Apple are going to be far more amenable, and so they're going to be shaking hands a lot more with this organization under the Labour government, whereas Elon Musk may well be forced to simply pull out of the UK entirely.
	Oh, in my mind I've just got an image of the UK government, like Anakin, in Revenge of the Sith, just going to Elon Musk, you underestimate my soft power!
	That's kind of what's happening here.
	But the Conservatives are the ones who are like, yeah, let's give this thing extra powers.
	Oh, look, a Labour government has come in, and now they get to use it exactly how they wish.
	And so, anyway, that allows, essentially, the government and agencies of the government to play favourites with foreign companies.
	So if you have an Elon Musk, he can't even appeal to the rule of law.
	He can't appeal to a consistent standard.
	I mean, as I said, this is a departure from competition.
	And the UK government is notoriously bad at all of this stuff.
	Absolutely!
	I'm also reading Harry's mind, you have Blackrock in mind.
	Well, I mean, Blackrock is an extension of the global government.
	It could be anything.
	And so the point being, it could well be that it's just not in Elon's interest to pay the billions of pounds or dollars of fines that we levy and just to pull out the UK market.
	So we now lose access to X, which I think would be a really, really bad thing because it's a very effective tool for communication and very politically important, and they know it.
	And so they point out that this is a massive departure from competition, which used to be a sort of one-size-fits-all approach.
	It was fair.
	It wasn't politically partisan.
	It was in the spirit of how law should work.
	How would this affect, say, Amazon, who are presumably one of the biggest retailers in the UK? I assume that they would have to either pay the costs, get a personalised, custom-made deal with this agency, or pull out.
	Could you imagine Amazon pulling out of the UK right now?
	No, I mean, I'd be heartbroken by it because I use Amazon on time, because I'm terrible.
	But basically, I imagine that Amazon is big enough to take the hit and just pay whatever they're supposed to do.
	I'm sure they'll have, like...
	I expect that there's going to be some sort of goodwill, right?
	And so they'll be like, no, Amazon's basically a left-wing company.
	We agree.
	You know, Amazon will do everything and say everything.
	We'll push all the diversity stuff, whatever.
	So they'll go, well, it did make The Hobbits black, so you get a free pay.
	Amazon isn't going to be the problem.
	It's going to be Twitter that's going to be the problem.
	And they're going to get rid of it for that reason.
	Or potentially could, right?
	But they say...
	Basically, and this is again another very interesting part, right?
	The more significant piece of the DMCC is that the companies will operate under an ex-anti framework.
	In competition law, again at least until now, remedies prescribed by regulators, such as forced divestiture or cessation of offending certain market activities, come as a result of an investigation which concludes that there has been a breach of the relevant law.
	So regulatory intervention takes place after the violation.
	Though subtle, the ex-ante approach represents a full paradigm shift in competition law.
	Before the shift, companies would have had little to no interference or interface with regulators.
	That is, until an investigation had been opened.
	So innocent until proven guilty.
	But...
	Instead, they are assumed to be compliant with a broad range of practices.
	The assumption by governments under an ex post framework is that companies are actually competing naturally and fairly.
	But the ex anti frameworks flips this dynamic on its head.
	Companies that are given SMS status in the UK or gatekeeper status in the EU are automatically assumed to be in potential if not actual breach of competition law.
	So the government steps in preemptively With a set of regulations tailored to ensure each, by their own measure, that this hypothetical situation would be anti-competitive practices never comes about.
	So this ex-anti approach to regulation was inspired, of course, by the European Union's own regulatory overhaul, the Digital Markets Act.
	So that's completely changing the dynamic of the markets.
	Well, this is very, very similar to how DEI law has worked in America for decades, where it's automatically assumed past a certain point that you are probably breaking DEI law with unfair hiring practices, which has meant that all of these companies have Automatically put all of these HR regulations in place to make sure that they're kind of bulletproof legally,
	which has led to a lot of the unfair hiring practices over there because it costs less overall for them to put all of that in place and start unfairly hiring people and discriminating rather than waiting for some aggrieved party to launch a case at them.
	Yeah, and so this is just kind of crazy, and as they point out, we're literally just lifting this from the European Union.
	So what happened to Brexit?
	Why would we do this?
	I don't think this is a good idea at all, and of course this has been done by the purportedly pro-Brexit Conservatives, and just handed straight to Starmer, so now he can start legally persecuting American companies that side with Donald Trump against those that sided with Kamala Harris and privileging those ones and deprive us of those services if they don't pay vast amounts of money, which I'll tell you about in a minute.
	I think that we will have several statements of the sort in the following months and this rhetoric will intensify because I think that it is sort of muscle flexing and you know they are anticipating Trump's tariffs.
	Yeah.
	So both sides now they're saying no I'm gonna harm you more.
	But I think it was probably unlikely that Trump was gonna put tariffs on Britain.
	Well, whatever.
	I don't think Keir Starmer has the best of disposition towards...
	No, no, of course not.
	This was put forward by the Conservatives, though.
	Exactly, but this is being handed to Keir Starmer, who's just going to exacerbate the problem, obviously.
	And so, crazy how we're just lifting European legislation.
	And they point out that basically anything that you do with this, then, kind of forces the companies to get through the narrow corridors of the regulation to get to the end, which is you, the consumer, which puts hurdles in their way that makes your experience worse.
	And they give the example of, well, Google can't So you've got to go through a load of extra hoops to get the same result.
	Yes.
	So it's just a worse consumer experience.
	Precisely.
	And this is supposed to be anti-competitional, but like to protect the market.
	Well, who are we protecting the market for?
	Well, now it's for the good of the market itself, not the good of the consumer, right?
	So anyway, they point out that most prominent consequences among this are that companies are just keeping major products out of the EU market.
	So if you think things are bad now, imagine when literally everyone else on Earth has a brand new kind of phone that does some new fancy thing, but Britain just doesn't have access to it.
	We are going to end up falling behind technologically.
	People in Africa will have better phones than you.
	Because they won't have these insane regulations.
	Because ironically, the Tony Blair Institute will be handing them out for free.
	Yeah.
	And you won't be able to get access to them.
	Our own Blairite government will not let you have them because of excessive over-regulation.
	It's kind of mental.
	And they've got examples of this.
	Google has decided not to offer its AI search assistance to EU customers.
	So if you buy a Google phone, you won't get the advanced AI search.
	That is amazing at what it does.
	Apple has issued downgrades of its iPhone 16 for European customers, which doesn't come with its own AI search engine, which the company admitted was directly due to concerns that the AI product could potentially violate these kind of regulations.
	I love this because what it essentially does is forces companies to make their products worse.
	Yes!
	That's exactly what it does!
	Purposefully encouraging a leveling of all standards.
	Yes.
	As everything in the modern world does.
	You literally can't have nice things because they have regulated nice things out of the equation.
	Other countries will have nice things, just we won't.
	And again, like, the phones and various other technologies in this effect, not coming preloaded with stuff.
	It's like, oh great, so now I have to do that myself, if I want that.
	I don't want to have to do that.
	I'm not, like, a techie guy.
	I don't want to be a techie guy.
	Like, there are going to be millions and millions of people who are just like, why doesn't my phone do what it was supposed to do?
	What the other guys I saw on the internet have.
	Yeah, no, you don't get that.
	So they're depriving us just to have excessive government control, right?
	And so anyway, they say that if breaches of these rules, and there's a reason these companies are doing this, because of course the companies themselves don't want to do this.
	They want to be like, yeah, bam, this is the best thing you'll ever get.
	Go buy it now, buy it now.
	Of course that's what the company wants, but they avoid doing it because it can result in fines of up to 10% of a company's global revenue.
	So if, again, using the example of Facebook, 3 billion customers globally, God knows how much money Facebook is worth, how much they bring in every year.
	But if 69 million of those, which is, again, a tiny fraction of the overall revenue, are making a claim on the global revenue, why would you take that risk?
	If you were Facebook, you're like, no, I'm just out of that market.
	I don't care what the boomers say.
	We're out.
	They're not getting their AI slop.
	I'm sorry.
	Which is out of...
	I think we should remember, though, what it says there.
	It says a penalty that former European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Thierry Breton used as a threat against Elon Musk.
	I was going to get to that.
	Yes, he did make that explicit threat.
	Yes, because he was constantly one of the most, you know, aggressively censorious voices there.
	Yeah.
	I mean, in the EU it's worse.
	It can go up to 20% of global revenue, which is crazy.
	How did it work for him?
	He lost his job.
	Yeah, he got fired.
	And Elon Musk just kind of repudiated him.
	But again, who knows how unbelievably hard-headed the Labour government's going to be over this.
	It could be that we literally end up losing access to services online that you took for granted.
	Again, I don't know what the consequence of all this is going to be.
	I'm just putting this on your radar because, by the way, the UK government could end up doing something really bonkers.
	And for all of the traditionalists watching this who, like myself, Carl and Stelios and others, will be saying, well, wouldn't it be better if we have less access to the internet, if people have more reason to communicate with one another, if people have less reason to go online and buy off Amazon and instead use their local amenities and such?
	You know, the government's not doing it for that reason.
	These...
	These are technocrats, but they are low-IQ, idiotic technocrats who are just trying to get an easy score on money.
	Yeah, I mean, hypothetically, that might all end up accidentally being good.
	They might accidentally reverse-engineer Trumpton.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But they're not doing it for that reason.
	What they're going to do is turn us into a global backwater.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And actually, they're going to go after critics.
	They're not going to be like the Republican congressmen of the ads going after gooners and stuff.
	Anyway, she carries on pointing out in this article that the definitions that they're going to use are, of course, very, very vague and able to be manipulated for whatever purpose they want.
	They say, oh, well, they need a 33% of the market share to be applicable for this kind of penalty.
	But as one London-based law firm expert explains, The 33% share of supply test is extremely broad, and as any seasoned advisor knows, it will be hard in most cases to establish that an acquirer does not have a 33% share based on some cut of the market or permutation of supply that they could use to establish jurisdiction.
	So if a company is producing 33% of phones, they could be like, yeah, but it's 33% of phones that have this particular camera, In this particular configuration, with that particular software or something, and actually you're 40% of those.
	So it's like, okay, great.
	So you could just wangle it to be anyone you want.
	Probably with Amazon, I don't know, they are probably a massive share, but if they were able to argue, oh, we're not 33% of all online sellers, they'll probably be able to go, ah, but you're more than that in book sales.
	You're more than that in shoe sales or some random thing.
	They can narrow or expand the categories to be convenient to themselves.
	So this isn't even a hard thing.
	But anyway, non-compliance with investigations can result in a fine of 1% of global revenues on companies, which is around 20 grand or something per day for non-compliance for individuals.
	So if you're a company, it's 1% of your global revenue.
	But if you're an individual, £15,000 a day for non-compliance.
	So you...
	You basically have to either do this or pull out.
	They're not going to allow you to continue.
	And so Elon Musk basically pulled this to people's attention.
	This is how I found out about it.
	Because he's like, oh, actually, great.
	So the guy who owns Twitter, a platform I use all the time and I think is very useful, is like, hmm, I'm watching you, UK. For some reason, it seems that the UK is going to set themselves against Elon Musk.
	I think that's a terrible idea because I like access to his properties, his platforms.
	And I hate the kind of increasing dystopian bureaucratic control our country is falling into.
	So again, don't know what the end of the result of this is going to be.
	Just putting it on your radar.
	Peter says, on the Amazon comment, how would the law work with Amazon's AWS since so many online services use it for their infrastructure for their services?
	Yeah, great question.
	They can't shut down AWS worldwide, but they can shut it down in the United Kingdom.
	Which again would be an insanely bad idea, but that's the power that they're giving themselves.
	Bald Eagle says, all I'm hearing from this legislation is that international companies are going to avoid the UK and the EU like the plague.
	Glad to see the politicians want to regulate Europe to third world status.
	Yeah, that's basically what we're going to do.
	But right, let's carry on.
	Yeah, so I need the...
	Sorry, you of course do.
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	Right, so a few days ago we heard in the UK Parliament a Labour MP, I think his name was called Tahir Ali, who was calling for the introduction of a blasphemy law.
	Now I think that this would be an absolute disaster.
	I did a daily video for a short video channel.
	And basically I said that it's going to be a disaster for three reasons.
	Number one, it's just a really bad violation of our right to free speech, like any hate speech law.
	Number two, it's going to contribute to a very arbitrary environment where people are literally afraid to speak and criticize multiculturalism.
	And number three, it is definitely going to be applied selectively.
	It also privileges Islam as a religion in Britain.
	Why the hell should Islam have religious preference in Britain?
	It's crazy.
	Well, yeah, because you would say that Britain is a Christian country.
	The king is literally the head of the Church of England, and yet it's Islam that has legal protection and not Christianity.
	But I want to ask you, Carl, why is there no discussion of Christianophobia?
	Because people view Christians as like some sort of global majority, even though they're And therefore they can't, under the sort of woke formula of power plus prejudice, be oppressed.
	They're always the oppressors.
	Yeah, so I want to be very clear I'm against blasphemy laws because I'm against hate speech laws.
	But this segment is about something different, and actually it's more of an introduction to a very huge topic, and obviously we cannot talk about the persecution of Christians globally in just 20 minutes.
	So I want to give you just some really interesting bullet points, some statistics, and also some perspective into the mix.
	Let's see here, Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world.
	Would you guess this from just looking at the culture today?
	I mean, I already knew this.
	You did know this?
	I think the average person has no idea.
	The average person has no idea, just like they have no idea, for instance, the mix of the population within the country.
	Remember the Vox Populi.
	Not just that, also, the average person has been raised on a steady diet of liberal propaganda and Stephen King novels to assume that Christians are all insane, crazy bigots.
	Most of them understand Christianity as...
	Isn't that basically like the Westboro Baptist Church?
	I watched a Louis Theroux documentary on that.
	If they're being persecuted, that's a good thing.
	Also, isn't it like that icky white European religion for thousands of years?
	Ew, let's get rid of that.
	Of those people who have no culture.
	Yeah, exactly.
	There's no culture.
	Ignore the glorious churches and architecture, the traditions, the rituals, the dances.
	No culture.
	Right.
	So it says that the Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world.
	That is why the label Christianophobia is common in the language of international and regional human rights bodies.
	Most of them often condemn together antisemitism, Islamophobia and Christianophobia.
	However, the ECHR uses only the first two labels in its case law, but has never mentioned Christianophobia as such.
	Well, I can hardly say that's surprising, given that they're one of the bodies that are very much against Europe in general.
	Right, and here we are going to go to the UN, because as I said also in the main segment, it seems to me that the UN is basically the Organization of Virtue Signalling.
	Yes.
	It's VSO, I think it should be called.
	Right, so Samson, could you please type Islamophobia on the search bar to see how many results we're gonna have?
	And then we are going to compare this with Christianophobia.
	So if we click on this...
	Yeah, you can click on search.
	Islamophobia?
	Yeah, search.
	Hit search, it's right above reset.
	There you go.
	We have 17 results, and we also have number one, the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, which they have designated March 15. Now, if you write Christianophobia, you will see...
	How many results do you think there are going to be?
	Thousands, surely.
	Thousands.
	How many thousands?
	Oh, tens of thousands, I hope.
	Yeah, sorry, no results could be found.
	Maybe type in like anti-Christian with a hyphen between it?
	No, if you type anti-Christian, what you will see is essentially that they have a designated day to commemorate victims of acts from religion.
	The first thing that comes up is the Islamophobia thing.
	Right.
	So, you see here, Antonio Guterres makes claims about Islamophobia in the UN. He says about the rise in bigotry regarding Islam, but he doesn't say anything of the sort regarding Christianity.
	Right, so I started a sort of a search because I wanted to give you precise data.
	So I tracked several organizations and went to see several websites.
	I came to Open Doors, which is a really eye-opening organization.
	Since 1955 it was founded by someone who was smuggling Bibles into the Soviet Union.
	And essentially they're saying that right now Christianity is persecuted even more than it was in the Soviet eras.
	When one of the goals of the Bolsheviks was literally to persecute Christians.
	So you will see here, it's not that.
	They say that it has never been worse since 1955. Ah, right.
	They're not saying this, and North Korea is still number one country that is the worst country to be a Christian.
	So we shouldn't try and say that communists have nothing to do with it.
	I imagine they have everything to do with it.
	Yeah, so I saw some numbers.
	They're saying that more than 365 million Christians worldwide face persecution and discrimination.
	So it's around one in seven Christians.
	Christians are around 2.4 billion.
	I think these are the latest estimates.
	So 365 million, it's quite a large number.
	It's a huge number.
	So why does the UN say nothing about it?
	Right, so what they have here is they have a world watch list that talks about all the countries, and they have the 50 worst countries to live in for Christians.
	So if you see here, you go to North Korea, it's world watch number one, and they say that it's the worst country, and they say main threat, dictatorial paranoia, communist and post-communist oppression.
	But if you go into basically other countries you will see for instance here in Nigeria it's number six You will see basically the same main threat, Islamic oppression, ethno-religious hostility.
	So it's a very war-torn region.
	And as they're saying, that essentially a lot of the negative trends that happen in the last decades happen, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.
	I saw Mexico highlighted as well, which is quite a surprise for me.
	Yeah, that is a surprise.
	We will get there, but let us focus on some brief Trends, some bullet points.
	So North Korea remains number one.
	Just for 2022, Afghanistan, I think, had the first position.
	But then North Korea had the gold medal of persecutions.
	Right, so they're saying that worldwide around 5,000 Christians were killed per year.
	That seems like an underestimate to me.
	Yes.
	There are other sites that have greater numbers.
	For instance, the ADF says something like 7,000.
	But there are many.
	There are thousands.
	And as they were saying there, that close to 90% of them are in sub-Saharan Africa.
	And especially, they're saying, in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
	Where they are essentially, as they say, Christian communities continue to be attacked with devastating impunity by armed bandits and Islamic militants.
	We also have militants who exploit chaos in Africa.
	They're saying that for several reasons, economic, political instability.
	They also cite climate change, fractures in governance and security across the The region makes it easy for extremists to capitalize upon that.
	But this happens in places like Egypt, where the Copts are constantly under attack by Islamic mobs.
	Egypt is a bit higher on the list.
	They have it position 38. And they also have a much larger percentage of the population.
	So I think the Coptic Christians are about 10%.
	And I think, diachronically, Egypt was one of the cases where you had coexistence between religions to a higher degree than other ones.
	But as you say, yes, they do say here that in Egypt things are also bad for Christians and they do face persecutions.
	Right.
	Also, there is a rise in the number of churches and destruction of public properties That have taken place in 2023. Also, they say that there is rise in surveillance in countries like China and they are used in order to surveil and monitor Religious freedoms and essentially deprive them.
	And they also say that there are familiar reasons in Iraq and Syria, but also autocratic governments tighten control, and it becomes much more difficult.
	So why does the UN not talk about it?
	That's one of the major questions.
	Because the UN is allegedly one of those organizations that is supposed to be about the United Nations.
	It's supposed to be about what happens in the whole world, but it seems to me that it is very much selective.
	And that isn't just the UN, also it's the ECHR. As we read before, they are talking about antisemitism, they're talking about Islamophobia, but they're not talking about Christianophobia.
	Right, so let's scroll down a bit.
	Here, they're saying that, for instance, a key trend in growing violence is in sub-Saharan Africa.
	The region accounts for some around 90% of the estimated 5,000 believers who were killed for the faith worldwide.
	worldwide, they say with the highest number of Christians killed in Nigeria, 4,000.
	And they're saying that essentially in several other countries there is Islamic extremism that is capitalizing on regional instability, and they say in places like Mali, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Mozambique and Somalia, military coups and other fractures in governance and security have enabled military coups and other fractures in governance and security have enabled militancy to Because of their faith, Christians are affected disproportionately.
	Now, I want to point out one extra factor on this, because here, especially in the West, we have a lot of people who are pro-big-state, pro-welfarism, and they're talking about constantly pouring funds into Africa.
	And a lot of people are saying that the funds that are being poured into Africa are actually funding really corrupt governments.
	And this is actually used against Christians.
	Autocratic governments are notoriously against Christians in the region, and they're using their autocracy to repress religious freedoms.
	So if you could just visit this website and click on all of these countries and see especially what is going on.
	What's going on in Mexico?
	I'm curious.
	In Mexico?
	Yeah, same.
	Also in Cuba, yeah.
	Cuba's not surprising.
	Cuba's coming to these countries.
	Do you want to click on that?
	Yeah, I'm clicking on it.
	Oh, does it not have its own page?
	Maybe if we open it on a different tab.
	Oh, there you go.
	Worldwatch number 37. Is it due to cartel activity?
	Yeah, it's got to be, isn't it?
	Organized crime and corruption.
	Yeah, organized crime and corruption and clan oppression.
	Right, so you can definitely...
	Like MS-13, which is an openly satanic gang, for example.
	So they're saying here also that, for instance, one of the worst countries is Nigeria.
	And here is from ADF. And they're saying that in the south of Nigeria, in Nigeria, the people are predominantly Christian.
	In the north, they are predominantly Muslims.
	There is a sort of mixed belt in the middle, but they're saying that here what happens, we see two trends.
	One, the number of Christians rises.
	From 36% it goes to roughly 50% of the population.
	But also the persecutions are increasing in violence.
	And they give sort of different data here.
	They say that in 2022, roughly 5,000 Christians were murdered for their faith, more than the number killed in all other countries combined.
	For 2023, one estimate put the number of Christians targeted and killed in northern Nigeria at over 7,000.
	Because Nigeria is one of the most dangerous I think you'll get the gist of it.
	Across Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of Christians persecuted and also killed is not, is really high.
	Right here, okay, we have also the Democratic Republic of Congo that was second in the number of fatalities, of murders, as we said.
	Isn't the DRC mainly just like a big open war zone most of the time anyway?
	Sadly.
	And the same main threat, Islamic oppression, organized corruption and crime, dictatorial paranoia and clan oppression.
	So you get the idea.
	So it seems to me really, really hypocritical of bodies and organizations like the UN that constantly say how good and And sensitive they are to the plight of people worldwide that they don't have, for instance, a Christianophobia Awareness Month.
	Personally, I'm against Awareness Months.
	I'm against Awareness Months.
	I'm against hate speech laws.
	I don't have to say it again.
	I've said it again.
	But if we have some of them, the question arises, why don't we have the other ones?
	Yeah.
	Right, so we have here also what we need to say.
	It's also in India that this happens, for instance, and they're saying that India also has a population of around 71 million Christians.
	But there are also bad persecutions and, say, religious nationalism and dictatorial paranoia are some of the main threats.
	And it comes sometimes from Hindu nationalists and groups of the kind.
	So it seems to me that it is absolutely hypocritical of the UN and all these bodies talking about Talking about all kinds of, you know, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and other anti-anti-anti, but they're not talking about anti-Christianity.
	And this seems to me to be very strong evidence to suggest that Christians are oppressed, and no one is talking about it in the West.
	Almost no one's talking about it.
	Connor Smugmug says, so Nigerians are persecuting Christians the most and come to Britain, a Christian country, what could go wrong?
	Well, to be honest with you, it's probably likely that Christian Nigerians are coming to Britain.
	Possibly to escape persecution.
	Also, Connor Smugmug, if I remember, I think you were the one who was asking where your issue of Islander 2 is, and I've just had it noted in the document here.
	If you've got issues and you want answers, you can contact us at support at lotusseaters.com and we should be able to give you more information about that.
	Right, let's go to the video comments.
	When Frank Herbert wrote Dune, he created a universe not dissimilar to that of Asimov's Foundation, but rejecting technology.
	His Butlerian Jihad was named specifically.
	In the mid to late 1800s, English author Samuel Butler wrote Erewam, essentially nowhere backwards, about a man venturing abroad to seek his fortune and encountering a land that had rejected technology.
	The book is an interesting satire of industrializing Britain.
	Particularly fascinating is the way Erewhonians treat disease as criminal, but criminality as requiring treatment to cure.
	I've not heard of that.
	I didn't know where the term butlerian jihad came from except its use in Dune, so that's actually very interesting.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Our immigration policy is a complete disaster.
	Send the boogies back!
	Send the boogies back!
	Oh, send the boogies back!
	Now we know what more happens on the weekends!
	See?
	Nothing offensive, nothing blue!
	No, just racists!
	Get him off!
	Get him off the stage!
	Get him off the stage!
	2001, man.
	Atrocious.
	Yeah.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Wait, why did Rory Stewart say it's a complete disaster?
	Because I get the feeling that Rory Stewart is perfectly fine with 906,000.
	That's nowhere near enough!
	No, no, but remember...
	That's the disaster!
	It's not because there are too many migrants.
	What it is, is it brings into question the stability and legitimacy of the Globalist Project.
	That's the problem, right?
	Yes.
	So, that's when they say it's a complete disaster.
	Anyway, let's get some written comments.
	So, Luke says, Great show as always, guys, but off topic.
	What are your thoughts on the assisted dying bill currently being debated in Parliament?
	I can see an argument if someone has terminal cancer, and they're in an advanced stage of it, that that could be something that would be useful.
	But obviously I think the government will just try and execute as many British citizens as they can.
	It's going to be made, just like in Canada, it's going to be made.
	Your grandad who goes in for a routine knee surgery or something is going to be encouraged to kill himself by the government.
	Yeah, literally, there was one example of a woman who needed a stairlift installed, and they're like, well, that's gonna take a while, but would you kill yourself instead?
	And it's just like, what are you talking about?
	You've got depression, how about kill yourself?
	Well, yeah, that's the other thing.
	A.C. Grayling has already been like, who's a sponsor of this, who works with Dignity and Dying, has already been like, yeah, just let the depressed kill themselves.
	I'm a philosopher and ethicist, and I say that the depressed should kill themselves.
	Could you imagine if you were depressed, if you were AC Grayling's friend, and you're like, oh mate, I've been feeling so down recently, and he just hands you a massive bottle of pills.
	This will take care of him.
	You know what to do.
	You know what, I think that if someone asks him, how are you going to cure cancer, his answer would be to roll back Brexit.
	Yeah, he would say.
	No, apparently his answer would be...
	Rejoin the EU. Rejoin the EU. His answer would be kill all cancer patients, then we've not got cancer anymore.
	Anyway, Thomas says, you could pass the migration case, work backlog through a machine learning algorithm and process it all within a few days.
	The home office could be rented, be a rented office in Cleethorpes with a handful of people and check GPT subscription and a bunch of satellite offices for enforcement.
	It is not fit for purpose.
	Yeah, well, the thing is, the problem is, they would just, again, they're just going to rub a stamp and say...
	Yes, yes, yes, to all of them.
	Again, a reminder from the segment I already did on this, the process is that if you're going to accept them, you have a set of tick boxes that you can fill in that takes five minutes.
	If you're going to reject them, it means that you need to spend the entire day filling out the forms to process the rejection.
	And these people doing this have to hit at least eight decisions per week.
	So, if you actively try to reject people, because maybe they don't fit the criteria, that will be one per day, five per week.
	You will not hit your targets.
	Derek says, My initial response to Stammer's little press conference was he's trying to play Trump, but of course he's not going to do it and has just used it as an opportunity to blame this all on Brexit and the Tories.
	Yeah, well, I think, really, what he's doing is trying to just drive a nail into the Tories.
	I don't, I think, and again, I really think that he's like, you've put the Blair Wright project in danger.
	So he's angry at the Tories for being so frivolous with mass immigration.
	Should have been 350,000 a year.
	What are you doing?
	900,000?
	That's crazy.
	People will notice that.
	People will rise up against that.
	What are you doing?
	Please give us time to destroy the farms and build up new housing estates to put them in first.
	Exactly.
	If you ruin it, then we can't do this.
	Omar says, do they even draw a distinction between people out and in and natives in and out and in?
	You know what?
	Actually they do.
	So they say about 700,000, 800,000 people, depending on the year, leave every year and it's roughly about 80,000 of those are native British people.
	White British, they call them in the census.
	So we do know actually that it is mostly foreigners leaving when they leave every year.
	I know that people will do worry about that.
	But no, we're surprisingly difficult to budge, actually.
	And when they do budge, they tend to go to Australia and other enclosations.
	Yeah, absolutely, America.
	But yeah, so we do know that it's mostly just foreigners going back.
	Lord Nerevar says, Salma's only making the right noises about immigration because he's scared of all the blowback his admin has got in such a short space of time.
	The automatic visa stamping machine in Whitehall hasn't even slowed down, don't forget that.
	Yeah, no, that's...
	It's doubtless as well a tie-in to his unbelievable and unprecedented unpopularity.
	No one likes him, and he knows it.
	Chase says, Kia, immigration is out of control.
	It's the Tory's fault.
	UK citizenry.
	Okay, can you mass deport people then?
	Kia, no.
	Um...
	Well, we already sent 10,000 people away, what more do you want?
	Yeah, that's the problem.
	Listen, we're rubber stamping these asylum claims as fast as we can.
	That's just as good as mass deportation, right?
	I mean, that's on his balance sheet, yeah.
	Look at the backlog, it's gone.
	It's just a good problem solved.
	Also, we got a New Rumble rant in from OPHUK, almost got me, saying, Do you feel a passport still carries weight?
	I used to think that those with our passport shouldn't be denaturalized and sent back.
	Then our government started handing them out to every jihadi asking for one.
	So first of all, no.
	Second of all, I don't think that they really carry all that weight anyway because Britain has never been a propositional nation in the same way that somewhere like America has.
	We've had people come to this country and immigrate and integrate, but certainly never in the sorts of numbers that we've had over the latter half of the 20th century.
	What are you saying?
	It used to be prestigious to have a British passport.
	It was fairly difficult to acquire.
	Go back 30 years, most of the people with British passports were definitely ethnically British by a gargantuan margin.
	It wasn't like 25% of people with British passports weren't ethnically British.
	It was like 95% or 90% or whatever.
	It's a huge number.
	Yeah, they are diluting the power of the passport, that is totally true.
	Maria says, deportation, deportation, deportation is the only thing I want to hear from anyone in the political and media classes.
	Yeah, it's kind of, it's such an obvious open goal as well, but anyway.
	Sophie says, curious how this works.
	Trump gets elected and threatens Canada with tariffs if they keep allowing illegals to cross from the Canadian border.
	Suddenly Trudeau makes a statement saying they need to limit immigration.
	Suddenly as Trudeau made that statement, Starmer falls into line two.
	Funny how that works.
	Yeah, maybe Trump is going to do something good by proxy for Britain.
	Yeah, but we need to say that these are statements.
	These are statements.
	We need to see actions.
	And also...
	Again, what they're preserving is just 300,000 net, which is not good.
	That's brought us to this place.
	Also, I've seen some discussion in chats that I'm part of of somebody pointing out that Keir didn't even really look like he knew what he was saying as he was saying it in the speech.
	It might just be that they said, okay, Trudeau's doing it, so we're globalist sheep, we'll follow along with it.
	And I do also think there's a lot to do with the fact that their approval ratings are so low, they've already got over two and a half million signatures on that petition for a new election as well.
	They know everybody hates them.
	Multiple segments that we have done on how everybody hates Keir Starmer and he's evil have probably reached a cumulative almost million views.
	Everybody hates these people.
	So they're like, gammon, gammon, throw out some red meat for the gammon.
	There you go, there you go.
	Eat up the slop, you fat pigs.
	Copy Tory tactics.
	Hazard says, some good topics on this one again.
	How do we stay positive considering reformers so weak?
	Great question.
	Hopefully in the next coming months there will be good news.
	I don't know if there will be.
	I thought you had some good news then, no.
	Just fingers crossed that things get better.
	I pray to God that somehow...
	Mind optimism?
	Yes, somehow all of the immigrants just leave.
	Yeah.
	By themselves.
	And all of a sudden the economy turns around.
	There you go.
	I mean, eventually.
	Eventually they'll just be going to collapse.
	And all the immigrants will leave because there won't be any food here.
	So they'll be like, oh, I don't want to starve to death.
	I'm going to go.
	Yeah, I mean, Putin might newt London.
	Is that good?
	Is that good news?
	The Harkonnens will leave Arrakis.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Eventually.
	Maybe a trap.
	Consider, if you put yourself in Putin's head, he's seeing things on a civilizational scale.
	In a thousand years, we'll all probably be fine.
	Yeah, so, you know, think of it like the Al Amzalus Reconquista.
	Okay, this might take 700 years, but it'll be fine for them, then.
	Imagine us 720 years old being there to just marvel.
	I'm finally there.
	739 years of misery.
	Centuries of pensions.
	A thousand year Blairite Reich.
	Leon says, I was baffled.
	The security agreement with Iraq will stop people smuggling over the Channel from France.
	Perhaps we can expect Iraqi guards on the French coast to just smoke and ice.
	The majority of the people coming across the Channel are not from Iraq.
	So it's just like, what are you doing?
	Apparently it was David Lammy who went over there.
	Can you imagine they were going like, well, we can't just do Rwanda, because we've already rubbished Rwanda.
	Iraq!
	And then they just get a little map of the world out and they go, David, throw a dart.
	Hits Iraq.
	Weren't we recently at war with them?
	I'll be fine.
	You're black, David.
	You can sort of list.
	Go over there.
	Have you reminded them that you're black yet?
	But that's the thing.
	Iraq just isn't the problem here.
	Maybe there's a lot I'm not privy to, I guess.
	Russian Garbage Human says, from now on, Brits may accurately refer to mass migration years as the experiment.
	Yeah, as said by far-right politician Keir Starmer.
	An experiment they did not consent to.
	An experiment they should push for restitution on for all the criminal, economic and moral damage to the people in the country.
	Take back the courts and hold the candle.
	I totally agree.
	This has been done to us, and we're the victims of it.
	The Payless Son of Yacoub says, Consumer protection laws yet again, protecting consumers from having good products.
	Yep.
	Roman Observer points out, to be fair, Europe is already behind in technology.
	That's correct.
	Yep.
	We don't produce anything.
	What's funny is since the Second World War, and this is something that a recent book came out discussing, most in Britain in particular, being a vassal state, most of our companies are in some way American.
	Most of the products that we have are in one way or another American.
	And then, instead of just going like, okay, can we at least have the good stuff?
	We go, no, we're going to regulate it so we get the shittiest products imaginable from America.
	Because that's what the British people want.
	I mean, we're trading off of foreign goods.
	Can we at least have nice foreign goods?
	Can we not have the good stuff?
	No.
	You're not going to have crap foreign goods.
	No.
	Thank you.
	In fact, like, Afraid Bound Task for Every Haitian points out, I don't see a problem with foreign corporations being forced out of our markets in a vacuum.
	If it wasn't our traitorous ruling class doing it, I might support the move.
	Yeah, if it wasn't like...
	And if it was monopolistic Chinese companies trying to buy up infrastructure...
	Yes.
	Free speech platforms that we're relying on to resist government oppression and to spread the word about what things are happening, I'm not so encouraged about having them forced out of our market.
	Okay, so is a British social media company going to start?
	like British Twitter?
	Britta?
	And like, how's that going to look?
	You know, like everything that we're going to post is going to be a hate crime basically.
	So it's just like, okay, great.
	Our existence is going to be an act of defiance.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, that's literally how it's going to end up.
	Michael says, Elon should just lock the MPs out of their accounts for a week or two.
	Now, that would be hilarious.
	Well, they've got Blue Sky now, but nobody really cares.
	But they don't want to use it, because they aren't talking.
	Get off on the humiliation.
	Yeah, but it's not just that.
	They feel they're conquering over their foes as well when they use Twitter.
	Keir Starmer, he doesn't dream, but he loves the humiliation.
	Every ratio is a win for him.
	I don't know.
	I don't think Keir Starmer really understands how social media works.
	I doubt Keir Starmer personally uses social media.
	He's too old.
	He's in his 60s, right?
	He's a robot, though.
	Yeah, sure.
	He should come naturally to it.
	No, no, no.
	It's not in his programming.
	It's the sort of Lisa Nandies of the world.
	world, you know, the sort of younger, perpetually online types.
	They're the ones who'd be most affected by locking them out of their accounts.
	And it would be funny, like, withdrawing the drug from the heroin addict, right?
	So suddenly in the Labour cabinet meeting, everyone's really pissed off and Kirsten's like, oh, why is everyone so upset today?
	Sound nearly bunged up enough there.
	I can't do impressions.
	But one of them is going to have to explain, well, Elon Musk has locked us out of our Twitter account.
	Das Oger says, never trust government bureaucrats.
	He says more, but I don't think I need to go on.
	I completely agree with you.
	Completely.
	The Unbreakable Litany says, just think, Starmer wants to send us back to feudalism while being both unable and unwilling to fulfil his duty as a member of the ruling class.
	Feudal class system, those who farm, those who fight, those who abate the wrath of God.
	Yeah, Keir Starmer can't do any of those things.
	Again, if they wanted to bring us back to the 15th century, or the 16th, or maybe even at the latest, the 19th century...
	Can we at least have the nice things that came with that?
	Can we have, like, cultural cohesion?
	An empire?
	An empire.
	That'd be nice.
	No.
	No.
	You get 19th century technology and billions of Bermalians.
	There you go.
	And the economy will go up, apparently.
	Maybe.
	Hopefully.
	A guy from Hungary says, Starmer is the devil's advocate, not figuratively.
	He loves to defend a juicy jihadist case.
	That's all true.
	That's totally true, though.
	Starmer, we've got a juicy one for you.
	Yeah, but that's both Starmer and Khan.
	Not that it's concerned of the UK, just to make Keir squirm.
	Kemi, during question time, should highlight the Nigerian Christians massacred by the other monotheistic religion.
	Is she gay?
	I don't think she's going to.
	I don't see that being a concern of hers.
	And if she does, it'll be, we need refugees.
	She's come out with all of the, oh, we need to reduce immigration, but if there's one effective thing that this new speech has done, it's completely kneecap all of their rhetoric.
	Yes.
	Because now they're saying the exact same thing, and they can point to 14 years of Tory policy.
	Yeah, this was your idea.
	Why did you do it?
	Well, we need to stop it.
	Yeah, well, you're the guy's for it.
	He literally stole our talking points.
	He stole our talking points.
	He's been watching Lotus Eaters.
	He has a secretary who's subscribed to us and the academic agent, and they've been stealing our talking points, wrote it down for him.
	He had no idea what he was saying, but it worked.
	Yeah, a bunch of his staffers gave him a speech and were like, look, just say this.
	God damn it.
	Tech Heresy says, regarding the attacks on Christians, still let's talk about attacks on churches.
	Are we discussing state-approved burnings of Catholic churches in Canada?
	Oh yeah, true.
	Well, we weren't in that particular one, but that's definitely a thing that's been happening.
	Do you see that they've recently rebuilt Notre Dame, though?
	They've finally got that sorted.
	And I think modernists lost on this one, thank you.
	Yeah, which was quite surprising.
	I thought they were going to screw it up.
	But Theodore says, Yeah, I'm kind of for it.
	I'm for it.
	Just not for all religions.
	I don't want all religions to be equal.
	No, you can't blaspheme against Anglicanism.
	Remember, Carla's read Locke.
	We all know this.
	And what did Locke want to do to atheists?
	Sure, but it's not just atheists.
	It's other religionists, right?
	So, basically, I don't want to privilege Islam in Britain.
	If we're going to privilege any religion in Britain, which appears to be what's on the table, we should be privileging the Church of England and Anglicanism.
	Because it's our religion.
	It's ours.
	We made it.
	They don't get to have it.
	You don't get to blaspheme against it, Orthodox.
	Also Connor.
	Also Connor is banned.
	Especially Connor.
	You know, I think some Protestants are based.
	Well, yeah, some probably are, yeah.
	Just not ones in the Church of England.
	But the point is, traditionally, we should protect our traditional religion, not a foreign religion, obviously.
	I thought you were about to start advocating burning Catholics again then.
	To be honest, right?
	You know...
	So...
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Hang on, Han.
	Right, so I'm having dinner with my family yesterday and Bonfire Night had come up somehow, right?
	One of the kids had mentioned it or something like that.
	And my son had learned about Bonfire Night in school and said, oh yeah, this is when they...
	Set fire to kill Guy Fawkes.
	That's why we burned the FGs.
	That's correct, son, yeah.
	And my wife's like, were we in favour or against Guy Fawkes blowing up Parliament?
	And I was like, you know, I'm not even sure these days.
	I know that we...
	Obviously, historically, it was, yes, we got Guy Fawkes, we didn't blow up Parliament.
	But my wife is looking at the political position being like, are we for or against that?
	It's like, yeah, I'm not sure.
	I decline to comment.
	Yeah, hard to tell.
	Anyway, RB says, The global persecution of Christians by evil people only serves to further galvanize my belief that Christianity is the only correct religion.
	It doesn't even really matter.
	It's our religion, right?
	It's our old ancient religion, and I'm not giving up old ancient religion.
	I mean, I think if you believe in Christianity, it matters if it's the correct religion.
	But for those people who are just sort of agnostic or atheists, like myself, who are just like, I'm just not a religious person, if I'm going to choose a religion, it's going to be Christianity, whether I agree or believe in it or not, because it just happens to be our settled religion.
	I'm not having an argument about this.
	I'm not having weird foreign religions.
	We'll get Tom Rousel to come back in to argue with you on it.
	Oh, well, you know, it's been this way for more than a thousand years.
	I'm not having the argument about it.
	For now, it's just the Christians.
	Lord Nerevar says, I saw your video on the Christians yesterday, Stelios, and it's really illuminating how little the world cares for Christianity now.
	Europe needs to grow its teeth again or I fear it will be back in the dark days of Christian suppression once more.
	And Omar says, if you want to know how persecuted Christians are, the UK government refuses to support even the most vile murderers and pedophilic rapists, but find any excuse to deny legitimate asylum claims from a Christian.
	Well, I mean, you'll remember that they were literally arresting Christians for praying in their heads near abortion clinics.
	We also have a few rumble rants now.
	So, first one, Christ is king, time to convert, Carl.
	No, I'm not a religious person.
	Alright, Baldy.
	Baldy says, any British social media site is going to be a reincarnation of the BBC and will be owned by Ofcom.
	Oh yeah, it will be totally regulated by Ofcom and everything on it will be incredibly well-minded.
	It'll be awful, but it'll be great bets to see who can get banned fastest.
	It'll be us.
	Yeah, but between us.
	Oh, yeah, I guess, yeah.
	OPH UK again.
	In a thousand years, we'll all be fine.
	No, we won't.
	Oh, thanks for the optimism there.
	A Dutch Lib historian said, the next 100 years will be violent, but then we'll see an Islamic Western fusion culture.
	He forgets Islam doesn't matter.
	Anybody who says that there's going to be an Islamic Western fusion culture, except of Council of State gingers converting...
	Is an idiot.
	They are the only Westerners I can think of as a group, if you want to count...
	And some crazy feminists.
	I've never heard of that.
	But if you want to count ginger council estate hoodlums as a group, they are the only ones.
	So maybe Dankula.
	There's no widespread adoption of Islam by the native British.
	No, it's not a religion that comes naturally to the Western mindset.
	There's a reason that when it's actually entered Europe, it's either been fought back, or it's had to take centuries of persecution to get it to stick.
	And presumably intermixing as well in that persecution.
	Anyway, on that note, we are out of time, so thank you very much for joining us, folks.
	Be back in half an hour for the gold Zoom call, if you're a gold team member for the website, and if you're not, why not?
	We deserve it.
	We think we do anyway.
	We work really hard.
	No, we do.
	It's not that we think we do, it's that we do.
	We do work pretty hard, yeah.

▲