Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 7, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:29:50

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1096

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Friday, the 7th of February, 2025. It's Friday, so the best day of the week.
	I'm joined by Stelios and Rafe Manku.
	Sorry, how do I pronounce your name?
	Rafe Hadel Manku.
	Rafe Hadel Manku.
	I'm really sorry.
	I'm terrible with names.
	I can barely speak English.
	This is a microaggression number one.
	Yes, it is.
	Anyway, today we're going to be talking about how reform are looking inevitable, and the difference between governments that will do something and won't do something, and just want to manage the decline, and how finally Britain might actually start taking nuclear power seriously.
	A drum I've been banging for quite some time, but honestly I'm just so frustrated by the radical...
	Activism that surrounds energy production.
	It's just one of those things that finally we're going to get the Gordian Knot cut.
	Anyway, right, let's begin.
	So, seven months ago I made a video saying, look, Nigel Farage may well end up as Prime Minister of this country.
	Whether you like him or loathe him, it looks like there is a lot of energy behind him, and he is...
	Playing a wise game, actually, in what he's doing, again, whether you agree with him or not.
	And this seems to be paying off.
	And the more time passes, the more it looks like the prediction in this video...
	I try not to make predictions, but you can't help it sometimes.
	The prediction in this video is going to come to pass, because only a few weeks ago, the end of January...
	Labour were barely in the lead in various polls in the UK. And then reform started coming ahead.
	And again, this is January the 30th.
	Coming ahead in polls that are not polls done by right-wing friendly pollsters.
	For example, Find Out Now.
	Very milquetoast.
	Stats for lefties.
	Posted a YouGov poll here.
	YouGov being famously slanted in one direction because it's an online poller.
	Happens to get a lot of left-wing people signing up for it.
	Again, self-selected online polls.
	But even in that, reform are ahead of the Labour Party and significantly ahead of the Conservative Party.
	And so that must be great news for Nigel.
	It must be bad news for the establishment.
	And it keeps getting worse.
	But let's pause on this for a minute.
	This, again, was about the beginning of this week, actually.
	And so that's going to result in a hung parliament.
	Yeah, I mean, let's be clear here, right?
	Labour has a stonking majority of 440-odd seats.
	They have two-thirds of the seats in Parliament, despite only having one-third of the vote share, 33% they've got.
	In fact, since the Second World War, no government has been elected with the majority of the votes.
	You only need to have around a third under first-past-the-post.
	So there is a clear path to power.
	We're still in early days.
	I mean, the amount by which...
	The support for reform has increased in just a few months.
	They could easily find themselves well within, well over 35% or so by the time we get to the next election.
	And it should be a wake-up call.
	I mean, look, the reality is, you know, 60% of this country still votes for left-wing parties.
	The only reason we've had a number of conservative governments is because there's only been one party on the right.
	The left-wing votes split between SNP, Lib Dem, Greens, Labour, Plaid Cymru and so forth.
	And we always thought...
	We couldn't have two parties on the right because you would never have a conservative government or a right-leaning government again.
	Reform has shown that you can do that because reform is actually taking votes not just from the Tories, it's taking them from Labour and, fundamentally important here, three million people who didn't vote at all in 2024 have come over.
	It also puts a lie to those wet Tories who've said, oh, no, no, during the prime ministerial campaign, oh, we need to, you know, we forget about reform, we need to lean more to the Lib Dems and get those votes.
	Well, we know only 180,000 people who...
	Who left the Tory party, went over to the Lib Dems.
	1.2 million went to reform.
	It is actually reform that's now setting the agenda.
	That's why you're seeing now Kimi Badenoch finally setting her sights and giving us at least one policy on immigration, milquetoast though it still is, to try and counter reform.
	You know, Rupert Lowe I spoke with in November or October last year and he said very confidently we're going to form the next government.
	I thought that was hugely optimistic, although not impossible, but I think he was obviously seeing stuff that I wasn't privy to at the time.
	Sorry, go on, Salah.
	I just wanted to say that a lot of Labour defenders and advocates, they forget that the Labour vote was a vote of, let's say, dissatisfaction with the Tories.
	It wasn't a vote for love for Starmer's agenda.
	You know, I'm not even persuaded by that, to be honest.
	That is the sort of common narrative.
	But I don't think that...
	Conservative voters tend to go over to Labour.
	And we can see this through the paucity of votes that Labour got in the last election.
	I mean, out of all of the voters who could have voted, Labour got a fifth of them.
	What happens with right-wing voters is they don't vote for Labour as a protest.
	They just don't vote at all.
	And so, in the last election, we saw that 40% of the entire potential voter base just didn't vote.
	Presumably out of massive dissatisfaction.
	And so Nigel Farage had come in and cut the legs out from underneath the Conservative Party, which, under first pass the post, puts Labour, with their third of the vote share in each constituency, over the top, giving them this huge majority, and then underneath the simmering fight between Conservatives and reform.
	And the Conservatives are very clearly losing that.
	And to be honest with you, I'm quite glad.
	The Conservatives have presided over possibly the biggest betrayal of the British electorate that's ever happened.
	It's hard to think of anyone who'd done more damage to the country than Boris Johnson, actually.
	And that's something to say, given what Tony Blair ushered into this country.
	And of course, for years when we discussed the plight of mass immigration, we always cited Tony Blair as being the most dangerous prime minister we've ever had.
	Well, I'm sorry, what he did pales in comparison to what a conservative government did in terms of immigration, not just the numbers, but also the sources of the immigrants who were coming here.
	And there can be no greater crime, I would think, In my view, signing the death warrant of this nation.
	It's really hard to contest that.
	Which suggests several commonalities in the practice agenda.
	Well, I have a bit of a difference.
	We know why Labour wanted mass immigration, in large part because 80% of ethnic minorities vote for the Labour Party.
	So the thinking there was, if we import millions of people, remember Peter Mandelson sent out search parties looking for immigrants.
	The idea was, in the decades to come, you would have a new demographic that would ensure that the Labour Party had majorities in all the elections.
	And if you look at London, you look at Birmingham and these places, these are essentially becoming one-party states, right?
	With the Tories, it was rather different because the Tories were beholden to big business and the CBI and so forth.
	And big business, rather than invest in expensive capital infrastructure, you know, job automation, mechanization, machines that can pick apples and orchards and so forth.
	They decided to flood the nation with cheap, cheap labor, which would suppress wages and negate the need for that costly investment, which is why we're in the mess we're in now.
	That's why I sort of think Japan, everyone said, well, you know, Japan is the oldest population in the world.
	It needs immigration.
	I think they may come out of this as actually being the sanest people of all because AI, robotics and health care, social work and so forth may actually come in the end of the day to save Japan.
	That should have been the model we went down.
	So, just on this map, I think this is fascinating.
	I mean, if you look at the north of England, which is normally just completely red, not only is it not red at all, but it's also giving over to the conservatives by this prediction, which I think is fascinating.
	So the Labour vote has collapsed so utterly, it's now a scramble for the North, for the Reform Party and the Conservative Party, which are, of course, not parties you would normally have associated with them.
	And I think it's very optimistic to think that the Conservatives would be able to win that as well.
	Because I think there's something about Nigel Farage that is a kind of totemic Englishman.
	He is, in many ways, appealing on those grounds.
	He's got an unpretentious image, I think, when he's in the pub and associating with people, that is something that really does actually swing people.
	I think a lot of people's love of Donald Trump is, oh, he's a lot like me.
	Whether you like it or not, representation actually does matter.
	And I think that perhaps choosing Kemi Badenok as the...
	Leader of the Conservative Party isn't going to swing those guys over.
	Not because they hate black people or something like that, but just because they don't see themselves in her.
	Farage has good energy and you need good energy to win elections.
	Badenot just doesn't have it.
	Yeah.
	I think that's quite a good point you make.
	And I think that is their sort of strategy here, because, you know, people, your viewers at home, my view is the new cultural forum.
	We all want reform and Farage to be much stronger on things like immigration.
	And we're hugely disappointed that he's not.
	I often cite the statistic that, you know, men under 44 in this country are more likely to vote for Trump than for Farage.
	But obviously, what they're doing is winning.
	And you have to remember that we actually, those people who hold our views, unfortunately, we're still in the minority.
	and Farage is speaking to the great population as a whole.
	And I almost think it's like a good cop, bad cop, or a tag team duo between him and Rupert Lowe.
	Rupert Lowe doesn't have national recognition.
	People don't really know him in the country, but our people know him.
	He is speaking our language, so we feel someone's fighting our corner in reform, and Nigel's speaking to the rest of the nation who think, oh, actually, reform's not that bad.
	And I think that might be the reasoning there.
	It's actually a winning strategy, and it's clearly working.
	One thing I really approve of is...
	How this is causing chaos in both Labour and the Conservatives.
	So it was reported recently that CCHQ staff are holding a crisis meeting today of the lack of funding of the current polling situation, and so they don't really know what to do.
	And Kemi Badenock didn't exactly show a great deal of leadership on this, because she just told them to quit if they can't deliver on fundraising or campaigning.
	One campaign manager apparently said, how can we campaign when we've got no policies to campaign on?
	Which presumably is the source of the very milquetoast...
	If they've been here for ten years rather than five years, we'll give them visas.
	Why are they here?
	Why are they here?
	They can go home.
	They've got homes of their own.
	That's where they belong.
	The irony is, if they want a raft of policies, they just have to look at Robert Jenrick's Twitter feed to find all the policies that would actually have increased their polling numbers very clearly.
	And of course, as we on the right were hoping for, reform and the Troys were trying to outflank each other, and Jenrick could have pulled Farage actually more to the right, which is great, he knows.
	But I'm sure the Troys are feeling by his remorse.
	I'm just amazed that there's still anybody in the north of England who would vote for the Tory party, having been betrayed, not only on immigration, but on levelling up and everything else.
	I mean, you know, the definition of insanity is to keep voting for the same party.
	Conservatives are creatures of habit.
	That is a sad truth.
	Definitely true, yeah.
	But yeah, no, that's a great point, because there are so many things on which the Conservatives have just betrayed everyone.
	And I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it really just seems like weakness to me.
	I'm sure that most of the conservative Party members and most of their MPs in the sort of generic mold aren't people who hate the United Kingdom and want the worst for it.
	I just can't help but notice they don't seem to have any balls.
	They can't stand up for anything.
	And when they do, they get kind of defense...
	well, not defense rate, but...
	Well, just remember that the average Tory MP is to the left of the average British person on immigration.
	That says it all.
	Also, of course, remember, the Tory party isn't a conservative party.
	It's a neoliberal party full of free market extremists who don't believe in borders either, who are globalists.
	Conservatism, the clue is in the name.
	It's about conserving society.
	every structure of society, every class of people. - Yeah, that class called conservatism. - You know, that's not true conservatism in Birkean ways.
	It's not Scrutonian conservatism.
	And the party should be renamed actually, well, it should die perhaps, whilst it's being renamed. - Well, speaking of it dying, they clearly feel the winds of change coming.
	Because Jacob Rees-Mogg has recently said, look, Reform and the Conservatives need an alliance.
	Now, I'm not a member of either party, and I would be happy to support either party if they were doing what I wanted them to do.
	So actually on this, I'm kind of...
	Kind of neutral.
	I really don't mind, you know, which one gets the job done as long as the job is done.
	And as a kind of dispassionate observer, I can't help but notice this is a profound statement of weakness from a party that feels like it's probably mortally wounded.
	Farage is eating you alive.
	Why would he want an alliance?
	For the world's oldest and most successful political party to now be calling for an alliance shows you their weakness because they were so arrogant before.
	They would never think about any of that.
	They even refused to stand down seats in the 2019 election.
	And Farage did.
	Yeah, for Farage.
	And, you know, quite simply, if you look at the state of the Tory party, Canada...
	Offers the example there.
	The Reform Party doesn't need an alliance.
	It needs to do a hostile takeover of the Tory party.
	Back in 1993, the Conservative government, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, there's an oxymoron for a name, went down from being the ruling government to having only two seats in Parliament.
	And the Reform Party of Canada, which was basically a Western party of Canada, of the prairies and so forth, they became the biggest right-wing party.
	And essentially, they took over the fledgling PCs and they created a new conservative party, which you see today, which is much more right-wing than the old PCs, led by Pierre Piolliver.
	That's what needs to happen in this shape.
	No alliance, hostile takeover.
	Maybe it was just me, but it seems to me that the Tories had zero arguments in the previous elections, and the only argument they had was a vote for reform is a vote that is splitting the right.
	And on this rationale right now, a vote for conservative.
	For Tories, you're splitting the right.
	That is, well, that's assuming the Conservatives have any left in the right.
	No, I'm just saying that they are losing on the ground of their own rhetoric.
	You're being absolutely correct.
	And so, yeah, I mean, Zia Yusuf noticed this and obviously replied, well, why would we need that?
	We're going to win a decisive victory.
	And to be honest with you, I think they're on track to do so.
	It looks more and more like, in fact, reform are going to be the next party of government, and all we're going to have to do is just wait out this zombie Labour government until they finally collapse.
	Just as a quick point on that, Rafe, how long do you think Starmer can possibly last for?
	Well, that's a good question.
	I've been asked before.
	It's impossible to predict any of these sorts of things.
	Who's going to succeed him?
	I mean, who's going to improve the lot and chances?
	Clive Lewis?
	It's difficult to think of who's going to be there.
	But, you know, the media establishment are also sort of, you know, protecting him so much from all of these sort of secret stories and scandals that are existing.
	I don't know.
	It's impossible to say.
	But in any event, I did say when he first got to power that it would be impossible to see how this majority could go away in five years.
	But, of course, reform is...
	It's nipping at the heels and so many, and we've just seen this, and I think, you know, whoever's leading it, we just have to look forward to it after four years' time.
	Yeah, so, I mean, for anyone who's not British and doesn't know how the system works, basically, there's no legal mechanism for us to be able to get rid of Starmer any earlier than...
	He wants to go.
	It would have to come from within the Labour Party themselves, and they're not really inclined to give up power once they seize it, because Labour often spends decades out of power, and so to enact what is essentially a communist agenda, they need to cling on to it for as long as they can.
	But there does have to come a time where literally everyone's like, here, you're destroying the party.
	You have to go.
	The Tories are notorious for actually, you know, defenestrating their leaders when they're not winners.
	But the Labour Party, for some reason, holds on to them.
	But there has to come a time where, OK, Keir, you are in charge and no one can make you leave.
	But everyone around you is saying, look, I mean, if Labour gets to sort of, you know, 19%, 18% in the polls, surely they're going to be like, look, Keir, you're going to destroy our party.
	You just have to go.
	And there will come a point where the pressure will mount.
	And even someone as...
	Disensouled, as Keir Starmer will have to understand, that It's time.
	So I would be surprised if Keir Starmer actually does last out the full five years.
	But of course, one of the other things we should point out about Labour, of course, is that their decline hasn't just gone to reform, of course.
	It's also a fact that many people on the left feel, you know, people like the Owen Joneses of this world feel that the Labour Party isn't left-wing enough, you know, as if Stalin wasn't really left-wing.
	And also the Muslim vote, of course, has departed and left because of the...
	You saw just as big as the Reform Party results in the last election was the election of five Muslim vote MPs.
	And of course, you know, Labour's prediction that 80% of ethnic minorities will vote for Labour didn't take that into account.
	So they've invited in the very forces that are undermining it.
	Yes, they fail to understand that actually if you allow them to concentrate in certain areas, then they can just vote for themselves.
	And honestly, at the next election, we'll probably see a Muslim Party of Britain.
	That wins seats.
	By the way, thanks Labour.
	Thanks Tony Blair.
	Thanks Boris.
	Much appreciated for all of that.
	Anyway, good for Reformer.
	Good for Rupert Lowe here pointing out this is historic and he's absolutely right.
	But that is a really sizable lead.
	A four-point lead in this, again, find out now poll.
	Again, it's not like a right-wing pollster.
	It's not Matthew Goodwin who's done a poll and found Reformer in the lead or anything.
	No, these are people who obviously don't have any sympathy.
	And so when you start mapping it out, my God.
	And it's many different polls.
	It's not just one.
	Well, I think this is just from the Find Out Now poll.
	Yeah, it's just one poll.
	But still, it's representative of a trend where reform have been in the lead now consistently for a week in these polls.
	And so what we can see for anyone listening is a complete collapse of the Conservatives, basically.
	The Labour Party has clawed back potentially a few districts in the north.
	But England, basically.
	England is going to Farage.
	And it reinforces how divided our kingdom is because you just have to look at Scotland to see that all the disillusionment with Labour has made people go back to that awful corrupt organisation, the SNP. You've got to be very desperate to actually think of the SNP as being a better vote than Labour.
	So again, you know, the Tories and reform unable to make inroads in Scotland.
	Yeah, they've never had any good mastering on that.
	But one thing that I find frustrating is the Southwest, actually, going so heavily for the Lib Dems.
	Now, I mean, we were as Brexity as anywhere.
	We voted for Brexit.
	Almost all of the Southwest of England, almost all Wessex, wanted Brexit.
	And yet, for some reason, we're controlled by Remainers.
	And I think this is generally because of a lack of...
	Proper campaigning on the subject.
	Because, I mean, obviously everyone and their mother knows that Brexit just has not been implemented.
	Nothing has been done because of a lack of competitive attitude.
	This has been the major problem.
	For example, in this country, corporation tax didn't go up recently, actually, but it's at least 25%.
	Whereas in Ireland, another English-speaking European country, it's 12.5%.
	So we are being directly undercut by half, and that's why if you are a social media user, all the Silicon Tech Valley giants have their headquarters there and not London or somewhere in England, because they pay half the tax.
	And so whenever anyone from Twitter or YouTube or wherever gets any money off Silicon Valley, you'll notice that it comes from Google Ireland, X Ireland, Facebook Ireland.
	And so this is just one aspect of our complete failure.
	To try and be competitive.
	We're not looking at the European continent as something we have to defeat, which is very frustrating.
	And I think that this kind of messaging might actually work quite well with voters in the Southwest, because the Southwest is fairly opulent, actually, as England goes.
	It's not the North.
	It's not London, but it's, you know, fairly well to do.
	But we are patriotic people, and what we would like to see is business competition.
	We would like to make it easier to do that.
	But you see, South West England mirrors South West London because they are the most homogenous parts of the nation.
	Along with Scotland, and so therefore, you know, these areas are the most pro-immigration because they don't experience it.
	They're not at the coalface, and the areas that are blue are at the coalface.
	And I think it's the failure to actually understand the full crisis of immigration that explains why reform hasn't taken quite the hold there, along with the fact that the Lib Dems have the best ground network of any political party.
	So when it comes to campaigning, they're able to get their vote out.
	That's what reform is doing right now.
	Copying the Lib Dems, trying to replicate their groundwork.
	So maybe over the next two, three, four years, you'll see reform-making inroads there too.
	But again, I think immigration will be the deciding factor.
	That's why some people have said, well, Angela Rayner's plan to disperse asylum seekers elsewhere might actually change the voting system.
	I'm not happy with how little Nigel Farage is winning in the South West, says Angela Rayner.
	I can change that.
	But this is the point I wanted to make, though.
	If you're a Reform Party strategist and you're wondering why you're not getting anywhere in the Southwest, you're absolutely correct.
	The problem isn't immigration in the Southwest.
	It's stagnation.
	And if you were to do essentially what Thatcher did with Essex and say, look, we're going to make you very rich.
	Your standard of living is going down.
	We're not happy with that.
	We know you're hardworking.
	We know you're patriotic.
	Actually, we're going to...
	Essentially conquer Europe economically, you could have a very aggressive campaign because, like I said, we were pro-Brexit.
	We are a Brexit area as well.
	We are not natural Liberal Democrats.
	The reason the Lib Dems are getting anywhere is because, essentially, it's a kind of non-political statement to vote for the Liberal Democrats.
	Say, I don't really want to talk about politics.
	I vote Lib Dem.
	This is what Ed Davies' campaign was entirely based on.
	Look at him at...
	Like some water world or whatever it was.
	Like an actual clown.
	He's not proposing any policies.
	He's not talking about anything interesting.
	So, anyway.
	Some good news.
	Just saw this come on my feed.
	I was like, well, okay, yes.
	I would like Lisa Nandy to lose her seat.
	And, as you said, Farage is well aware that if you vote Tory, you're going to get Labour.
	And this seems to be true.
	Farage is actually the most popular party leader in the country as well.
	As having the most popular party in the country.
	So I take it you saw the other day when he was in Parliament and they were jeering him and telling him to resign.
	And Farage take it personally, and I don't know why.
	If I'm Farage, I'd be looking at them with contempt and say, you're all sitting in my seats.
	You're on borrowed time.
	Look at the polls.
	You know you're all gone come the next election.
	So enjoy the time while you've got it, and you'll see me soon.
	But for some reason, he's been taking it personally.
	He doesn't need to.
	From all of the indications so far, he is on track to win a massive majority and absolutely destroy the Uniparty.
	And so, like you said earlier, there are a lot of people in our spaces where it's like, well, he's not really right-wing enough.
	Yeah, okay, yeah, yeah, fair enough.
	But crushing the Uniparty is going to be an amazing service to the right in this country.
	And so I'm more than happy to support Faraj for that reason.
	Yeah, and, you know, the best we can hope...
	I mean, look...
	Let's face facts.
	The Reform Party is the only game in town.
	If we're going to have, you know, a reverse long march with institutions and do everything else, you know, have a MAGA light, it's only going to be with reform.
	That's realistic.
	You know, UKIP, all these other parties, lovely, but no one even has heard of them in the broader population.
	The best we can hope for, or my hope is, that what reform is doing is essentially trying to copy what Tony Blair did in 1997 and what Starmer did.
	Essentially talk of a rather centrist approach, but have a radical plan and agenda.
	That means being deceitful, I suppose, but that's my only hope for how we can actually get proper policies installed.
	If they're not going to be announcing them now, maybe that's their plan, to essentially bring them in once they've got into power and have a much more radical agenda than perhaps they told the public.
	God, please let it be true.
	Please let it be true.
	Again, that's the optimistic side.
	Yeah.
	The pessimistic side is that Nigel Farage is actually kind of as wet as he is appearing in the campaign trail, which isn't optimistic.
	But I don't know.
	I'm not sure that he is.
	Who knows?
	We'll find out.
	Well, the other hope is, of course, after two years or three years of MAGA... There will be a tsunami coming over the Atlantic that will crash on our shores and move that Overton window so we can actually discuss, you know, Tony Blair's campaign slogan was education, education, education.
	Hopefully by then it'll be re-migration, re-migration, re-migration.
	Well, if Rupert Lowe has anything to do with it, it seems that we're on that track.
	Let's go to some comments quickly.
	Glee says, what role could a potentially resurgent UKIP play under Nick Tenconi in the 2029 election?
	Honestly, I don't.
	I don't see it happening.
	It's not that I have anything against Nick Tenconi or UKIP or anything like that.
	I just think you're exactly right.
	Reform is the only game in town.
	They're the ones sucking up the right-wing energy.
	We just have to accept it and make the best of it.
	And Annexio says, Labour are doing a great job promoting reform.
	Look at Peter Lamb, who said pensioners have a choice whether to freeze or not.
	Crawley turned on him and now he's looking to be a reform win.
	Yeah, well, that's the thing.
	I mean, what Labour want is fundamentally evil.
	And it's actually quite easy to do nothing and find yourself in the winning position.
	Because, I mean, really all Farage is doing is letting his opponents fall apart, which, again, is a perfectly sound strategy.
	And if, you know, why interrupt your enemies when they're making a mistake?
	Of course, a lot of this could change once people see the policies, because, again, a lot of this is just people being disaffected by the Tories and Labour.
	If they see the policies, maybe it'll turn off a lot of people too.
	so that's something also we need to factor into all of this.
	it's a A needle that reform have to think about threading.
	Anyway, let's move on.
	Right, so I think that 2025 is a very seminal year.
	Historians will remember it as the year that the tide has turned, or that the tide turned, because the conception of what is politically possible has radically shifted.
	It happened with three people, and three is the magical number in persuasion and in rhetoric.
	First came Bukele, then came Millet, then came Trump.
	So I think that this trinity has been completed and it actually pushes forward for the complete change in the people's conception of what is politically possible.
	Because before...
	Before that, most people would say that politics is just the micromanagement of decline.
	It's just downhill from here.
	There's zero representation.
	No one cares actually to represent their voting base.
	No one cares for the safety of their people.
	It's just going downhill.
	But I think that we see now a lot of leaders who are doing the exact opposite.
	I think that this is particularly good.
	And let me just give you a very brief...
	Very brief introduction to this and contrast it with politics in Europe, because I think that the distinction between how politics right now is exercised in the Americas and how it is exercised in Europe is becoming much more visible.
	And the more people are viewing this, the more likely they are to want this and to demand the self-evident.
	Because to actually represent your people in a democracy is what a democracy is supposed to be about.
	Sounds like dangerous populism to me.
	I think we need a bureaucracy to manage the decline and reallocation of resources to make sure everyone...
	Exactly.
	So, what I wanted to say is that, for instance, El Salvador.
	Bukela was in El Salvador.
	El Salvador was, at once, the murder capital of the world.
	He came in.
	He put some bad people in prison.
	Now El Salvador is one of the safest countries.
	Not rocket science, is it?
	It's not rocket science.
	And actually, one of the good things about it is that we don't need a revolution in philosophy or something.
	We don't need something radical.
	We actually need people to enforce laws that have been adopted and embraced for decades.
	But in the last decades...
	It's not only decades, it's the start of time, the very concept of law.
	Punish the wrongdoer.
	Literally the essence of law, the very first laws that were ever written are the same as the ones we've got now.
	Exactly, but if you see here, maybe this is the wrong document, but I'll just tell you the data.
	We have 88% of Salvadorians who feel...
	Really well walking and safe walking out at night.
	People in Ecuador don't.
	They feel 27% safe.
	And this is a huge difference.
	Very similar people, very similar culture, very similar climate, very similar environment.
	What's the difference?
	Well, the leader.
	Not only the leader, it's the...
	Enforcement of the law.
	Not a secret or something.
	Here, the suicide, the murder rates, the homicide rates in El Salvador in the last decade, we had 108 at some point, 103 per 100,000 people.
	Now, after Bukele came in 2019, it has dropped down to 2.4.
	He literally transformed El Salvador to one of the safest places.
	And it's not rocket science.
	He did it.
	Now, Millet is the second person.
	Argentina has suffered from decades of Peronism, decades of inflation, decades of high poverty rate.
	He came in, he did actually what is supposed to work.
	Just for anyone who doesn't know what Peronism is, communism.
	It's just communists.
	It's just statism.
	It's status policies.
	What happens when a communist takes over your country is they use the government to immiserate the entire population.
	Exactly.
	And that's happened across South America for decades.
	It's happening here now.
	It's happened across Europe.
	It's just communism.
	And this is not rocket science.
	He tamed inflation.
	Not rocket science.
	Stop spending money.
	Stop allowing the government to spend all your money.
	Exactly.
	And his popularity is actually a really good thing now because the policies that he advocates are policies that frequently in the short term don't yield results.
	But actually, in this case, I hear a lot of Argentinians who are happy.
	I have a friend who is Argentinian.
	He's told me that he's ecstatic because he finally found a job and he also has someone who feels he is representing him.
	And what is most important, he says that there is a cultural aspect to it.
	There is what is called in Argentina the viveza creola mentality, which is basically the mentality that corruption is all there is and that there can be nothing else.
	And he says that Millet is actually leading the fight against this.
	I love Millet's kind of intense look.
	Sorry, can we go back to it for a sec?
	Yes.
	He's got this remarkable intenseness about him.
	I find very engaging.
	I love watching him.
	I can never understand what he's saying, because obviously he's saying it in Spanish, but I just like seeing the sort of, like, you know...
	Yeah, yeah, but he's like a maniac against...
	State spending.
	And as someone who's just recently had to pay his taxes, my God, I feel that energy.
	He can actually exercise elementary reasoning skills.
	He says, we have a goal.
	He's an economist.
	Well, there have been other economists.
	I know, I know.
	So this is the goal.
	These are the means.
	We take the means to the goal.
	And we're on our way to achieving the goal.
	Now comes Trump.
	I wouldn't ever expect that this was going to be something people would cheer on or something that this would be heard, that he just signs an executive to ban men from competing in women's sports.
	The whole signing of this was so wholesome, though.
	It was just, you know, Trump with all these kids, all these young girls, and he just completely normally, he's like Grandfather Trump, handing out the pens afterwards.
	You know, haven't you had a good time?
	You know, look at that, in the best signature.
	And it's just like...
	There's something very homely and appealing about it.
	It's like when he was at the McDonald's and he's waving out of their thing.
	It was just like...
	It's the Grandpa Trump.
	Yeah, Grandpa Trump.
	He's truly moving to the sort of patriarch, you know, caring patriarch mold, and I really approve of it.
	So now that we have the Trinity, it's developing a kind of synergy to an unprecedented level.
	Millet now is banning...
	Sex change surgeries on mariners in Argentina.
	You see the virtues change.
	Not very controversial, really.
	It's not, but that's the issue with how the left has acted in the last decades.
	Because if you're just a raving lunatic, then whoever's the other person, you're basically handing them easy wins.
	Yeah, but also, the thing with the left is the control of discourse and stigma.
	That has been what has allowed them to get anywhere in anything.
	Negative characterization of anyone who might have a differing opinion has been a really powerful tool that we've allowed them to have for far too long.
	Exactly.
	And I mean, Trump right now has signed several executive orders that seem to me to be very commonsensical.
	For instance, the deportations issue.
	There was no issue.
	There was no problem.
	Nothing stopped him.
	He said, okay, they're getting deported.
	President of Colombia said at some point, no.
	He tried to put up a fight, but at the end, he accepted.
	There are many of them.
	We've discussed them.
	That's why I'm putting another one down.
	President Haiti is like, it's ruinous to send these people back to my country.
	It's like, you live in Haiti.
	So we've talked about them a lot on our segments.
	That's why I'm talking about this executive order now.
	He signs an executive order to resume the process of creating a new national park full of statues of the greatest Americans who ever lived.
	I think that this is, again, a paradigm shift.
	Because it might sound weird to people who don't follow politics because they may think that, yeah, obviously, obviously politicians are happy and they support great Americans.
	But no, this is a paradigm shift because it's a blow to the narrative of shaming.
	And this is something that we desperately need here in Europe because for some reason the Europeans are just...
	Having a masochistic fetish with shaming and historical shame?
	The West has always dominated when it has been self-confident and assertive and it's known who it is.
	And it's when we've been navel-gazing and nihilistic and wearing a horsehair shirt and self-flagellating that we see the West at its weakest and being taken for a ride by...
	Russia, China, who display all those qualities that we once did about self-confidence and assertiveness.
	And that's why he announced this when he was last president.
	And I was so happy about it because it's a complete slap in the face to BLM. All those people, those iconoclasts who are tearing down great heroes.
	I wish we had something like that here.
	My only slight concern, you know...
	Americans hate monarchy, but the power of a president with executive orders is greater than any monarch in European history for the last 200 years.
	My only thing is, executive orders are so easy to repeal by the next incumbent, and it's fine to do it in the short term.
	I just hope now that Congress is Republican, there'll be legislation to actually ensure that this stuff lasts more than just four years.
	I absolutely agree with you, and I think that this is important, especially for the MAGA triumphalists, who literally view Trump, right now, as some communists viewed Castro, because Castro gave those speeches, he signed some executives, and they thought, okay, he said he's going to bring growth, so growth came.
	No, it hasn't happened yet.
	That's why it's beginning now.
	The changes need to be cemented in legislation.
	Exactly.
	But it's a good way to start the fireplace.
	You need some kindling and you need to...
	It's only been two weeks or something.
	Exactly.
	So it's a strong start.
	And I think that it is a good message that I'm here to do business and I'm here to form an alliance with people who mean business rather than just...
	We want to partake in lose-lose situations.
	As Musk said, he said, we have one chance to have this revolution and it's now.
	If we don't do it now, it will never happen.
	And so you do need to be an immediate disruptor.
	It is shock and awe, essentially.
	Any year of leftist subversion is a year too many.
	And that's good.
	So I want to say that here in Europe, I'm absolutely...
	I find European leadership abominable.
	We're not in Europe.
	You're not in continental Europe?
	Yeah.
	Or not?
	So is this a landmine now?
	England is something apart.
	Okay.
	I've long maintained.
	England and Europe.
	Europe cuts off.
	Precisely.
	That's precisely the attitude I have.
	Okay, I'm going to be diplomatic here.
	Is England and Europe...
	England is unphilosof the world.
	Are you happy with that formulation?
	That's fine.
	Right, so I think in England and in continental Europe...
	People view politics as essentially the micromanagement of decline, and they have the exact opposite approach to politics than Trump, Millet and Bukele have.
	There is always an obstacle.
	As if actually being good for your country and your people violates the human right of migrating to a country and destroying it or wanting it to be destroyed.
	So it's not just cultural, it's also economical.
	The EU is just causing its own brain drain.
	This is a true turn of phrase too.
	The US innovates, China replicates, and the EU regulates.
	It reminds me, you know, when in 1940, at the height of the war, when Britain was standing alone, and it looked like all of Europe would fall, Churchill said in one of his speeches, he looked forward to the time when the new world, with all its power and might, steps forward to the rescue and liberation of the old.
	And you've got that triumvirate, right, in Ecuador, in El Salvador, Argentina, and America, who could actually provide the means of liberation.
	Exactly.
	So I'm tired of socialism.
	Whether it's fast or slow, I just don't want it.
	And I think that Europe...
	The timescale wasn't the issue.
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, but the point is that the message Europe is sending to people is, I don't respect ambitious people.
	I don't respect the profit motive.
	So you're going to have to be here and just abide by my regulations.
	Well, notice that the entire aspect of the European Union is about...
	Predictability and certainty.
	And the problem that they have with what you're suggesting is you are literally offering them unpredictability and uncertainty.
	Things may happen in the future that you're not in control of.
	So, of course, they're intrinsically against it.
	Exactly.
	The entire managerial frame is designed to know precisely what tomorrow is going to be like.
	And if you cannot guarantee that tomorrow will be exactly like today, they're going to reject it out of hand.
	Exactly.
	When you have a leadership that says, I don't respect ambitious people, I don't respect people who want to innovate, I don't want to respect the profit motive, you have someone across the pond like Trump, who's signing an executive order to profit from their brain drain, and he says he's establishing an AI innovation refugee status for tech entrepreneurs and AI researchers fleeing EU's restrictive A-laws.
	We should have been doing this.
	This is what we should have been doing with Brexit.
	Exactly.
	Right, so what do we have here in England?
	We have a government that is talking about non-crime hate incidents.
	I mean, that's not the way to go forward.
	You would think.
	No, it's not.
	It's just not.
	It's subjectively absolutely...
	And yet here we are, with our non-crime hate incidents, as all the brains go to the United States.
	We have also voices that say, well, pedophiles can't be deported because it violates the human rights of their family to have them close to them, or it violates the well-being of them to have a close family life.
	So what they're saying is, the pedophile needs unlimited access to children, is what they're saying there.
	Well, they're saying that if the pedophile gets deported, the family of the pedophile is going to have a negative well-being.
	It's going to impact their well-being.
	I'm sure it would be perfectly fine to keep the pedophile in the house with his own children.
	That didn't stomp.
	This kind of rationale didn't enter Trump's mind when he was negotiating with Colombia and with Haiti.
	But for some reason, people here in Europe and England...
	It's not even about the ECHR, you know.
	We've had 14 years where we could have got rid of the Human Rights Act and the Equalities Act.
	It was the Human Rights Act of Gordon Brown and Blair that tied us into that.
	Exactly.
	We have here headlines like this.
	Migrant shambles as unnamed judge lets pedophile we cannot name to protect his privacy.
	Stay in the UK because Pakistan, his family, might disapprove of him lasting after barely pubescent girls.
	So, Veert, we have...
	What's wrong with our judges, man?
	We've got such a problem with our judges.
	The problem is that they're allowed to take risks with the safety of European people, of the native population of European countries, that they're not prepared to take with convicted criminals.
	Because it's not an argument.
	You can't make that argument.
	It's not a sound argument.
	Thrash him, then deport him.
	I mean, it's really not very complicated.
	The other thing now we see is people saying that they're bisexual, rapists and others, so I can't be deported because I'm bisexual.
	Exactly.
	And all this is contributing to the decline of Europe.
	So it's not a surprise.
	If you see politics as the micromanaging of decline, yeah, you're going to face decline.
	Here we have a list of bombings in Sweden.
	It resembles a band's tour schedule.
	Three in one day in a different city.
	It's 33 in January.
	I don't know.
	I thought that Sweden was supposed to be the gem of Scandinavia, according to social democrats who were saying, look at how all these policies come into fruition.
	Rape and bomb capital of the world.
	By 2050, approximately 30% of the nation will be Muslim, according to the latest stats.
	But don't worry, because diversity is our greatest strength.
	It's progress, Rafe.
	Progress.
	You don't understand.
	Here, for some reason, we have Germany shooting its own feet, economically speaking, and energy speaking.
	Look at the nuclear energy production of its own.
	It literally turned its back on its nuclear program.
	I know.
	We're going to get into this in the next segment, actually.
	It's just so ridiculous.
	Crime in Germany, in every kind of violent crime, is rising by at least 10% per year.
	We have the same pattern that follows politicians that constantly make virtue signaling remarks, but actually end up doing nothing.
	And we have the Greens saying, well, maybe we should ban knives, maybe we should ban men in women in train carriages.
	Macro management of decline.
	We have men in balaclavas in Belgium coming in and just firing Kalashnikov, AK-47s, pardon me.
	Why?
	Why do we have to live like this?
	Why are these people here?
	And just Millet gives us the answer.
	If anyone is talking about this in Europe, they are immediately being branded as mid-20th century Germans by their own establishment.
	So we have an establishment that, in the name of protecting our democracy, is actually promoting incredibly unpopular agendas.
	It's turning them back.
	On its people, on the native population.
	It's mostly composed of unelected bureaucrats who are essentially saying, if you want common sense, you're far right.
	I'm going to destroy you.
	That's no way to go forward.
	I've just come to accept that I may actually be far right by their standards.
	Oh, really?
	I would never have thought that.
	Yeah, I know.
	I just accept, yeah.
	I actually don't want rampaging foreign lunatics.
	We've got at the New Culture Forum, we've got coming out on Sunday, our new documentary, Heresies.
	And I think it's the most powerful thing we've ever done.
	And it's called Britain's Silent Rape Explosion.
	And it actually goes into why we've seen this great cover-up of the ethnic identity of the perpetrators of rape, not just in Britain, but in Germany, in Sweden, and elsewhere.
	And of course it's being covered up because our elites can't accept, don't want us to find out that they're the ones who've actually caused the...
	And because the commonsensical belief that the role of the police is to actually protect the liberties of the people is...
	Was rejected by someone who said, well, I want DEI, I want several ethnic positions disseminated across some positions, and the job of the police suddenly didn't become to ensure public safety.
	But you're not considering the capabilities of the criminal?
	Yeah, it's DEI. DEI is not about doing the job, it's about getting the job.
	Correct.
	Or as Musk said, DEI is D-I-E. Exactly, yeah.
	So the more we see people like Trump, Millet and Bukele, the better.
	I hope they change the paradigm over this side of the Atlantic as well.
	Well, what's interesting, though, is that we've seen a great swerve to the right across the West.
	So you've seen the most conservative government in New Zealand now elected.
	You've seen Geert Wilders going into power.
	Of course, we have Maloney as well, who was invited to the inauguration.
	Obviously, Orban is there, the rise of the AfD and Le Pen and so forth.
	And if you look at last year, analysis was done, and the gap between...
	The right-wing share of the vote and the left-wing share of the vote is at its widest since 1990. The left haven't been this unpopular since the Cold War.
	It's 46% of the West voted for the right versus 30-something for the left.
	Yet despite that, all of the levers of power, all of the media, all of the institutions are still perpetuating this left-wing global perspective.
	Although that may change since Donald Trump and Elon Musk have torn out the financial nervous system of their entire network.
	It turns out that left-wing media was astroturfed by the US government, if you can believe it.
	Weirdly, not popular.
	But it is remarkable, though, that a third of the country will still vote for a policy which is essentially, I would like to destroy the country.
	Because they're not even shy about saying these things anymore.
	These are the people with whom their sympathies lie.
	Every criminal, every foreigner, every bureaucrat, everyone who wants to make you poorer and less safe lies in the scope and the compass of left-wing activism.
	I mean, who are these people voting for Labour?
	I can only assume they're very old people who haven't got the memo yet or something like that.
	Anyway, Bald Eagle says, if Malay rescued reduced inflation by that much by cutting government waste, I'm excited to see how fast US inflation drops when Musk and Doge are done cutting our government.
	Well, I mean, everyone is, to be honest.
	I mean, honestly, who isn't enjoying watching it?
	Who isn't having a great time?
	Every morning I wake up and my phone is...
	My American friend's going nuts.
	They've done this.
	What is it now?
	It's actually nice to get daily news.
	It's good.
	We have to live vicariously through the new world and the old world.
	You have to understand.
	And question for Royal Expert Rafe.
	Are there any remaining provisions in our laws that would allow a hypothetical future monarch on our side to step in and stop the destruction of the UK? Well, as quick as I understand it, I mean, technically he could, right?
	Yeah, there's nothing stopping His Majesty from essentially dissolving Parliament and removing the Prime Minister, but of course it would create a huge constitutional crisis and would probably lead to the end of the monarchy itself, because unfortunately the great mass of the population don't see the great fundamental crisis that this nation is in.
	You know what, I'd be willing to flip the coin on that.
	I think that a patriotic king would be able to bring people against Parliament at this point.
	Well, yeah, I would love to think that.
	I'm not quite certain.
	I agree with you.
	I don't think it's Charles, but...
	Isn't there a saying we'll cross the bridge when we get there?
	Yes.
	Just saying we can get to that bridge.
	Anyway, let's move on, because Britain is finally getting some nuclear energy.
	Finally.
	I mean, this...
	In the face of the ideological net-zero climate nonsense, as you can see here from only a couple of days ago, from the Right Honourable Ed Miliband and his Department for Energy Security, the government has launched an expanded net-zero council.
	And it's just pure fanaticism from Miliband.
	I mean, look at the graphics, right?
	They tell you everything you need to know.
	We're going to have wind turbines, and we're going to have solar energy.
	It's like, oh, are we?
	Oh, well, it's re-industrializing Britain.
	What wind turbines?
	Solar panels.
	That's not going to work, is it?
	Idiot.
	And it's just, like, his entire Twitter feed is just this kind of woke net zero nonsense, right?
	And so he's like, right, I'm glad that this guy's in charge of our energy needs in the future.
	Here's their path and their plan.
	He's green-pilled, I suppose.
	Oh my god, he's...
	I just...
	So, quick aside, right?
	Green energy, when they say green energy...
	And they say, oh, we need wind turbines.
	We need solar panels.
	What they're saying is we want communism.
	That's what they're asking for.
	Because what they're saying is anything that would be productive and actually help our society grow and flourish, we are going to marginalize and put in the that's evil camp.
	And we're going to take everything that is actually fundamentally quite unproductive and try and force it on you and try and get you to accept the lowest standard of living.
	And so, I mean, she's saying this.
	We are accepting the government's central role in steering the creation of this new energy system, setting expectations for the 2030 capacities of key technologies at national and regional level.
	We have high ambition.
	That means 43 to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind.
	Why?
	27 to 29 gigawatts of onshore wind.
	Oh, brilliant.
	That's going to look amazing.
	Thank you so much.
	And 45 to 47 gigawatts of solar power.
	We're in England!
	What are you thinking?
	I'm going to go through this exactly the numbers as well, because this is crazy, right?
	And so they're doing this to significantly reduce our fossil fuel dependency, because Ed Miliband is going to save the world from total destruction in a cataclysmic firestorm of global warming.
	It's Ed Miliband.
	He's going to be the guy.
	So you're not the guy, Ed.
	You're a moron, right?
	And so they're going to spend $40 billion on average per year.
	Between 2025 and 2030, because we're just so flush for cash at the moment, you see.
	Money falling out of our pockets.
	And so why not just say, oh, there's a 20 billion black hole?
	Yeah, so that's why we're going to spend 40 billion on this alone a year for the next five years.
	And so, I mean, why would we even glance at solar power?
	Why would we?
	This is the number of annual sunshine hours a year, obviously annual, because this is what Britain gets.
	I kind of noticed that Russia gets more sunshine hours than we do, right?
	It is sunnier in Russia than it is in England.
	Why would you ever mention solar power in this country?
	And the answer is, of course, because you're ideologically captured, right?
	Because someone in California, as you can see, lots of sunshine hours in California, someone in California was like, hey, it's going to be a very progressive thing.
	To have solar power.
	And that will be very good for the environment.
	And it will be progressive and friendly and blah blah blah blah.
	And so Ed Miliband, who's obviously been programmed by Twitter, has gone, yeah, good point.
	We'll do the same.
	Not thinking about how ideologies are only relevant in the time and place where they emerge.
	Because they are actually concretely attached to the circumstances, the physical circumstances of the people who come up with them.
	And so if you're in Britain and someone says solar power, you know you are speaking to a retard.
	To someone who has no brains and doesn't know what they're talking about.
	Because, I mean, it's not even close.
	It's just not even close.
	This is from the American Energy Department's thing, and they've just got a nice little graph here.
	So what's the most productive form of energy?
	Oh, it turns out that it's nuclear.
	By a mile.
	It's four times more productive than solar.
	It's three times more productive than wind.
	Because, believe it or not, at some points, the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
	But at all times, the nuclear turbine is constantly producing energy and producing steam to run a turbine.
	It's all heated water, okay?
	All energy production is just heated water.
	But the point being, there's no discussion to be had.
	It's completely unscientific to say, oh, we need solar and wind.
	No, you're an ideologue.
	You are someone who has been programmed via Twitter with a Californian ideology that is fundamentally anti-human.
	Because the real reason...
	They don't go for nuclear, and this has been a long contention I've had, is that nuclear power would mean that the concerns about radical restructuring of our society all go away.
	There's no revolution in nuclear power.
	How can they tear down capitalism with nuclear power?
	Nuclear power is going to keep capitalism going until the sun burns out.
	I think that's really their problem.
	Any thoughts at this junction before I continue ranting and raving?
	I think nuclear power is the way.
	No contest.
	The only danger is that someone will be a DI higher inside it.
	That's the only issue I have with nuclear power.
	And that's entirely our own fault, if that happens.
	Yeah, it's not exactly that it hasn't happened widely.
	I mean, your point about capitalism is interesting, because of course France is...
	Arguably more left-wing than we are, though.
	And they've managed to actually ensure that they are the most energy-independent nation in Europe.
	And, you know, I think there are 56 nuclear reactors in France.
	There are only nine.
	In Great Britain.
	And just as we invented the railways, we are home to the world's first nuclear power station, Cardwell Hall, whatever it was called.
	And it just shows you how we've lost that ambition, we've lost all of that.
	I often used to say, you know, when did the Greeks stop being Greek?
	And now we can say, when did the British stop being British, that great industrious nation?
	And you just have to look at the short-termism here also, because it was over a decade ago that Nick Clegg famously said, we're not going to build any nuclear power.
	It'd take 10 years.
	Well, that would have avoided the entire energy spike that we've seen.
	And that just goes to show you the thinking that it actually is in the minds of our leaders.
	The irony, again, I intended to be here 10 years later.
	I was here 10 years later, Nick.
	And you know what?
	Even if it wasn't for me, even if I somehow died, I'd like my children and future generations to have it too.
	Again, it's not even a conversation that needs to be had.
	The fact that we have ever entertained, The solar and wind lobbies is just preposterous.
	And so the only thing they have to fall back on is, well, it sounds scary.
	Well, the craziest one of all was Angela Merkel, you'll remember, in 2016, after the Fukushima tsunami.
	She said, well, because of the tsunami, we're going to close down everything that remains in Germany, which is well known for its plague of tsunamis that descend on us every summer.
	Constant problems.
	But then they had to go back to coal power plants, which had become dependent on Russia, which both worked out just perfectly, both from an environmental perspective.
	If you're really concerned about the global warming of the Earth, well, you've gone back to your coal power plants, and you've made yourself dependent on Russia, who now are allowed to essentially cripple you when they invaded Ukraine.
	So, brilliant.
	And do you remember Trump getting laughed at as well?
	They laughed in his face when he said, why are you making yourselves energy dependent on Russia?
	Stupid Trump.
	Yeah, who gets the last laugh?
	Anyway, so, let's talk about safety then, because the last and most, honestly, the weakest...
	Argument that they come to is, well, it's not safe.
	It's not safe.
	No, actually, it is nearly the most safe.
	So every death from accidents and pollution that have come from, say, coal is 24 deaths per 150,000 people.
	With nuclear energy, it's 0.03 deaths, and with solar, it's 0.02 deaths.
	So...
	Not exactly dangerous.
	And, as you can see, nuclear energy produces less greenhouse gas emissions.
	So, look, there's just no argument.
	Anyone who mentions solar or wind are just wrong on everything.
	They've got no argument, and they're trying to fearmonger you, and there's just no reason not to do this.
	How does one die from solar power?
	Is it one of the panels hits you on the head?
	Manufacturing, I assume, or something like that, yeah.
	But again, it's one of those persistent things that essentially nuclear power deniers have been saying.
	And so the question is, well, do we have a good example of a country that actually decided to take up the nuclear baton?
	As Rafe has already foreshadowed, yes, it's France.
	France is doing amazingly with nuclear power, and it's genuinely...
	I'm kind of annoyed they're mogging us on this, right?
	They get to lord it over us and say, no, you stupid Anglos are doing the stupid German thing.
	And we, the brilliant and incredibly lazy French, get to indulge our laziness because of our cheap energy generation.
	No, I'm pro-nuclear for xenophobic reasons, okay?
	We need to get one over the French.
	Like, France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear energy, right?
	Because they've had this long-standing thing.
	And in 2014, when the sort of green wave was coming...
	France got it too, and they planned to reduce it to only 50%.
	And that got scrapped, because everyone was like, okay, that's obviously stupid.
	Why are we doing that?
	And that worked out really, really well for them.
	And so they are a net exporter of electricity at this point.
	They export their energy.
	They make €3 billion a year exporting their energy, because their energy costs are so abundant, and their energy costs are so low, that they can sell it to the Germans, who are so stupid and block-headed about this subject.
	They have arrived at a point where they're now dependent on the French rather than the Russians.
	What are you doing?
	No one needs to be energy dependent on anyone, actually, at this point.
	And whilst France was building some of its new power stations, remember Gordon Brown was closing down our gas storage facilities as well, making our energy security even worse.
	It's pure left-wing ideology that is against nuclear power.
	From a normal person's perspective, from a scientific perspective, it is only nuclear that is the only game in town.
	And where are we going to get the uranium?
	Australia, actually.
	Australia has, I think, some of the second or third largest reserves of uranium.
	And Canada does as well.
	It's got massive reserves.
	So we don't need to rely on Russia for this.
	We're completely dependent on other Anglosphere countries, nations we can be guaranteed that are going to have a safe and prosperous and welcoming relationship with us.
	We will enrich them.
	They will enrich us.
	We all prosper.
	Foreign powers who hate us fail.
	And everyone wins.
	Like, literally everyone wins.
	There's no argument against this.
	I'm sick of hearing it.
	And so, as you said, Britain only has nine nuclear power stations.
	France has, yeah, 56. And they're building a bunch more.
	Or they were...
	Building six more.
	Just because why not?
	If they're making you money, why not?
	You know, again, it's actually a growth industry for the French, and they've got the most advanced technology.
	And what this does is produce only 15% of our energy production, which is 6.5 gigawatts.
	So for some reason, we're going to spend $40 billion a year producing ineffective, inefficient, unreliable solar and wind.
	Or we could spend only, and in fact, spoiler alert, to build new power plants who cost between two and three billion.
	So we could literally build 20 new nuclear power plants a year, the money they're going to spend.
	It's important to note that the new small nuclear reactors are much less expensive, much larger.
	Indeed.
	So they're much easier to create and build.
	Yep.
	Excuse me, the Rolls-Royce...
	Modular nuclear reactors.
	Again, innovation taking place in Britain.
	For some reason, this wasn't all over the news and the governments weren't all banging the drum on this.
	Yeah, each one costs between two to three billion to make.
	I'm going to spend 40 billion a year on it anyway.
	Why not spend 40 billion a year on this?
	The only objection I have is the shape of the building that they're proposing.
	Gothic, please.
	Let's have it in Gothic style.
	But yeah, this is a completely feasible thing to do.
	There's absolutely no reason to do it, not to do it.
	And finally, absolutely finally, Keir Starmer has been forced essentially to come out and go, yeah, look, things in Britain are so bad, even the Labour government are like, yeah, we're going to start building some nuclear energy.
	We hate to do it because that means that the revolution isn't coming.
	Obviously, Keir Starmer, lifelong leftist, doesn't want this to happen, but he has to make it happen.
	One thing that I find quite interesting as well...
	This became a bit mimetic, so I don't know whether you can see here.
	These two cans represent all of the waste that all of the nuclear reactors in Britain have ever produced.
	So, not much.
	Really?
	That's amazing.
	As opposed to the waste standing either side of the can.
	Yes, as opposed to those two.
	And a lot of people are like, hmm, do I drink the forbidden can?
	Probably not.
	It will literally rot your jaw off.
	But yeah, so anyway, Yeah, oddly tempted to know what it tastes like.
	Can't be good.
	Can't be good.
	But anyway, yeah, so as we found out recently, Keir Starmer has actually finally capitulated on this.
	He's like, yeah, okay, we'll build nuclear.
	If people have to live in Britain, then we will do it.
	Basically, they're going to remove regulations and any objections that people have legally.
	And again, it's more reason to loathe the Tories, because they were in power for 14 years.
	They had, you know, Tories are notoriously nimbyist, always thinking about it.
	We can't have any power stations here or there.
	We've got the world's most expensive electricity, or Europe's most expensive electricity.
	Clear plan here.
	We're giving 18 billion to the Chagos Islands.
	How many of these SMRs could we build without, do you know?
	Well, literally nine of them.
	We actually have the numbers.
	And I forgot to bring it up for this, but in 2022, I think it was.
	The Tories commissioned a study to find out, well, how many would we have to build?
	And it turns out we would have to build six full-size nuclear reactors to power every home in the country.
	And that would cost about $45 billion, something like that.
	But that would be worth it.
	If they were like, okay, no, we're going to build just one in each region of the country, then...
	Essentially, I mean, literally, you could have won over the Labour voters saying, look, these are going to be government-owned, so they'll be taxpayer-funded, and that means you'll never pay an energy bill again in your life.
	Imagine the...
	God, that would be incredible.
	Could have done it.
	They could have done anything, and it's left to Keir Starmer essentially being forced into this position because of how bad things are getting in this country to say, okay, yeah, look, we're going to have to go nuclear because...
	Loony bloody Ed's plan on solar and wind, that's not going to last.
	So we're going to have to do something else, otherwise we're all going to go hungry and cold.
	So yeah, basically, finally, finally some positive news in Britain, right?
	Actually, we might not be impoverished just paying for the heating bill during the winter.
	My God.
	How long does it take to build one of these?
	Not that long either, actually.
	I don't think I have it to hand, but not that long.
	It could be within a couple of years that we actually see dividends being paid on this.
	Who knows?
	God only knows.
	Please, because these aren't going to be the full-size ones that the Conservatives when they were like, oh, it'll take 10 years.
	Yeah, the Rolls-Royce's modular nuclear ones are basically, I think, I can't remember off the top of my head, but it's not 10 years.
	So it could be within a few years we actually get some bonuses and benefits and something good happens in Britain for once, even under a Labour government.
	Matt says, Gen 4 nuclear plants can run on nuclear waste of old plants and take half-life from centuries to decades.
	One thing I didn't point out is that nearly a fifth of France's nuclear energy is from recycled nuclear waste, actually.
	And that's a process that's getting better and better and better as the iterations of the technology continue.
	So, again, there's no downside to this.
	Weirdly, they're not going to be run by Soviet bureaucrats.
	Probably.
	Sigilstone says, it's been openly admitted multiple times by the left themselves.
	They hate nuclear because it will provide cheap, clean energy and won't bring about the global communist revolution.
	Yeah, that's exactly what it is.
	Do we have video comments today?
	Right, okay.
	Charles says, oh good, Rafe.
	He's a jolly fellow and a BMX champ.
	Not many people know that.
	You're a BMX champ, are you?
	Apparently so.
	What is that?
	BMX is bikes.
	My last time on a bicycle was when I was 16 years old.
	Charles, I don't appreciate that fake news.
	Thank you very much about our guest.
	Nick Taylor says, reform looked like containment also, unfortunately.
	Yes, well, this is unfortunately one of the downsides to reform is that it is entirely possible.
	What people call containment, which is essentially keeping the Blairite project on its rails.
	What do you think about that?
	Well, maybe, yeah.
	Better than the Tories and Labour though, isn't it?
	Henry says, the vote, Labour vote was a vote of apathy.
	The right wing disappeared or flipped reform and the centrist Tory wets like Roy Stewart started to tilt Lib Dem.
	Well, no, we don't know that he didn't vote Green.
	Have you seen Rory Stewart making a public prat of himself recently?
	Recently?
	Every single time he tweets?
	Yeah, getting demolished by J.D. Vance.
	And then giving a 110 IQ response to it.
	I don't know why anyone listens to the guy.
	It's not just calling Kamala Harris the winner.
	You remember during when he was running to become Prime Minister.
	He was very confident she was going to win.
	But it's not just that.
	When he was running to become Prime Minister, he said famously, the EU will never reopen the withdrawal agreement.
	Three weeks later, the EU opened the withdrawal agreement for Boris.
	Has he ever made a prediction that did come true?
	It's going to be like the guy who predicts the stock markets, that now people just run an anti-hymn tracker.
	The anti-Kramer tracker or something, you know?
	It just goes to show you what an Italian education can do for self-confidence, you know?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It certainly does do that.
	George says, the government is the most powerful institution in most countries.
	They can do whatever they want because they have a monopoly of violence.
	What governments are lacking is will and care for the citizens.
	Yes, but on the plus side...
	The power of selection is still in our hands.
	So we don't have to choose Labour or the Conservatives.
	I mean, you can say a lot of things about Nigel Farage, but one thing that I think is to his credit is that he obviously doesn't hate Britain, right?
	He's obviously not a hater of Britain.
	He obviously likes the mythology of Britain and loves the country.
	So as wet as he might end up being, he's at least not hostile, which is a step up.
	But you say we have the right of selection, but the...
	Fact is, you know, only 20% of the nation actually has, for example, a Twitter account, an X account, and most of those don't actually look at politics.
	Most people still consume the legacy media, and until we smash that, people actually will continue to believe that he's far right and that there are no underlying causes behind the rise of reform, immigration, or whatever it is.
	We need to sort of break through that if we're going to have any hope of really having a power to select.
	The next government.
	That is true.
	That is true.
	So basically, make sure that all of your friends and family use alternative media.
	Send them this podcast.
	Peter says, it's more likely that Germany, Keir Starmer, will attempt to simply ban the Reform Party.
	Now, they're not going to do that.
	The precedent would be too outrageous.
	Nigel Farage is too much of a mainstream figure.
	Everyone knows who he is.
	I mean, banning even quite radical parties is a bit contentious.
	I don't really like the idea of the current ruling party being able to tell me that that party's out of bounds.
	Even if that party is a nutty party I'd never vote for.
	I don't like the option.
	Not impossible to see some Reform MPs getting non-crime hate incidents, though.
	I can see pressure being put on them, on the police by the Labour government if they're getting worried, you know?
	Yeah, I don't doubt that Rupert Lowe's got a list of non-crime hate incidents on his record.
	But that's why he's my favourite Reform MP. Russian says, fantastic first segment.
	I'll do my best.
	Up the network of reform folks I'm friends with so it reaches the right people.
	Thank you very much.
	Henry says, For me, the Tory party has a very upper-middle-class attitude to issues, whereas reform strikes me as more everyman, lower-to-working middle-class version of the world.
	I wonder if that's why the South West hasn't gone for reform, because it's seen as grubby somehow.
	Tories don't live in rough communities full of knife crime, nor do they get letters from their children's schools saying don't travel alone.
	Everything like that is an abstract issue to the Tory MP, whereas it's daily life for a reform voter.
	Yeah, there's definitely...
	I don't want to say stigma, because it's not quite the right term.
	Well, there's an idea that the platforms that appeal to reform voters are low-status issues, and there's a huge amount of snobbery there.
	But, of course, the reality is, actually, if you look at the reform leader, I mean, it's an accurate view to make about the reform voters, maybe, but if you look at the reform leadership, they all look like old Tories, right?
	And they're all millionaire businessmen.
	You know, Alan Bastard from The New Statesman, if you remember that old comedy with Rick Mayall.
	And I think, actually, that's part of it.
	This is the interesting thing about the South West, the Lib Dems in the South West.
	The South West isn't anti-capitalist, as it were.
	You know, I can understand why in the North you'd have this kind of sneaking suspicion about the Southern capitalist.
	Understandably so.
	But in the Southwest, we're not like that.
	And in fact, I think that that could be leveraged if it can be done in a genteel enough way.
	We are quite snobby, unfortunately.
	And sensitive.
	Very disappointing, frankly.
	I'm not going to read out that name, but it's entirely possible that Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens and the SNP form a coalition together.
	They're already very ideologically close.
	The threat of a reform government could be enough to get them together.
	Well, I mean, that is...
	A potential danger on the horizon, but I actually think the Zia Yusuf is right.
	I think they're going to form a majority.
	I think they could get 350-400 seats.
	It's really not beyond the realms of possibility.
	Again, we're only six months into the Labour government.
	I mean, imagine when two years in of Keir Starmer screwing the country relentlessly every goddamn day, and then coming out every time there's a terror attack, essentially saying, shut up, far right.
	Like, sorry Keir, we all hate you already.
	Good to see Rafe back in Swindon.
	It was nice to see you at the United Kingdom rally in the sweltering heat last year.
	Cheers for walking the crowd after.
	It was a pleasure.
	It was great.
	I didn't realise you were there.
	Yes.
	No, no.
	That was the day that Tommy Robinson played his videos of the crowd.
	You were on stage that day.
	I was, yeah.
	But I walked around.
	I thought it was important, you know, to engage with people there.
	One thing that David Starkey made a great observation about it was like, when it's mostly men, it's the football lads out.
	Doing something trivial.
	It's not very important.
	But when their wives come out with them, then you can tell there's a real issue brewing.
	And that was one of the things that really struck me.
	The crowd was about half women.
	It was very, very gender balanced.
	And so it was like, okay, I think Starkey's dictum there is correct.
	There's a real problem that these people are responding to.
	Which is why I take part in them.
	I agree, it is a real problem.
	Everything's a real problem.
	Hector says, love having Rafe on the show.
	His levity and wit is always welcome.
	Thank you.
	Fuzzy Toaster says, The political class is unfit for purpose.
	They need to learn to code.
	Warlord Wu Tutai says, Rafe's point about Japan, unfortunately, they have recently caved on immigration and started to allow it.
	It's only a matter of time until the first truck of peace.
	No, I often hear this, and also people in Poland tell me, well, we're also going the same way.
	I mean, this is all about scale.
	Yes, they do have more immigration, but we're talking about a very different factor compared to what we've experienced in the West.
	I mean, as I said to you, for example, just looking at the Polish thing, by 2050, 20% of this country will be Muslim, 30% of Sweden, and Poland's will be 0.2%.
	Well, the concern, though, is that the foot's in the door now, right?
	And so a left-wing politician will say, look, we already do this.
	I'm just going to double it and double it.
	Japan is so homogenous.
	They've got such a strong sense of their own culture and identity.
	And as I say, once AI and robotics, the main thing in Japan, as in here, is who's going to look after our elderly.
	Healthcare, social care.
	Increasingly now, that can be done by robots and automation and with AI. So I think that it's a 20, 30-year project to change a nation demographically.
	By that point, I think the solutions will be there.
	I do hope so, but again, everything you're saying could have been said about Britain 50 years ago.
	Yeah, but Japan has a very different notion of self, and it's a racial concept of the nation.
	Well, fingers crossed that they don't go down the road that we've gone down.
	Kevin says, Kemi is the Tory's version of Kamala.
	If they seriously wanted to win, they'd choose someone who would ruffle the feathers amongst the old Tory sweats.
	To be honest with you, I thought they should have gone for Jemric, obviously.
	But mostly...
	Jemric, the thing is though, Jemric isn't charismatic.
	And one thing that you realise after covering politics for long enough, it's really just about likeability.
	Kemi is not likeable.
	If she was a very charming person, who people just liked being around, it wouldn't matter that she was African.
	That wouldn't matter at all.
	And I suppose you could say that actually maybe it's better to have Kemi there because it just shortens the period of pain before we only have one right-wing party.
	If Jenrick was there, maybe we'd be prolonged for a decade or so.
	This might hasten the Tories' death.
	Yeah, no, absolutely.
	I mean, January went quite far out of bounds in some ways as well, saying we need to talk about English identity and things like that.
	I mean, these are genuine things that need to be spoken about, absolutely.
	I think it's a pity he didn't say it years ago, but I'm always inclined to believe people can have Damascene conversion.
	Some people think it's an act, but I think it's genuine on his part.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I think it was genuine as well.
	But I totally agree with you.
	I'd rather he lost and the Tories just die off.
	Jimbo says, the BBC are currently running a puff piece about how scared Swedish immigrants are in light of that horrific shooting.
	Ah yes, the real victims of immigrant violence.
	Maybe they should stop shooting each other then.
	The immigrants, yes.
	Next time there's an Islamic atrocity, I'm sure they'll be platforming the natives expressing concern about Muslims decimating Europe.
	Well, they could have done that for years now, couldn't they?
	Lord Nerevar says, I work in a libtardy environment and even my colleagues admit that Trump is seriously impressive in the way he conducts his government.
	They hate his guts.
	But they know what he is.
	As with Thatcher.
	Admire her without loving her.
	You have to respect this.
	Yeah.
	Otherwise, you're just a TikTok activist.
	Yeah, but this is the main concern that people had during his first tenure.
	He didn't do anything.
	Okay, well he's doing it all now.
	Kevin says, how to improve the British police?
	All DEI hires hand in their hats and batons and clear off.
	Kevin.
	You're showing your age there.
	You think they've got hats and batons.
	They don't have...
	They've got high-vis vests, my friend.
	No degree required to join the police and gain promotion.
	Only male officers over six foot.
	Female officers over five foot eight allowed.
	Such a wet.
	All officers must pass the rigorous physical and medical examination application.
	Annually thereafter, offer service in the police as an option for ex-military personnel as a form of reserve service.
	I mean, that would definitely go a long way to improving the situation.
	Yeah, but there should be no women in frontline roles.
	There should be no women patrolling the streets.
	Also, no one that looks like me should be patrolling the streets either.
	You know, do admin roles, report when someone's child has died or whatever, but too many scenes of people trying to apprehend a criminal who just laughs at them and runs off, you know?
	Bring back the constabulary.
	Omar says, I absolutely do not trust Faraj, while he remains net zero level soft on immigration.
	But the realpolitik of the situation is that you can say nothing four years and coast to victory in a uniparty fatigue alone.
	Being funded by Zia Yusuf doesn't bode well for our chances.
	You'll disenfranchise, let alone oust foreign voting blocs.
	Yeah, I don't think reform represents the sort of radical change.
	People are looking for on the right.
	But I do think there's better than nothing.
	Better than having another four or five years of Labour and Tories.
	Who knows?
	Maybe Trump will put a bit of pressure on him and say, look, just get on with it.
	Sort things out.
	Get on with it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Or tariffs, you know?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Again, I can't believe how...
	Keir Starmer is constantly dropping the ball.
	Trump came out and said, yeah, I'm going to tariff you up.
	I'm not going to tariff Britain, though.
	I like Britain.
	What are you doing, Keir?
	Get on the blower.
	Be like, Donald, can I take you up for a McDonald's?
	And he'll go for it.
	Keir Starmer looks like a bloody shark, doesn't he?
	He's got the dead eyes of a shark.
	He's got no emotive nature to him.
	He's got no personality.
	It's hard to know what his wife loves about him, right?
	Normally you can identify why a woman would be into a guy like that, but he's like a robot.
	Anyway, Michael says, I spent 30 years working with emergency management around nuclear power plants.
	The output on these small footprint plants is just astronomical.
	Literally two gigawatts of electricity from one reactor.
	Now we're discussing micro-reactors, small modular reactors that could literally power entire towns off one reactor, creating home grids in small town cities.
	Yeah, that's something I didn't get into, is that the modular reactors are something like...
	500 gigawatts of energy, which is enough.
	I mean, literally, it's one large town would just get one plant.
	And then you've got a network of plants that are kind of independent from one another.
	So if one goes out, well, then it's only one town that loses energy and you just replace it quickly.
	It's, again, what you would do if you wanted the country to succeed.
	But, of course, the Green Lobby hates us and they want us to die.
	So that's why they're against it.
	Jimbo says, nothing has hurt the perception of nuclear power more than The Simpsons.
	Yes and no.
	I feel the Simpsons kind of domesticated the idea of nuclear power plants.
	I think it's the three-eyed fish he's talking about.
	Yeah.
	So, yes and no.
	But, yeah, again, it's a long-running bugbear of mine that we even have this conversation about power generation.
	The answer's been solved.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, I heard something similar from leftists on my college campus.
	They were saying, mining on the moon and Mars is immoral.
	Because it would just destroy the environment and ruin these places' natural beauty.
	The natural beauty of Mars.
	I mean, it is beautiful, but there's enough space.
	You know, I think this is overhyped.
	I think Mars is ugly.
	It's just a desert, a wasteland.
	I disagree.
	I know.
	There's nothing there.
	It's just rock and dust.
	Go to the Grand Canyon if you want.
	Yeah.
	Henry says, Energy is one of the areas of science I find most infuriating.
	It has been polluted by the political concept of the science, as if it is some fixed eternal outcome that can never be questioned, never be reinterpreted.
	And never invalidated.
	Someone decided that the green solutions were best, but metrics like cost per kilowatt hour, the initial carbon overhead of manufacturing, and maintaining the infrastructure, or how things are decommissioned at the end of their life.
	Plus, for things like vehicles, battery tech is unfit for use in a lot of sectors.
	You can't replace 747 with an electric plane, or way too much, for example.
	Solar panels take up a lot of space, and use rare materials that are required to pay a tithe to China, and basically end up in landfill when we're done with them.
	Onshore wind turbines kill a lot of wildlife.
	Yeah, have you seen those?
	Birds with their wings chopped off.
	And it's like, oh, this was an eagle.
	I hate it.
	It just really annoys me.
	But yeah, and again, the fact that a lot of these are just non-recyclable as well, so they go in landfills.
	This whole thing was, again, in 50 years' time, we're going to look back on this and think, what are we doing?
	Why are we doing any of this?
	Nuclear, tidal, and a lot of other technologies, like synthetic fuels, have a lot of legs, but for political reasons, they're dismissed.
	Entirely.
	Entirely political.
	It annoys me.
	Alfred Bater says, If climate change was an imminent political threat, we would commit to a crash program of carbon-neutral nuclear power and figure out the problem of nuclear waste later.
	Well, there isn't really a problem, because it's such a small amount that we've got uninhabited Scottish islands We'd be able to fill up for, like, a million years if we wanted to in these containers.
	So it's not a problem.
	I mean, they can't use this as an excuse for not doing anything.
	Yeah, that's right.
	The world is constantly ending.
	Yeah.
	Constantly.
	Yeah.
	I mean, that's entirely the problem.
	But anyway, we'll leave the whining about nuclear power there.
	Again, it's a personal bugbear of mine.
	It just makes me seethe because I have to pay the electric bill every week, every month.
	But right, right.
	So, Rafe, what is it you're doing at the moment and where can people find more from you?
	Well, you can watch me every Saturday morning on the New Culture Forum YouTube channel.
	Otherwise, I have my own YouTube channel where all my other media appearances are posted.
	And, of course, on X, which I still call Twitter, at RAFHM. So what is it that you're focusing on most at the moment, intellectually?
	Well, I'm in the process of writing a book, which should be the first of a series of books on essentially...
	Correcting the myths on history.
	So my first one is essentially 10 myths about Churchill, which I know a lot of your viewers and some of your team perhaps will disagree with me on, but correcting a lot of the prevailing myths on the left and right on that, and then doing my usual stuff that I'm doing on immigration and Islam and everything else.
	So can you give me one of the most prominent myths?
	I'm very tired of the discourse surrounding Churchill, World War II, and Adolf Hitler.
	Because it boils down to, well, Churchill was on the winning side of World War II, Hitler would have prevented woke ideology and mass immigration, therefore Churchill is responsible for DEI and would essentially be a communist, which is of course not what is representative of Churchill.
	Yeah, well, of course, it's ridiculous to blame the policies of Tony Blair and subsequent governments on a man who died in 1965 and who left office in the 1950s.
	There's no possible way you can connect the two of those.
	Every policy is a creature of its own time.
	It's up to other generations to change policies or whatever.
	He never had any vision of how Britain was going to end up or turn out.
	The idea that...
	Churchill dragged America into the Second World War.
	He tried his best to get them in, but it was actually the Japanese.
	People may remember December 7th.
	And then Germany declared war on America.
	Churchill had no responsibility for any of that.
	Also the idea of Daryl Cooper, interviewed by Tucker Carlson, that Churchill was the villain of the Second World War.
	I can see myself losing a lot of people.
	Every time I talk about this, about one third of my normal supporters turn against me.
	This is the reason I brought it up just at the end here.
	It's something I see all the time.
	I'm as conversant with Churchill as anyone who's done British history in school, which is not very.
	But by modern standards, Churchill would have been as far right and reactionary as it comes.
	But there's no way he'd agree with it.
	Well, you know, the left are accusing him of racism and killing off all these people in the Bengal famine, and then some on the right are now saying, well, thanks to him, you've got massive immigration.
	You can't have it both ways.
	Either he's one or the other.
	And the idea that you could have sued for peace with Hitler is a complete nonsense.
	This is the other argument put forward, that Churchill should never have allied with the Soviet Union.
	This was a huge mistake.
	Churchill, you know, from the moment of the Bolshevian Revolution, said we should strangle the baby Bolshevism in its cradle.
	In 1945, he wanted the Americans and the British and the Canadians and the Poles to carry on the war against the Red Army, push the Red Army out of Berlin, out of Germany, out of Poland.
	He saw the threat from the Soviet Union more than anybody else did.
	1946, Fulton, Missouri, from Stetson in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic and Iron Curtain has descended.
	Nobody was a bigger foe of communism, but the reality was, as Khrushchev and Stalin both admitted, had it not been for...
	For American and British aid, Russia would have collapsed and fallen.
	And the fact is, if Russia had collapsed, then the Axis powers would have controlled Europe, Middle East oil fields, Africa, Asia and Australasia.
	And then Britain would have been a vassal state and eventually, you know, because Hitler had Napoleonic and Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar delusions, and he wanted to achieve what Napoleon never did, conquer Russia and conquer Britain.
	The point being, though, is that if Churchill was brought to here and now, he would be a radical far-rightist by any modern standards.
	He would be completely against mass immigration, as he was in his own time.
	He'd be completely against communism, as he was in his own time.
	And I'm not in any way suggesting that Churchill was perfect.
	I don't think he was a great strategist.
	Far from perfect.
	And I'm not even talking on a personal level.
	I think he was a terrible strategist.
	I think he made a series of military blunders, but...
	So what?
	A lot of people did.
	The point being, I don't think you can draw a direct line between him and woke DEI stuff and lay it at his feet.
	Again, I'm happy to...
	You oppose the women's suffrage, for example.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Churchill was kind of our reactionary in a lot of ways, actually.
	So I am kind of annoyed to see him getting thrown so hard under the bus, especially when there are much more germane people to the actual problem.
	Tony Blair, Boris Johnson.
	Anyway, I'm not going to go on.
	But the point being, Churchill was not nearly as bad as people on the internet are making him out to be, and he's a lot more in common with what we believe the way the world should be than what the left...
	Yeah, look, there are many legitimate reasons to criticise him on his policy on India, his abdication crisis, tying Britain to the gold standard.
	All of these, the Gallipoli, the Dardanelles, lots of issues, but those are fine.
	These ones, and on from the left, the Bengal famine and all of this, there's no legs to that whatsoever.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I looked into that because I was thinking, oh, that's a bit weird.
	And it turns out, no, it's nonsense.
	Unsurprisingly.
	But anyway, so on that note, go follow Rafe on his various socials.
	Thanks for joining us, and we'll be back in half an hour for Lads Hour, where I believe we are rating English kings.
	So that should be fun.

▲