Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 1, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:34:28

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1133

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 1st of April 2025 and I don't have any April Fool's jokes for you.
	I did consider it saying like, oh the podcast is cancelled but it just seemed a bit mean so I don't want to do that.
	Stelios is staring at me in disappointment I think out there.
	He's giving me a thumbs up actually, never mind.
	So I'm joined by Bo and we're going to be talking about the awful state of Britain.
	There's some new stuff that's made it even worse.
	If you can believe it, I know, it's difficult to believe.
	You're going to be talking about how Douglas Carswell is moving the Overton window, which is interesting.
	He was a former MP, wasn't he?
	Yeah. He was in the Conservative Party and then he defected to UKIP, didn't he?
	Yeah, yeah.
	If I remember rightly, off the top of my head.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So it's interesting, you know, he's a plugged-in man.
	And then I'm going to be talking about one of the greatest crimes against the understanding of human history, which has gone on rather quietly In secret some might say in Australia and it's something that I feel very passionate about and I imagine by the end of it you're all going to feel very passionate about it as well if I've done my job correctly.
	I don't think we have any announcements so I may as well get on with it.
	So Britain obviously is not doing very well.
	I saw a poll recently that suggested that Britain was the second most miserable country in the world.
	In the whole world?
	Apparently so.
	You know, you've got to take these things at face value.
	But I think it's safe to say that most people in Britain know that we're not going in a good direction.
	Whether it be left or right, in the centre, it doesn't matter what your politics are.
	We can all see the decline.
	It's undeniable at this point.
	And I wanted to go through some of the things that are being basically imposed upon us by our political class that isn't going to make it any better.
	It's going to make it a lot worse.
	And the priorities of our political class seem to be Pakistan for whatever reason.
	Apparently UK taxpayers will spend 108 million on a climate investment fund in Pakistan.
	This is not where I wanted my money to go.
	I don't know what it even is or what it will do.
	I don't know why this is of any concern to us.
	Why that level of money is going away because that is Very significant sum of money.
	And this comes at the same time as this.
	So this is a Member of Parliament, Tahir Ali, and he said, this week I attended a press conference ordained by Mohammed Yassin, another MP, where 20 cross-party British parliamentarians requested for an international airport in Mirpur, which of course is Pakistan.
	There's been A long-standing promise for an international airport in Mirpur which has yet to be met.
	This caused significant issues to a number of my constituents who are having to drive over three hours to get to the nearest airport in Pakistan.
	And this is Britain's Problem How?
	I failed to see so I'm gonna read out every single person on this list because I think we should be naming traitors to our country Afzal
	Khan, Abit Sam Mohammed, Lord Mohammed Tinsley, Andrew Pakes, Yasmin Qureshi, Naz Shah, Baggy Shankar.
	Is that real?
	That's a name.
	Baggy Shankar, the Honourable Baggy Shankar MP.
	Okay, that's the thing.
	That's a gang member's name though, if you wear really baggy trousers.
	Zahra Sultana as well, final one.
	So, What you're seeing there is basically a list of foreign people and a few leftists.
	A few homegrown garden variety leftists.
	Completely just trying to, and it looks like successfully, stealing money from us in order to pay for their tribal interests.
	Their racial, ethnic, rural, national and tribal interests.
	Because of course the last thing Britain needs after suffering under the Pakistani child rape gangs is an airport that makes it easier for Pakistanis to come here.
	Heaven forbid the Pakistani people in Pakistan should need to drive more than three hours to get to an airport.
	What nonsense.
	It's not under the control of the British Raj anymore.
	It's not our responsibility.
	They wanted independence.
	It's not our responsibility that we build an airport.
	You know, if you want to come under the dominion of the empire again, maybe there's some discussion.
	Not that I want you.
	It's a long-standing promise.
	Oh, was it?
	Oh, okay.
	By who?
	Yeah. When?
	Someone like Brown or Blair or something promised it, just said it years ago, and now they're like, no, no, give us the hundred million pounds or whatever it is.
	Pakistan has a population about double that of the UK, doesn't it?
	If not more, I don't know.
	If not more.
	And so why are they not able to build their own airports?
	You know, it's not like The notion of an airport is particularly difficult to grasp.
	They have them already Why is it our problem?
	I don't know but as the spectator has pointed out here Pakistani origin men are up to four times more likely to be reported to the police for child sex screaming offenses than the general population in England and Wales That was some new data that came out which yeah Great.
	Why are we doing things for these people then?
	Per capita, 400%.
	More like that, OK.
	Yeah, it's awful.
	And this sort of thing, of course, not drawn to your attention often by the mainstream media, and that is why you need to be supporting Lotus Eaters.
	We make No money from YouTube.
	We had all of our ad revenue cancelled arbitrarily.
	Well, I think we know why they did that.
	But you can support us either by signing up to our website and getting access to all of our premium content, which is an absolute steal.
	We've got a lot of good stuff on there, but you can also, if you're not into that, you don't want to subscribe to our website, you can, you know, get a one-off payment, get a mug or a t-shirt.
	We've got lots of the Islander merch in at the minute and This will only be in for a while while we're doing the sort of run of the current edition of the Islander and so get them while you can because these t-shirts will be gone.
	There'll be limited edition.
	There'll be people in 50 years time.
	There'll be Lotus Eaters artifact collectors and you'll be selling these for many many thousands of pounds I'm sure when you know it's obvious that that's going to happen so invest now although that's probably not Something I should say.
	Buy a t-shirt, don't invest in it.
	But anyway, back to what we're talking about.
	It's also worth mentioning that migrants overstaying visas account for over a third of the asylum claims.
	So they had a visa to come here to either work or study and then all of a sudden they're claiming asylum.
	So they can apply for this visa and they're like, I'm not an asylum seeker now but all of a sudden I've become one.
	Which just is another piece of evidence on the mountain of evidence to suggest that it's all spurious claims It's all people that are economic chances coming here because they have better financial prospects than their home country the way things are going that's not going to last much longer because we're going on the way to becoming a form of failed state at this rate.
	I do think that this actually bleeds over into something I'm going to speak about in my segment, but this idea that if we just Ask people to go home go back to where they came from their country of origin That they'll do it No, of course not.
	No, even if you give them a small financial incentive They still don't do it because it's been tried in Denmark and I think Sweden a couple places No, because even if you promise them a few thousand pounds or a few thousand euros.
	No, it's still better to live in Copenhagen or Manchester or London or Birmingham or wherever than in sort of rural Pakistan where you came from or rural or not even rural or urban Nairobi or something so yeah it's I feel it's a bit of a cope to say you know if we just stop people more people coming in the general flow will mean that they'll all eventually leave no I know
	I have a very controversial opinion around this sort of thing that I think that Every single foreign national should have a figure calculated to their name as to whether they're a net contributor or a net drain to the economy.
	And if they are a net drain, they should lose their citizenship, if they had it, and be sent home regardless of if they're a passport holder or not.
	And if they are a net drain, also their assets should be taken to pay for the costs that they've incurred on the British people.
	Because if you've come here, run up a debt, Either with our government or, you know, privately or whatever it might be, you've run up this excessive debt and then you're relying on the British people to pay for it, then even if you're deported you're still better off having done that otherwise, without that financial aspect.
	I think that it's something that has to be done otherwise it's basically just been a massive million, multi-million person raid on the British taxpayer and it's brutally unfair.
	And I haven't really heard many people talking about that because obviously it sounds a bit extreme.
	However, if you're looking at it from the perspective of fairness in that it shouldn't be up to the British people to then to be ripped off by people and then pay to also send those people back to their home.
	And finally pay for their flight home.
	Exactly. It's a massive form of injustice, even if, you know, they do finally get sent home.
	And so I think how it is done is very important and I think keeping fairness in mind is very very important.
	And with that being said, fairness apparently doesn't exist in Britain because a doctor has not been struck off by a panel over a one-off rape.
	Apparently you've got a one strike and you're out rule now for sexual assault.
	Which, for a doctor, I don't think should happen.
	What is this doctor's name, you might imagine?
	Dr. Aloye Foyyama, which is a Nigerian name.
	So, a foreign man comes to our country as a doctor, probably with lower standards than our doctors because, of course, that's the truth of many foreign doctors.
	But a medical tribunal concluded that the And this is the words of the BBC.
	On the balance of probabilities that he did do this thing, which he denied, and then they said, well, they're not going to strike him off anyway because...
	and there's talk about victim blaming and things like this.
	Who cares?
	The guy should not be here in the first place, especially if he's got these sorts of circumstances surrounding him.
	I would not feel comfortable seeing a doctor like that, let alone if I were, say, a young woman.
	Why should women be forced to see this doctor?
	Because of course a lot of the time you don't choose the doctor you see, do you, on the NHS?
	No, not at all.
	And so this person I see as a danger to people and now they're just being kept around, they're not really being punished, which is the complete opposite of fairness and morality.
	And there's also this, there was much discussion about the The pre-sentence reports are basically when someone is convicted of a crime the courts can use a pre-sentence report or a PSR to help determine a custodial sentence or a community order.
	It basically determines what they're sentenced with and this includes things like their personal history, their age, education, family background, employment status, living conditions, mental health concerns and drug and alcohol dependencies.
	So these are things that are relevant I think many of these things are more likely to dam than help them.
	But a sentencing council is a body that's intended to be independent of the government and they decided to change their guidelines to courts in England and Wales and they recommended that people from these specific groups use a PSR and they say there's a whole number of them if they're a young adult 18 to 25 years old is female Is from an ethnic minority, cultural minority and or faith minority.
	Is pregnant.
	Is a sole or primary carer or dependent relatives.
	Has disclosed they are transgender.
	Has addiction issues.
	Has chronic medical conditions or physical disabilities.
	Okay. If they're a victim of domestic physical or sexual abuse all sorts of different crimes basically which makes a bit more sense okay you know these are sorts of things that you might look at and think okay that does make sense as to why that they might be a criminal because they've experienced crime themselves of course people who are victims of crime are also more likely to be perpetrators of crime but the things that stick out here are is female ethnic minority or
	transgender because what you've not noticed here there's no category for men there's no category for being white so what this effectively means is that these extra details for their case that have an effect of potentially softening their sentence will only be applied or would have only been applied to people who weren't white men I imagine probably straight white men as well.
	So it's just a further entrenchment of the discrimination from our government against us.
	Yeah, when people have said about two-tier policing, two-tier justice, well, this is it in black and white.
	Well, the funny thing is that the Justice Secretary, the Labour Justice Secretary, apparently agrees with you, Bo.
	Really? I know, that's what I thought.
	So, here is a BBC article talking about it and it says it's prompted accusations of two-tiered justice um with justice secretary Shabana Mahmood arguing it amounts to differential treatment because pre-sentence reports were encouraged for some but not others which is true but um Whether I believe you're authentic about actually believing that and I've got some evidence to believe that you're not in a second,
	but it carries on to say that they were actually looking at surgically removing, these are their words, particular sections of the new guidelines and they're going to be trying to remove them and then it says they'll hope to rush it through both houses of Parliament but a Ministry of Justice source admitted there is no world in which those guidelines don't come into effect as planned on Tuesday.
	Well, were in that world because the sentencing council suspended these guidelines after there was backlash against them.
	Mainly the government saying that they were going to push back against them.
	And it's worth mentioning as well that when people were talking about this two-tier justice and two-tier policing, they were called extreme right-wing people.
	And now you have a government minister saying exactly the same thing.
	It's funny that, isn't it?
	It is also worth mentioning as well that this is the same Ministry of Justice here that is talking about given priority bail for ethnic minority suspects.
	So it's funny this is by the way only the 30th of March so they must presume that the electorate has a very very short memory.
	So I'm going to read a little bit from this.
	I obviously don't mean the ethnic minority on the global scale because that is white people.
	Of course they mean people with more skin pigmentation of course.
	I do wonder at some point in the 2050s or 2060s when they're no longer the minority.
	We are truly the minority in our own ancestral homeland.
	Hopefully it doesn't get to that.
	Yeah hopefully.
	But if it does whether all this will still apply or whether or how or to what extent they'll do a 180 on it they'll flip it or just never get mentioned again.
	Well, it's not coming from a place of principle, is it?
	It's just coming from a place of...
	Anti-whitism.
	Exactly. And I think what all of this is about is this sort of thing, right?
	This is about a signature Tony Blair as Keir Starmer has ever got.
	He's writing in the Daily Mail here, I think.
	Believe me, I get it.
	You are right to be angry about illegal migration.
	And he says that he's angry about it as well.
	Yeah, I bet.
	Of course it's coming up to local council elections and at the minute the Labour Party are sort of worried about both the Conservatives and Reform taking seats from them and so these two things,
	what he's basically done here is by talking about illegal migration and talking about two-tier justice, is trying to de-thang the so-called political right because of course these were the sort of two main reform talking points and now Keir Starmer has sort of absorbed them he can take some of the steam away from some of their groups.
	Of course I don't think there's any meaningful difference between any of those three parties but I mean there are slight differences but none of it will go to actually resolve the problems this country faces.
	It's just obviously liars isn't it?
	Obviously. You remember when David Cameron Said, oh multiculturalism has failed.
	Alright, yeah, but you still just leant into it even more, if anything.
	Of course, remember Keir Starmer, when he was a lawyer, worked on many asylum cases.
	If he didn't believe in illegal migration and asylum...
	He wouldn't have done that, would he?
	And I don't believe people really change once they're an adult.
	I think they pretty much stay the same.
	I don't believe people turn over a new leaf in this sort of respect very often.
	Or at least it's very, very rare.
	It's just complete nonsense.
	If anything, he's setting himself up to say, I'm really angry about illegal migration.
	Let's make safe and easy routes for them instead.
	I wouldn't be surprised, to be honest.
	These are insane globalists.
	They mean to...
	demographically change the nation forever.
	Destroy us!
	Yeah, no one should be taking this at face value.
	We all know what they truly believe and it's not about protecting the native British population, is it?
	And we can see that from this sort of thing, right?
	As the holy month of Ramadan ends, I wish Muslims in the UK and across the world a blessed and joyful Eid.
	And this was of course on Mother's Day weekend.
	Nothing about Easter?
	Yeah, Lent, Easter, Mother's Day, nope, Eid.
	Yeah, the only thing he mentioned...
	Okay, dude.
	Okay, bro.
	And even the British Army got in on this, showing this must be...
	Why not?
	Why not?
	Must be AI generated, because it's worth pointing out that more Muslims in Britain joined ISIS than the army, so I don't know what they're celebrating.
	Thank you for giving us enemies to fight.
	Thank you for propping up the military-industrial complex with foreign wars.
	Is that what they're doing here?
	I don't know.
	But it's just shameful, in fact.
	I think it's a school in Dagenham confirmed at very short notice that it's actually closing its doors so that staff may celebrate Eid.
	So great.
	Robert Clack, I know that school.
	Really? My mum went to that school.
	No way.
	Yeah. That's...
	That makes it even more sad, doesn't it?
	In Essex, in Dagenham, yeah.
	I thought you might, because of course, Dagenham, Essex, your neck of the woods, isn't it?
	Yeah. I grew up two stops from Dagenham.
	Blimey. Lots of Muslims there, around that time?
	No, when I grew up in the 80s and 90s, you'd never see a hijab.
	No. I'd never seen one until I moved out of, you know, Devon.
	I'd never even seen someone wear one.
	It was...
	A bit surreal, I was like, oh, do people wear that out and about?
	Do they?
	Okay. I thought maybe she just had a cold head at first.
	Shows how naive I used to be, I suppose.
	But we never used to have to know, did we?
	And there's some even more frustrating things.
	So this is the 2.5 million pound mega mosque being constructed at the edge of the Lake District.
	Let me remind people, or if you're from outside of the UK, let me introduce you to the Lake District.
	Here it is.
	I don't see, you know, all of those...
	I forgot what they're called, those towers, the Muslim...
	Minarets? That's what I was going to say, but I always think that that's...
	Is that the little domes you get in Orthodox churches, or is that a different name?
	I always get those two mixed up, which is a bit embarrassing, not a dig at Orthodox Christianity, but...
	Yeah, the Lake District, very beautiful, quite rural, not a large Muslim population.
	I see these mosques because they also looked at building a 10,000 strong cemetery in Cornwall and Cornwall is still like 95% ethnically British at the very least.
	I know the Cornish might dispute being English but they are really.
	I'm gonna get some hate.
	Yeah, they are acting more or less like a vanguard in doing these sorts of things, aren't they?
	They're saying nowhere in this country is safe, we're going to set up a mosque and then the Muslims will come.
	It's not for local demand, not that we should pander to that anyway, I don't think there should be a single mosque in Britain whatsoever because I don't see it as compatible with our way of life.
	You know, we've been enemies for a thousand years and I don't think anything's changed about that.
	I would like to see the same number of mosques in Britain as there are cathedrals in Saudi Arabia.
	Big fat zero.
	Yeah, that'd be nice.
	Now, of course, that's an exercise.
	This is an exercise in dominance, in bite and hold.
	Yeah, they'll create essentially, metaphorically speaking, a castle around which they fortify.
	And yeah, it's a bite and hold tactic.
	Yeah, it's an invasion.
	Yeah, it's an invasion that's happening here.
	The only sort of upside I can see is those naive sort of liberals that live in their nice white areas might finally realise that, hey, I'm not safe out here and that it's everyone's problem.
	You know, what we've been saying for years and years now.
	And this idea, oh, I'll just move.
	I'll go and live in Australia.
	I'll go and live in America or something.
	Well, it's coming for you there.
	Well, the point of globalism is that it's across the world, right?
	And nowhere safe.
	So you're either defeated at home, or you're forever, you know, made a nomad.
	Which is no way of living, I don't think.
	Certainly not for an Englishman.
	And then there are other silly things going on as well, like this one.
	This is something about farming, where The Land Use Framework, which states that 9% of England's farmland will need to be taken out of production for climate goals, and this is going under the radar for many farmers, and they're not aware that there is this goal.
	Of course, Britain still imports a significant portion of its food, and the main pressure point in which the British Empire was destroyed by people in the US government, not holding the US citizens account of course, it was people in the US government, probably dead now, I imagine, They used our importation of food as a way of basically getting one over on us.
	And the same rules apply here.
	That if you have to import food, it is a national security concern, because it's a massive vulnerability.
	If you can be blockaded, then you can be starved, and then it'll be like a siege.
	You know, you could treat the British Isles like a castle, and if you have it surrounded, then you're going to starve eventually, or you're forced to come out of your siege.
	This is a massive, massive overlook problem.
	We should be producing as much food as humanly possible at home, and although I'm averse to subsidising most things, I think that if we have to subsidise agriculture, it would be one of those things that I think you can justify, not only from the sense of it's essential to the British way of life, and it's important to have locally produced food that is good for you, but also It makes sense for national security, as I alluded to earlier.
	Dig for victory.
	Exactly. Everyone should have an allotment.
	It's started to get like that, isn't it?
	I did an interview with Rorik Nationalist a while ago and he talked all about how in Russia, particularly in Russia, there's this culture of, obviously if you live in a flat it's not on, but most people that have got a garden, any sort of garden really, they actually use it to grow things like potatoes, Tomatoes, runner beans, whatever you can, whatever you can really.
	Most people I know do that as well, yeah.
	Yeah, well, maybe in Devon.
	That wasn't a dig.
	That wasn't a dig at Devon, or you.
	No, of course not.
	But if you live in, like I say, if you live in a block of flats on a concreted over estate, it's just not possible.
	Maybe at best you could have like a little, one of those things that hangs over your balcony.
	Grow a few herbs.
	There's parsley and thyme there.
	Grow a tomato plant and you get like six tomatoes out of it every three months.
	But no, normal, if you've got a garden, apparently it's just, in Russia anyway, loads, loads of people, most people, and they, it's like something, a heart, it's like, it actually yields a lot, even a small patch, like as much as a third or a half of all the food you eat you've actually grown yourself.
	It's one of the most sensible things I think you can do because not only is it Just good from sort of making sure you have your own food supply sense but also it'll probably be healthier for you than a lot of the other things you can buy in a supermarket.
	If you're not spraying it down with pesticides and things which obviously you wouldn't be.
	It's also worth mentioning as well that British Steel has announced it will close its two blast furnaces in Scunthorpe and this means that all steel production in the UK has now ended for the first time.
	in a hundred and fifty years and of course since the industrial revolution since the industrial revolution of course we are the country of the industrial revolution and now we're no longer producing steel so it's sort of an end of an era but in a very sad way and in fact we're the only country in the the G7 that is unable to make new steel and and of course oh yes of course it was Chinese the Chinese owned it and they rejected You know,
	a half billion government subsidy.
	You shouldn't have ever let your steel infrastructure be owned by the Chinese.
	Another case of this is something that is of national security concern.
	Complete joke.
	Complete oversight that they've even allowed this situation to be the case.
	But yes, we're the only G7 unable to make new steel for ourselves.
	Don't know how this is in our interest at all.
	It's just embarrassing really.
	We should be making it.
	The irony of it.
	If anyone's interested, I've got an 18-part series on the life of Chairman Mao on my channel, History Bro, which I don't plug enough.
	It's very good.
	And on that I concentrate mainly, it's all of Mao's life, but I concentrate massively on the Great Leap Forward.
	And anyway, Mao, starting in the late 40s, was obsessed with competing with Britain, specifically Britain, in terms of steel manufacturing.
	Because at that time, even at that time, Britain was the number one or actually United States.
	Well, anyway when Mao was younger in the 20s and 30s Britain was the number one steel manufacturer in the whole world.
	And so he became in later in adulthood when he was master of all China.
	Became obsessed with trying to get China to catch up to Britain.
	Let alone overtake them.
	And now...
	The tables have turned.
	God, I mean talk about the tables turned.
	Yeah. Mal's had his way, apparently.
	Yeah, they've finally completely destroyed our ability to make any steel.
	Well, we've sort of destroyed it ourselves.
	We don't want to give them too much credit here.
	It's clear as day, isn't it, when it's failing, and we say to the Chinese company, look, we'll give you the money to keep it going.
	They're like, no, let it die.
	It's not even worth it.
	Just let it die.
	Obviously, they're probably doing it to make us weaker, aren't they?
	That's what's going on.
	Of course, yeah, it's a strategic decision.
	Because why else would you turn down a free 500 million?
	If the government wants to give me 500 million, I'll not let them down.
	I'll make steel with my bare hands if you want.
	So there's also the realisation that 25% of Britain is now apparently disabled.
	This is of course to take advantage of the welfare state.
	That's probably the only reason.
	Other than that, there are lots of falling anvils or something that are just causing lots of accidents.
	I don't think so.
	Just walking around Swindon, I see a guy in a wheelchair but he's walking his feet along.
	He's not doing the hand things.
	He's slowly walking his feet along in the wheelchair.
	Do you need a wheelchair?
	I saw another guy.
	You ever see someone using crutches when they're genuinely in a wheelchair?
	using the crutch because one foot's off the floor.
	You ever see people just walking around but with crutches as well?
	I have seen that, yeah.
	I see a number of people in Sweden doing that.
	It's like, you don't need crutches if you're...
	Yeah, the amount of abuse and fraud that goes on in this country to do with that you're ill, whether it's physically or mentally.
	The amount of abuse of it.
	It is really bad.
	It's astronomical.
	Also, we don't want to go too far though and sort of go The big Lebowski route where they pick up Mr Lebowski and he actually...
	This guy walks!
	And he's actually disabled.
	Yeah, of course if anyone's genuinely disabled I don't begrudge them.
	But that's the whole point, that's what we're talking about.
	Exactly. The differentiation between those genuine cases.
	Well, the actual disabled people are missing out because of all of the people that are basically being chancers and trying to make money from this scheme.
	So, you know, everyone should be annoyed at this.
	There's no one that shouldn't be.
	And of course, you shouldn't be tarring actual disabled people for the scammers' work either.
	Also, there was this.
	Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic.
	A toddler.
	Apparently... Is it real?
	That's not a...
	that's not a...
	April Fools?
	No, that's real.
	That was 31st of March.
	Okay. So, apparently, statistics show that 94 pupils at state primary schools were suspended or permanently excluded for transphobia and homophobia in 2022-23.
	This included 10 pupils from year 1 and 3. From year 2?
	Where the maximum age is 7?
	I don't understand that wording.
	And it says one of these included a child of nursery age, the data show.
	So yes, a nursery age child.
	A toddler, as they say.
	was suspended for something that they'll obviously not understand.
	And nor should they.
	And yeah, it's just child cruelty, really, I think.
	There's no reason to do this to very young kids that don't know better, even if it were the right thing to do.
	And I mean, as far as I'm concerned, what they define as transphobia It could be any old thing.
	Probably a lot of the things we say could be defined as that.
	I feel like the adults, probably the Karens, that got these kids in quote-unquote trouble for whatever nonsense, they're the ones that should be held to account.
	They're the ones that should face some sort of tribunal.
	They're basically bullying kids for their own insecurities, aren't they?
	Yes. Who cares?
	Who cares what a toddler says about you?
	Trying to indoctrinate the child as young as possible before they can possibly understand.
	When you're a toddler, when you're in primary school, you've got no concept of sexuality or any sort of carnal desire or anything, let alone the subversion of that with homosexuality or transgenderism or cross-dressing or anything.
	It's just impossible for them to comprehend.
	Yeah. You live in a mad, mad time.
	Truly mad.
	Yeah, it's worse than that.
	Apparently a parent was arrested for complaining about the daughter's school in a WhatsApp group.
	And it was a perfectly legitimate complaint just about how it was being run.
	It wasn't like he was doing anything particularly bad.
	He was arrested on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property.
	But I thought it was in a WhatsApp group.
	Apparently he was held in a jail cell at the police station for 11 hours.
	They apparently took their fingerprints and searched them as well for complaining about the school.
	Maybe there's more to this.
	Apparently they said they had previously been banned from entering the school.
	So I don't know whether there's some sort of continued feud here that's causing it.
	But this is what's being discussed and I don't think people complaining over WhatsApp should ever lead them into trouble no matter the circumstances, because it's just written words on a screen.
	Who cares?
	I would be so sarcastic in the interview room, if that were me.
	I'd just take the piss as much as possible out of the interviewing officers about the whole situation.
	Yeah, let's go before a magistrate.
	Let's go before a magistrate.
	Yeah, I'm under arrest.
	Yeah, sure.
	Yeah, I'm really worried.
	Yeah. Yeah, no, let's go to court.
	Yeah, yeah, let's go to court.
	Let's see how this goes.
	I don't know what's happening.
	It's cops, it's Karen cops, isn't it?
	It's Karens all the way down.
	Karens all the way down, there you go.
	Well, Little Hitlers, they don't have to be women.
	That's true.
	Little Hitlers, people have got a tiny amount of influence or power and just instantly abuse it as much as they possibly can.
	Scumbags. So much of it though, isn't there?
	Here's Keir Starmer talking about banning Ninja Swords.
	I know we've already talked about this.
	He's also going to host a roundtable with the creators of Adolescence, that Netflix show that is being forced down our throats, and a group of charities and young people because, you know, this show's going to solve all problems for young people apparently.
	PSYOP. A clear PSYOP.
	Oh yeah, of course it is.
	One of the most obvious PSYOPs since Greta.
	So the final thing I wanted to mention is that at least America is putting pressure on us here because they're basically saying you can't have trade unless you have free speech which is at least something.
	There's a glimmer of hope for some sort of improvement from pressure from the US but that's about it.
	But yes it's a pretty grim situation I just wanted to give everyone an update and it's not good.
	Sorry, that went on for a long time, didn't it?
	35 minutes, blimey.
	I'm sorry everyone.
	I'm ashamed.
	I'm gonna get a samurai sword and stab it into my guts later.
	I've got some comments to read.
	Sorry, I nicked the mouse there from you, didn't I?
	Why hasn't the one-off doctor been arrested and jailed?
	Never mind not being fired.
	I know, I agree.
	Did he not?
	Then... I guess not.
	They said it was likely he did it.
	And he's not been dismissed.
	Who knows?
	To answer your question, Bo says, that's a random name.
	The fate of the West is that of Rhodesians in South Africa.
	A lot of immigrants come to the West to steal your wealth.
	Source, I'm an immigrant, one of the good ones, lol.
	Yep, I wholeheartedly agree, though.
	The engaged few, you're okay over there on the Mother Island, or do you need some boxes of cannon and grapeshot to sort a full-off cargo ship from the old American colonies?
	That would be terrible.
	That would be a really bad thing to happen and I for one would like to see the authorities sweep up that sort of thing.
	Those dangerous ordinances were they to fall off a ship.
	Absolutely. Hewitt76 says the last minute change to the bill is slight of hand.
	The real purpose is to keep women out of prison which is still going forward.
	I wouldn't be surprised.
	Not that they go into prison very often anyway.
	The holy month of Ramadan.
	Holy month of June.
	Lots of holy months in the UK these days.
	It seems like it, doesn't it?
	WSE Lack.
	Hey, thanks for the content!
	Oh, thank you.
	$20 as well, that's very nice of you.
	You're generous.
	Engaged for you?
	Josh, I agree.
	All things being equal, free trade is best for consumers, but since all things aren't equal, subsidising sectors that are important to national security is acceptable.
	I'm about as free trade as it can get, so the fact I'm saying that sort of suggests how far things have gone into absurdity.
	Sigil Stone 17 says, They knew the toddler was transphobic when the drag queen dressed as a demon clown walked in for story hour and the child started crying.
	I don't think you were being entirely serious were you?
	No. Take it away Bo, got some more positive news now.
	Okay, yeah, so the never-ending battle to move the Overton window to the right.
	I feel like over the last year or two, perhaps you could say, we've had some success.
	Even here, I talked about re-migration fairly early on and wrote an article about that.
	I wrote other pieces about...
	I wrote my roadmap, my policy roadmap, which HopeNotHate picked up on and that's what got me deselected.
	In fact, there's a link to it there, I'm completely proud of it.
	Can you click on the link?
	Yeah, there you go.
	The Mallard very, very briefly published it, literally just a few minutes before I They got word from Hope Not Hate and decided to take it down, but Hope Not Hate had already archived it.
	Anyway... Oh, it got archived on my birthday, that's nice.
	In that, I just used very, very broad strokes of the brush in that.
	Very, very broad strokes of the brush, just saying, you know, just saying, we should do this.
	And one of the things that a lot of the mainstream media got their knickers in a twist about is that, what did I say, called...
	What did I say, is it a plague or an infestation?
	The invasion of yeah, something like that.
	I remember they thought that was beyond the power I think even Toby Young thought that was too too much.
	But anyway, whatever Well now this sort of thing is becoming much much more mainstream, you know, I saw even Lee Anderson The wet Lee Anderson in Parliament just the other say just open just saying it's an invasion these invaders and there wasn't even gasps from around the chamber and You know the Overton window has moved to the point where you can just say a few different reform, a few different people in Parliament just talk about when are you going to deport people?
	When is when are you going to do it?
	So and just in in the general more discourse not just on Twitter but in mainstream media you every now and again you get someone breaking through someone like Charlie Downs or who got published the other day in something reasonable like the mail It's been published in the mail.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	So the idea of remigration, mass remigration, mass deportations of peoples, beginning with illegals, because that's the easiest thing to make the argument for.
	So we've moved to even two years ago, three years ago, that wasn't really on the menu.
	You wouldn't be getting the mainstream really allowing that.
	And now we have, it seems, not just we, but the Overton window has been shifted a bit.
	So I want to talk about how to keep going, to keep pushing it further.
	Because one of the main adversaries, coincidentally the man on screen, are people that are self-described right-wingers but are sort of right-wing in name only and will police the right relentlessly and say no no no that's not acceptable only my brand of right-wing politics is acceptable.
	These These policy proposals are uncouth and then they pay lip service to them to try and get them to vote for them and it's very frustrating.
	Actually the left probably has less of an influence over the Overton window than these right-wingers at the minute, in Britain at least, because it's not going leftward, that's for sure, because none of the problems are being addressed and people are sort of a little bit jaded with the left-wing explanations because we've heard them for such a long time and nothing's changed and these are fresh ideas supposedly on the scene for British politics and so I see it as an inevitability that it's going to happen.
	It's just a matter of who and when in terms of re-migration.
	Yeah, hopefully, hopefully.
	So I noticed that Douglas Carswell was on New Culture Forum a few days ago now, a week or so ago, combined with an article he wrote that was published in the Telegraph We're good to go!
	highlight this because this alone is moving the Overton window.
	This is even stronger than what I put in my road map.
	A couple of things, a couple of things anyway.
	And it's great.
	He's actually on the cutting edge.
	I would say Douglas Coswell is at the moment on the cutting edge of moving the Overton window that he is pushing it The furthest, the hardest.
	Just with this one telegraph and article and New Culture Forum appearance.
	It's worth mentioning as well that he's a former Conservative Member of Parliament that defected to UKIP, didn't he?
	And he, for a while, was one of UKIP's only MPs.
	And so it's not like he's just nobody.
	He's a former Member of Parliament, right?
	And he was quite a prominent one, like to people who follow politics, they'll know who he is.
	Oh yeah, he's a named entity.
	He's been an MP for, I think, four or five times in one election.
	Yeah, so it's worth mentioning to people who aren't necessarily in Britain or outside of Britain that this isn't a nobody, even if you might not have heard of him before.
	To make clear, he's not an MP at the moment.
	That's true.
	He's actually living in America at the moment, running his own think tank policy.
	Outfit as I understand it, but yeah the sort of person that can get himself published in the Telegraph Get himself absolutely a spot on new culture forum could be on sort of question time if you wanted that sort of level So yeah, what more mainstream much more mainstream than just like me or Steve Lawson, right? So it's good.
	It's good to see it's good to see I did a tweet saying Looks like half joking tongue-in-cheek looks like Carlswell's read my roadmap but And genuinely meaning it but good good talk about it.
	Take it run with it.
	And that's actually what he says in the interview at one point Where he says I've had criticisms technical criticisms of what I'm saying Good run with it people that know more about the process because it is really he does really drill down into sort of the granular Strategy of what you'd actually have to do if you was in government to get things done.
	So just for that I want to actually contrast It's a great thing about a party that believes in meritocracy.
	We are not in the least bit interested how old you are.
	We couldn't give a damn what religion you are.
	We couldn't give a damn what your skin tone or color is.
	We don't care about any of these things.
	We don't care about your gender.
	We don't care about your sexual preference.
	In fact, we'd rather not know, to be frank with you.
	We want to live in a country that treats everybody exactly the same provided they, in return, respect us.
	Our values, our laws, and our way of life.
	It's basically back to 90s liberalism.
	So we've done that, Nigel.
	It didn't work.
	We've played that game, and it resulted in us getting invaded, and loads of our womenfolk raped, loads of murders and bombings.
	We've done that, we've played that game.
	Sorry. No.
	Nigel just wasn't paying attention then.
	That's weak sauce.
	It's not good enough.
	Boomer-tastic, 90s liberal failure.
	I mean in my tweet I just call it moral and political cowardice.
	It is, yeah.
	Well, the cat's out the bag now.
	We know multiculturalism has failed.
	We know lots of these sort of neutral, blind, 90s liberal policies don't work.
	They create a dystopia.
	They create the world that we live in today.
	A multicultural hellhole.
	And it will lead to sectarianism, endless sectarianism and violence and discord.
	Eventually the destruction of our people.
	Yeah. I don't care about your religion.
	Oh, really?
	I do.
	I'll tell you who does.
	Yeah. Islamists.
	I care about their religion because I want to know if I go to a Christmas market whether I'm going to get blown up or, you know, driven over by a van or a car.
	That's important to me.
	Nigel might as well be saying, I don't care if you're demographically replaced.
	That's what he was basically saying, yeah.
	And he has said as much, explicitly.
	I don't care if what it means to be British is entirely diluted to the point of it meaning nothing.
	Don't care about that.
	Thanks Nigel, cheers.
	Cheers, brilliant leadership.
	Yeah, okay, so that's what reformers are still doing at the moment.
	Now Carlswell, A whole different kettle of fish.
	If we go to the actual video I got, and I put in a timestamp.
	First of all he says, he starts talking about, when you become the government you want to make sure that the civil service, essentially, You know, the actual machinery of government, of bureaucracy, doesn't just thwart you, doesn't just stop you from doing what needs to be done.
	You can see how easily they thwarted Liz Truss, for example.
	Or how you can get someone in like Boris, or Rishi Sunak, sort of LARPing as a Prime Minister.
	basically LARPing as a Prime Minister.
	Well, the thing is...
	And not doing what's needed.
	Someone like hamstringing someone like Dominic Cummings from being able to actually do the policies that the government want.
	So it goes into a fair amount.
	I only think that there should be like three or four different government departments and if you shrunk government down to that size it's entirely feasible that you don't actually need civil servants political party could just bring in their own staff or hire their own staff as they wish, as they go in and out.
	I can understand the arguments for having people in a permanent position.
	Because permanent secretaries?
	Because at least they're in a position where they can develop expertise, right?
	You're not cycling people in and out.
	However, I think that what they're doing is basically circumventing democracy and enacting their own will and using their privileged position as a civil servant.
	to do what they want to do rather than what the party that's been elected wants to do, which is a massive problem.
	Well, Douglas talks about how there's this an odd triumvirate in government where there's the civil servants of Number 10 itself, the permanent ones, so it doesn't matter what party is actually the leading party in Parliament, that the permanent civil servants in Number 10 and the permanent civil servants in the Cabinet Office and at the Treasury Between those three cabals, they're actually just the permanent immovable government.
	And if they work together to sort of thwart the elected MPs, then you won't get through what you need to get through.
	So, take them on.
	That's day one.
	Not sort of deporting people from jail.
	That's what Trump did when he got into office in America, isn't it?
	He just got in and started getting shot off loads of people and rightfully so because that was one of the things that you could attribute as a mistake in his first term is that he assumed that people would just do what they were told and that's not how it works unfortunately in government.
	Well we can, the Prime Minister can remove Permanent civil servants, but just very very rarely hardly ever certainly in recent times has ever chosen to do say because it's just considered Not really the done thing.
	Well, all that just needs to change.
	It's also very expensive because they have they've got very cushy redundancy But yeah, so like there was this trust removed one guy I think from the Treasury and like She should almost sort of used up all her political capital to do that almost.
	I mean, I'm exaggerating but So that was like considered a big thing.
	It should be nothing.
	Not only that it should be able to be done en masse Prime Minister should be able the government should be able to just clear out Whole sections of the civil service if they need to en masse, that's one the thing Douglas Castle was talking about as well that sort of thing You know saying things aren't necessarily new to us Or probably to our audience, but the very idea that since 1997 all the governments have been Blairite.
	You know, not always Blair himself, but Blairite.
	People that, you know, do just completely believe in government by expert and the rule of lawyers.
	Yeah, universal human rights globalists, basically.
	Magic soil people.
	The idea of human interchangeability and cultural relativism, that anyone can be Anyone could be British.
	Just like what Nigel was saying, as long as you come here and share our values, don't worry if you really do or not, you can just say you do one time, maybe, if you're even asked, which you won't be.
	I mean, come on!
	Come on!
	And this is the thing Douglas Carlsworth also talks about in this interview.
	How many Manchester bombings do we need before we start talking about this seriously?
	How many rape gangs do there have to be before we start talking about this seriously?
	So what is he actually proposing here?
	That's the stuff that I'm very keen to hear because I haven't actually watched this yet and it sounds very promising.
	So the first stuff is all about that, what you would do to give yourself the powers in order to hire and fire your own civil servants so you're not hamstrung by them.
	Makes perfect sense to me.
	And really drilling down into the minutiae of how that would be done.
	And he talks about creating a whole new department, a department for the Prime Minister.
	Which would supersede, I imagine, the Cabinet Office.
	And you just, you staff it with your own people and you just get things done.
	ruled by a prime ministerial fiat.
	And that you can use orders in council.
	We don't have the same political system as the US, so our political system has been described by multiple different people of many different political persuasions as an elected dictatorship and I think that's part of the strength of the British system is that although you've got the sort of back and forth of democracy which is a potential weakness in that you know you've got that five-year term and then you might completely u-turn on your approach you can't plan for the long term At least when you've got that window of time and you've got a parliamentary majority
	you can pretty much do what you want, in theory at least, but that's not true in reality at the minute.
	Yeah, on paper a prime minister, if he's got a majority in the house, can be extremely powerful if he's just got the balls and the political will to do it.
	So there's this thing of orders in council.
	Where you can just sort of bypass Parliament in various ways, not exactly, but the way that an executive order in the United States is sort of bypassing Congress and the Senate in a sense, in a very real sense.
	Well, we have something slightly, it's not really similar at all, but another mechanism, Orders in Council.
	And it's just very very rarely used because it's just considered It's not considered cricket, old boy.
	But it is still sometimes used.
	There's all sorts of tricks you can do, like proroguing Parliament to make sure the House can't vote something down, for example.
	It used to be used a lot more than it is now, but there's all sorts of tricks.
	Bit of a dirty trick.
	Well, it's not.
	It's perfectly legal.
	I suppose.
	It's perfectly legal.
	It's part of the process.
	It's just not being used.
	The patronage of our Prime Minister is huge.
	One of the things he talks about in the article is packing the Lords.
	So, I mean, both when it was Labour, when it was Brown and Blair, they made loads and loads of Labour peers, and then when it was all the Cameron and Boris years, they made loads and loads of Tory peers.
	Cos I was talking about how, if you came into Parliament, just create hundreds more if you need to, to make sure you've got a massive majority in the Lords.
	Make sure they're just not an issue.
	Treat it like fiscal inflation.
	Yeah. You weaken the power of a single lord by inflating the number of lords there are.
	One of the things is to get serious about fighting back against what's been done to us in the last 30 years.
	I think one of the biggest problems of the British right, or at least the electoral parties that are involved in the British right, is that they're trying to play by the establishment's rules, which are set up to be rigged against them.
	And people like Farage, I think, should realise that they're never going to let him be a member of their club no matter how much he tries and he should just accept that and lean into it rather than playing their games and conceding to their rhetoric and alienating a decent portion of the British public in the process.
	Yeah, it's a fair point.
	I think it was just time to completely step over and start ignoring Nigel really.
	I only even brought him up here just to juxtapose him to a real patriot.
	Douglas Carlswell.
	Play the first clip.
	Let's let him speak.
	You need to be smart about this.
	You need to understand, as Dominic does, quite how dysfunctional the system is.
	But you need a plan and a strategy to go in there preemptively and to take them out preemptively.
	Liz Truss took out, I think, Tom Scholar at the Treasury.
	It's not just a Tom Scholar at the Treasury you need to take out.
	You need to be prepared and willing to sack en masse.
	A large number of permanent civil servants.
	Bring in new ones.
	Create a fundamentally new system in Whitehall to drive forward change.
	If you don't do that, you will be constantly undermined and you'll be in office, as I said, but not in power.
	Does this bear any resemblance, therefore, to the American...
	Yeah, based.
	Yeah, that's the sort of thing I was talking about in my roadmap.
	Yeah, just go to war with Whitehall then.
	If they're stopping a government from doing what needs to be done, then that's the first battle, then, is in Whitehall.
	And if they need to sweep them aside, Reagan-style, clear them out.
	Yeah, be politically fearless.
	Don't apologise for it, as well.
	And just this idea of if a minister is strong enough, then he can Either the senior civil servants in the department control the minister, or the minister controls them.
	There should be no doubt.
	There should be zero doubt.
	The minister should control the department with an iron fist.
	They should literally, as a civil servant, they should be a servant of the government.
	They shouldn't have any say over policy.
	None. It's terrible.
	It's terrible.
	I just do like that Carswell here is just not putting any punches.
	Like, this needs to be done on day one.
	The first battleground is there.
	Otherwise, you'll never get anything done.
	Okay, so the next clip, he talks about immigration.
	Can you play that?
	I've changed my mind more fundamentally, Peter.
	I used to believe that people were essentially All the same.
	And what was different about them was software, was the sort of cultural programming, if you like.
	And I used to think that because of this, essentially, if someone, first, second, certainly third generation, was exposed to the same influences, they would be the same as anyone else.
	And I'm afraid I just know this isn't true anymore.
	People aren't the same.
	And if you are going to allow, as One in 27 people living in Britain today to be a recent arrival who's arrived in the past 24 months.
	You're going to fundamentally change what it means to be British.
	You're not just going to have growth in the British population.
	You're actually going to dilute and diminish what it means to be British.
	And I think once you can see this, it's something you can't unsee.
	And I think once you realise this, So once again it's just being honest.
	It's just being honest right?
	It's not racist, it's not bigoted, that's just real.
	And again juxtapose it to what Nigel was talking about on that platform.
	Saying I don't care about who you are really or what you think or your skills or anything.
	if you just say you like tea and cricket or something only fools and horses pie and mash then you're British you can be British it's like no no Pete it doesn't work it doesn't work like that come on let's are we gonna live in the real world now how many how many outrages how many rapes and murders does it take before we start being serious about it well the next clip I think is probably Why I think it's really moving this here
	is moving the Overton window because it even goes a little further than even I did in my roadmap.
	Can you play it, Samson?
	Peter, all my life I've been told that...
	Multiculturalism is inevitable.
	Well, I'm sorry, I just don't believe that is the case.
	I think it's been immensely harmful, and I think we need policies in place that begin to undo the damage.
	And this means you must begin to remove people living in the country who've arrived illegally, step one, and I outline how you might do that.
	You need to go beyond that, and people who have come into the country, even lawfully, who are a net burden over a prolonged period of time, I'm not talking about someone who's ill through no fault of their own, But people who are habitually living at public expense and are foreigners should be removed.
	People who have come into the country and committed a serious offence, which I define as three months in prison, I think need to be automatically removed.
	But I think you also need to recognise that there's nothing deemed Inviolate about naturalization.
	It is possible for the British state to take passports and citizenship off people, even people born in the UK.
	Just because someone is born in a stable, it doesn't make them a horse.
	And just because someone is born in Britain, it doesn't make them British.
	Certainly not if they support Hamas, cheer for Sharia law, and articulate views that are incompatible with Western culture.
	And I think you need to have a legal framework By amending the 1981 Nationality Act to begin to remove citizenship from people who believe in certain things that are incompatible with being a citizen of the Western society.
	And you need to, having stripped them of citizenship, remove them from the country.
	Now, people will, you know, clutch their pearls and tell us that this is outrageous.
	Well, how many more Manchester arenas do you need before you're willing to do something about it?
	Because I'm willing to do something about it now.
	I think most people in Britain are willing to do something about it now.
	I've gone into some pretty complex, granular detail, saying what legal...
	So yeah.
	Boom. Talking about stripping citizenship of people, even if they were born here, for the right reasons.
	If needs be.
	It's nice to hear other people talking about it.
	Yeah, and the piece that he wrote in the actual telegraph goes into all sorts of detail about it.
	About what you do first, second, third.
	So you start with a voluntary repatriation program.
	And then if that doesn't work, most people probably won't take you up on that.
	Because as we said, it's still better to live in Birmingham or Manchester.
	As crappy as it is to live there, it's still better to live there than in rural Kashmir.
	Or wherever.
	Or Bangladesh.
	So most people won't leave.
	So then, after you give that a go, you can say, well we've tried that.
	Now it's involuntary repatriation.
	It was always going to come to that anyway wasn't it really?
	It's inevitable.
	It's inevitable because if we don't do it then we end up in some sort of South African hellscape where there's some small enclaves of white people besieged.
	Small little pockets of white people in their own ancestral homeland.
	And our own political system is going to be weaponized against us by these now ethnic majorities and they're not going to be nearly as benevolent as we are.
	Of course.
	It's not even going to be close.
	They're going to be out.
	They won't even understand what the society we've created and they're going to try and use it to dispossess us of all of the wealth we have.
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, it'll be like the Balkanisation process in the 90s and again, as I said earlier, sort of an endless sectarianist nightmare.
	Just endless bloodshed.
	Yeah, terrible.
	So, there was one more clip and then we'll move on from it, if you could move it to there.
	Just a tiny bit more from Douglas.
	The Swedes have pioneered this voluntary re-migration program, and it's pretty generous, and I certainly think you should start that.
	It won't surprise people to discover that actually there's pretty low take-up.
	I mean, I think you'll get a higher take-up once you automatically remove benefits from people who are immigrants in the country, once you are prepared to say, no, you cannot continue to live in council housing, no, you cannot continue to live at public expense.
	Once you do that, and offer people the Swedish equivalent of, I think, £26,000 to leave the country.
	You will see some take up, but it's still going to be significantly small, given the scale of the problem.
	I mean, let's face it, even for £26,000, a lot of people are not going to be willing to leave their existence in Croydon or Manchester or Birmingham and to go back to live in Kashmir or Kinshasa.
	So you're going to have to bring in involuntary repatriation.
	But voluntary repatriation, voluntary migration, is a key step morally towards that.
	Because once you have made it voluntary, it's an enabler.
	It allows you to then say, well, I'm afraid we're going to have to do this involuntarily.
	But we mustn't shy away from it.
	You know, it's either that, Or the future of your own country is to be unrecognisable.
	And it's incumbent for us to realise that, you know, we've got a finite period of time in which to act.
	We can act now and fix this.
	And if we act now, determinedly, we can resolve it.
	I think I'm right in saying that in Denmark, the proportion of people who are Danish...
	Sorry, that was my fault, Samson.
	So, yeah, just the idea that...
	Involuntary repatriation is going to be necessary or there won't be effectively a country anymore.
	Yeah well it needs to be done and it's about time people started saying it because we've been saying this for quite some time now haven't we and the writing's been on the wall for anyone who's been paying attention that these people need to go or We're going to be gone forever from the face of the earth, basically.
	And I just hope that this does move the Overton window a tiny bit more, and it does become sort of more mainstream discourse that, yeah, a government, a strong government needs to clear out Whitehall if it needs to, and use a policy of mass re-migration, because there's nothing else for it.
	It's that, or complete capitulation.
	And the last thing I'll mention is that the guys talk about, Peter and Douglas, talk about something that I've heard also David Starkey talk about fairly recently, the idea of a sort of a Great Repeal Act.
	If orders in council aren't enough, which they probably wouldn't be, you would have to pass some sort of legislation to at least repeal a bunch of stuff.
	If not bring in whole new laws to do what you want to do But yeah, I mean there's precedent for that all sorts of times have been sort of great reform acts or great repeal acts or Statutes of repeal you need to go back.
	There are just far too many laws So yeah, you bring in some sort of and it wouldn't be day one that you'd put it in Parliament But as soon as possible some sort of great repeal Act some type to get rid of loads load of the nonsense that is stopping us from saving our nation So what all I'd like to say is people that really really know what they're talking about Ex-MPs and people that are true constitutional experts people that that know
	their history inside out someone like Stark your cause or whoever Put together more and more detailed plans Exactly what is required because that is sometimes the smart-ass comment you get on Twitter, isn't it?
	We say something like green remigration now or something.
	They say oh, there's no plan.
	You're just like a Remigration bro, like you've got no plan.
	It's all nonsense.
	It's all pie in the sky hot air.
	Good luck with all that Well easily be done if you have power, right?
	Yeah. Yeah.
	That's what I said in my roadmap All it takes is the political will a government with the political will You make the mechanisms to make it happen Anyway, my segment's gone on a bit long there as well, so we'll leave it there.
	We got one comment there.
	Is it still legal for Parliament to issue bills of...
	Attainder? No, I don't believe so!
	That's where you're put on trial and already judged.
	Okay. It's where Parliament says you're guilty of something.
	There's no court case or anything.
	Oh dear.
	It's just you're guilty of it and quite often you're gonna have your head chopped off.
	I'm glad those don't exist anymore.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	They're terrifying things, at Bill for Tainter.
	I can't hear you.
	Oh, yes.
	Yes, okay.
	Okay, I want to do a good job, because I've done a lot of research outside of work on this one.
	Okay. The voice of Samson there.
	The voice of the all-powerful sense.
	So, here is the scene of the crime.
	This is Wallandra Lakes, and this is part of Wallandra National Park.
	And so, this place is a national heritage site.
	This is recognised by UNESCO, as is many sites around the world.
	And it's a very significant site because it is site to a series of dried up lakes that were prehistoric and the most famous is Lake Mungo and there's also Lake Gampung and these are the sites of if we go here you can see a little map of them here these are the sites of some very important human fossils so
	they've got names like WLH3 or WLH50 Which just indicates which find it is really.
	Like Willandra Lake, Hominid 3. It's a relatively simple abbreviation, but around 100 plus human fossils have been discovered around this sort of area.
	Most of them dated between 20,000 to 40,000 years old.
	And if we go over to the painting, if I can click that little circle.
	Very difficult to do it when you're off at an angle.
	What we're seeing here is an artist's interpretation of the burial of one of these fossils, perhaps the most famous one, known as Mungo Man, after the Lake Mungo.
	He was found near there, not to be confused with Mungo Jerry.
	I was going to make a Mungo Jerry joke.
	I was just waiting for you to pause to do a Mungo Jerry joke.
	He really likes the summertime for some reason.
	Yeah, he wasn't found with really big mutton chops either.
	I'm stealing all your Mungojerry jokes here.
	But yes, he was found covered in red pigmentation all over his skin, which suggests he was deliberately covered in this red ochre as a form of burial rite, and that's one of the earliest examples we found of that in the world.
	You know, beforehand we thought burial rites were a relatively recent phenomena, but actually they could go back as far as, I believe, He's dated to around 42,000 years ago, 40,000 years ago, somewhere in that ballpark.
	So long before the last Ice Age.
	Yes, very much so.
	Thousands of years.
	Well, so they are full modern human.
	Yeah, so anatomically modern.
	Homo sapien.
	Yeah, so anatomically modern humans came on the scene around 300,000 years ago from the ... archaeological evidence.
	That's with the Jebel Irhoud skull in Morocco that they found.
	That's the very very earliest.
	That is the earliest one so it's pretty safe to say by...
	There were other hominids 40,000 years ago there were still other hominids.
	Absolutely. A safe boundary would be 250,000 years ago.
	It'd be safe to say, okay, that's when modern humans, as in biologically the same, existed.
	Obviously they lived a very different life to we do now.
	Like the earliest nept...
	Like hand axes or whatever are like a million years old or more.
	So yeah, there are those sort of chopper tools.
	Hand axe.
	Yeah, where it's just rounded on one side to fit in the hand and you've got a chopper.
	There was one found in Dmanisi in Georgia, which was dated about 1.8 million years ago.
	That isn't even modern human.
	That's Homo erectus, one of our ancestors.
	That's not a human, you know, that's not a Homo sapiens, which is our species.
	It's an entirely different one.
	That we are descended from.
	Like a half-ape creature that was actually using a hand axe to...
	Well it was bipedal by that point.
	They're walking, they're sort of human in form although different shaped skulls and different brain size, different level of intelligence obviously.
	But that's not the important thing here.
	There's also another find around these lakes called Mungo Lady, who was discovered in 1968 as one of the world's oldest cremations.
	She was also found with ochre, but she died apparently and then the corpse was burnt, then smashed and then burnt a second time before covered in ochre.
	The source of ochre, of course, isn't found locally.
	It's several hundred kilometres from the site.
	And so they'd obviously gone to great lengths to get hold of this.
	and cover them in in this substance and it seems like there's a very...
	I don't want to call it sophisticated because I don't think smashing bones is necessarily sophisticated but there was obviously some sort of procedure in place because this would have happened over multiple days I would imagine.
	Any sort of funerary rite, however primitive, is one of the things that separates us from from the beasts.
	I think that Neanderthals buried their dead as well and they're a separate species, if you will, from human beings.
	But this covering the Minoca suggested that they had ritualistic behaviours and these were probably a product of either cultural or spiritual beliefs.
	So here's the skeleton of Mungo Man.
	He was discovered in 1974 by a team of archaeologists.
	He's estimated to be about five foot seven tall or 170 centimeters.
	He was about 50 when he died.
	He had osteoarthritis in his lower spine, which would probably be very uncomfortable.
	And the carbon dating suggests he lived around 42,000 years ago, which makes him one of the oldest found in all of Australia.
	And of course, by discovering this fossil, it helped understand the first people to live in Australia because he's the oldest find.
	And, um, Supposedly, the current understanding is that people hopped islands from what is known now as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea to Northern Australia.
	And at this time, around 50,000 to 55,000 years ago, they estimate, there were lots of other non-human hominids.
	So there were those Homo florensiensis, which are basically little hobbit people.
	We talked about them before on the website, haven't we, where they hunted little tiny elephants, so like tiny people hunting tiny elephants, and they would have come across, depending on what period in history, potentially Denisovans, because they've got it mixed in, which is another hominid species, sort of the Asian equivalent, and Neanderthal, at risk of sounding very inaccurate for simplicity's sake, but they They were a sort of comparable hominid species.
	Fascinating that if nothing else pre-homo sapien creatures were seafaring.
	Yeah well they sort of hopped islands.
	I imagine they would have had very sort of primitive conical boats.
	Yeah it may be as simple as that but still.
	Maybe swam.
	Who knows?
	Maybe. Probably not.
	I would be surprised.
	Especially from Timor to Northern Australia that's quite a swim.
	and New Guinea there as well, but his DNA actually provided them with the ability to understand that the current day so-called aboriginals are actually descended from this Mungo man and previous DNA analysis suggested that he was actually an extinct lineage of humans that were there before the ancestors of modern-day aboriginals were,
	but new research DNA research suggested that the sample had been contaminated by European DNA which sort of muddled the analysis and they were able to isolate that European DNA from the researchers who'd handled it and then actually analyze the DNA from the remains themselves and that suggested that he was related to the Aboriginals and so that gives us a more complete picture of The settlement
	of places like Australia which is important for understanding all of human history because of course how ancient humans settled various landmasses is important for us to understand ourselves and I think that that's why I'm interested in this sort of thing is that it's not only a window into human nature and what's always been important to us but also it tells us a lot about Who we are as a people,
	what our history is, and I think you've always got to have a certain amount of respect for those who came before because it's important to ground you and situate you in the world that you currently live in.
	If you sort of are born and see it as a completely fresh start, you're going to be very isolated and alienated from the world because it's such a complicated thing.
	Is this one more nail in the out of Africa hypothesis?
	Well, not necessarily.
	The Out of Africa thing, they estimated around 70,000 years ago, so by 50,000 years ago it was sort of well out either way.
	So it neither confirms nor denies it, it's sort of adjacent.
	Although this theory does allow the existence of that hypothesis, I suppose.
	But Mungo Man was reburied, even though The analysis wasn't necessarily complete because there were some aboriginal groups that wanted him to be reburied and so rather than keeping the fossil and relying on future techniques to do further analysis and potentially gather greater understanding or displaying the fossil in a museum for other people to see,
	they buried it in the ground where it will decompose because it's not in the right kind of soil and it will forever be lost to humanity.
	It's just a piece of history, gone.
	For no good reason.
	And now this seems like a bit of a downer note, but if you care about the preservation of your history, maybe you should go to lotuseaters.com and sign up to our website to help support our work so we can help preserve our history.
	And you can also do that by buying a t-shirt or a mug.
	These are limited edition.
	They're alongside our most recent edition of The Islander, which has sold out.
	So if you want to get the t-shirts before they sell out, here they are.
	But Spectator Australia published an article talking about this because 108 Pleistocene, that's an era of history that goes up until the end of the Ice Age 11,500 years ago, all the way to 2.8 million years ago, is not Pleistocene, which you know you use to make models.
	Don't make that joke in the comments, I know someone wants to.
	But 108 of these fossils were reburied in a secret location by the Australian government a few weeks ago.
	Many of these fossils had never even undergone DNA analysis, let alone been subject to potential future techniques that we can use to understand them.
	So what this represents really is a massive sabotage of human history and our understanding of it.
	This is very important stuff.
	I actually really care about this sort of thing.
	I think it's very important to preserve history.
	It's a very underappreciated thing around the world.
	It's sort of the domain of Western Europeans and North Americans really.
	I know other people are picking up on it but we were the ones that really got people into it in the first place and now to see Australia sort of turning its back on it is a real shame because you'd think that they're of the stock that would understand the value of this more than anything else and...
	They've been bullied into it by some aboriginals.
	Yeah apparently so but not all of them even want to Wanted them to be reburied either all the aboriginal groups only some of them wanted them to be buried Some wanted it like a keeping place where it was supervised by the aboriginals But they can be made available to researchers when needed and kept in safe condition.
	So they don't further decompose which would be I suppose a Compromise but everyone would be able to get what they want there So I could see no harm in it, even though it's not necessarily ideal in my mind but The idea was abandoned because of a lack of funding and they're also worried about how UNESCO might react.
	And here's a little quote.
	Jason Kelly, a Mufi Mufi member of the First People's Assembly of Victoria, accused the government of a criminal act against indigenous groups.
	And he's opposing this reburial, saying that you're destroying our heritage.
	Which I agree with.
	It should be seen in that light, in that they're ancient Aboriginals, they should be preserved right so everyone can have an understanding of them, not thrown back into the soil and decaying into nothingness.
	That doesn't seem to me to be responsible archaeology either and speaking of which...
	If that's what happens, they are destroyed by being reburied.
	Absolutely. It's like putting them in a blender and throwing the dust to the wind.
	It is basically that, yeah.
	This is from a major archaeological journal.
	Whenever possible and where applicable, authors should indicate that they have consulted with descendant groups regarding the presentation of research results based on human remains.
	While careful descriptions of pathological lesions is essential to research in paleopathology, authors are encouraged to consider whether photographs of human remains are critical to The presentation of the research.
	If not essential, out of respect for descendant communities, they should be placed with drawings or included as supplementary material.
	So you can't even show pictures of the remains out of respect for the groups, which is just ridiculous.
	And as has been pointed out by this gentleman here, Mungo Manick, who has done some great So it's just a war on history really and it's a terrible shame because here's one of the fossils that's been buried.
	It was put in an undisclosed location and put in a hole and covered with dirt.
	This is WLH50.
	Here he is showing some pictures of it.
	It's got a very interesting cranial shape here.
	You can see a little bit of the brow ridges there.
	It doesn't look that anatomically modern, does it?
	Which is interesting.
	Perhaps a question for science!
	The huge cranium was 210mm long and on average 16mm thick.
	It had many archaic features including a continuous brow ridge.
	Unlike most Australian fossils, the bone was completely replaced by silica, which is just Talking about the fossilization process, I think.
	Here's a sort of reconstruction of it.
	I think you were able to see it just a second ago.
	Let's have a look.
	Where are you?
	Why is it not doing it?
	There we go.
	You can have a rough idea of what it looked like.
	And it says, he's talking about how they likely contained DNA and how these are very important for analysis because of course, this was, I think off the top of my head, about 16,000 years old, this skull.
	And they had Archaic features.
	Features of hominids, sort of pre-homo sapiens and so surely it'd be really interesting to look at their DNA and see how different were they?
	How distinct are they?
	How much has that been passed on to modern-day aboriginals?
	There are so many questions you can ask about this that will no longer be able to be answered by the fact that they buried it.
	Which is tantamount to, you know, going into, you know, Going to the Mona Lisa and smothering it in excrement or something, or...
	I don't know.
	Finding the last animal of a species, or the last few animals of a species and just killing them.
	That's how I see this sort of thing.
	It's a really disgraceful thing.
	It is weird and sort of inexplicable.
	It doesn't make sense, quite clearly doesn't make sense.
	Why would you?
	I was pandering to these aboriginal groups.
	Is that the only reason?
	Yes. Some Aboriginal groups said we want them reburied so they just said okay.
	So quickly going through this there's also questions of how much Denisovan ancestry did the early Australians have because these Denisovans were a distinct group from Homo Sapiens and They're named after finds in Denisova cave in Russia and Europeans and Middle Easterners have mixed with Neanderthals about 2% of our DNA whereas Asians,
	Australians and natives to the Americas have Denisovan DNA and I think Tibetans inherit their enhanced ability to oxidize their blood at high altitudes from the Denisovans and the highest density Existent today of Denisovan DNA is in Papua New Guinea and parts of Melanesia where it's around four to six percent of their DNA and Questions are did the Denisovans reach Australia or were their genes brought there?
	By mixing beforehand who interbred you know people who interbred and then migrated I think the latter is probably the most likely but we don't know the DNA from these fossils were one of the only ways we could answer those sorts of questions and There was a petition Supporting some of the aboriginals arguing for keeping it in a specific keeping place as they called it but it didn't exactly get much traction,
	which is a shame because it should have and It's also worth mentioning as well that all of the aboriginal groups prior to the 2000s were in favor of keeping the remains safe, but They were talking about keeping places and then in January of 2001 there were the results of an academic study that was picked up on by an Australian newspaper that suggested that modern Aboriginals were not the descendants
	of Mungo Man, as we touched on before, but they actually did subsequent analysis and it was the case.
	And all of a sudden their attitudes changed because it undermined their belief that they'd always been in that land, they were the first people there.
	And so now there's a section of the Aboriginal community, if you will, that opposes these things because they believe it's going to undermine their beliefs and basically their ability to grift from the Australian government.
	Because here, Mungo Manick points out, scientists were forbidden to study this specific fossil, WLH 135, which was 30,000 years old.
	And the fossil eroded and disintegrated and then the aboriginal corporation received a lot of money for it.
	So I don't really understand why they're being financially rewarded for this.
	It seems like a perverse incentive.
	But to my mind, this is a massive destruction of human history.
	It's a real tragedy, a real...
	It's surrendering to ignorance, really.
	Because You know, maybe when we knew for certain we've got everything we possibly can, it can be returned.
	But I don't see how keeping it in a safe place is a bad thing.
	But what has effectively happened here is a destruction of history.
	And it's a really awful thing that's not really got much attention, but it should.
	Yeah, it's terrible.
	Sorry, I just depressed you.
	But hopefully you've learned something.
	We got some video comments?
	I didn't hear you, sorry Samson.
	Okay, we'll do some written comments, we'll save the video comments for tomorrow.
	So, for the awful state of Britain, AZDesertRat, driving three hours to get to an airport, gasp!
	What will they ever do?
	Why is the UK even considering paying for an airport in any country besides its own?
	I know, yeah.
	I mean, unless the airport was facilitating deportation flights to Pakistan, I'm not interested.
	Sitting Bow says, fix all the potholes and modernize our failing infrastructure.
	Of course not!
	Building an airport so the Pakistanis can get here faster.
	God, I love this country.
	It's rather unfortunate.
	Alex Ptolemy, Josh the Libertarian, calling for asset seizure of innocent but unproductive people.
	This is the dire situation we're in.
	that wilt.
	Ideologies aren't cut out for 2025.
	I've always been pretty hardline against wastes of space.
	Yes.
	Just because I'm libertarian doesn't mean I'm not an elitist snob, okay?
	Being a bit facetious.
	Form of asset stripping with politicians.
	If their policies amount to a net loss for the country then they have that asset strip to pay for their failed policies and then watch how government shrinks.
	I would love for that to happen but I could never see it happening.
	What politician would ever agree to get that in place?
	So they're just putting themselves out to dry potentially.
	To read some from yours, Bo.
	George Hap says, so what I gather from Carswell's, the Carswell segment is that our boy Bo did it first and better.
	If you are watching this podcast, you're on the cutting edge.
	That's true.
	If you're on it, I guess, as well, I'll take it.
	And then one for that last segment.
	Happ, I never thought I would see such barbarism.
	To destroy historical artefacts because you might offend a backwards tribe who are too stupid to understand what you are doing.
	Imagine if we returned everything we found at burial sites.
	If they're not ruined by the elements, they will be stolen and in some case melted for the gold.
	That's very true.
	It is a massive disrespect for history.
	There's also a few general comments before we wrap up.
	Bo is back.
	Great stuff.
	Boo, no April Fool's jokes.
	I know.
	I know.
	I couldn't think of a good one, was the real reason.
	I was thinking about just coming on and saying, sorry we can't do the podcast today, but then I was just like, that's not really funny is it?
	It's just a bit mean.
	For wanting of a better sense of humour, I didn't do it.
	We're getting Ash Sarkar on next week.
	Sike! Come see or not, hateful fools!
	That's a good one.
	I should have talked to you, Bo.
	Lord Pridwyn, can we get some more white pills, gents?
	It's bad enough living here as it is, I know.
	But sometimes you've got to tell the news as it is.
	I'll try and do a white pill next week, or later in the week if I can.
	I'm giving you some black pill suppositories today, I'm afraid.
	And then finally, Fuzzy Toaster says, Those chopper tools, you're showing your Warhammer fan side, Josh.
	Funny thing is, I've only played the Total War Warhammer games, and that's my exposure to it.
	So I've not actually...
	I didn't really know about Warhammer before I worked for Carl.
	Exposing my heathen ways, I know.
	I'm sure Samson's shaking his fist.
	But anyway, we're over time, and thank you very much for watching.

▲