Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 2, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:36:45

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1134

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 1134 on today, Wednesday the 2nd of April.
	I'm your host Harry, joined today by Carl.
	Hello! And Dan.
	Hi chaps!
	Who I believe has mostly recovered.
	Oh yeah, I'm fine now.
	Oh, he's fine now?
	That's great.
	We'll get you reading some Shakespeare later in that case.
	You should be able to handle it this time.
	Maybe use some Don Quixote.
	The thing is, I was actually ill, and you and Josh screwed it up.
	In fact, did you see they made a clip of it as well?
	Well, I didn't screw it up.
	I did amazing.
	They put GigaChad pictures underneath me while I was reading it.
	They've done a TikTok of you and Josh screwing it up as well.
	With VineBoom edits as well, yeah.
	But Josh had no excuse.
	You were at least ill.
	Josh just can't talk.
	Josh can't read.
	There's a reason we don't see him reading around the office.
	Anyway, I've never seen Josh reading a book if I'm honest, and I'm sure he does.
	Have you?
	No. Yeah, I know.
	Interesting. Take that information and do with it as you will.
	So today we're going to be discussing the establishment obsession with adolescence, the two-tier Justice system being smacked down by Keir Starmer of all people.
	It's not nearly as cool as that Okay, narrowly avoided it.
	Okay. All right, Keir Starmer tiptoeing around the establishment of a two-tier justice system We need to be a bit more subtle about this folks Yeah, and then Dan wants to do the ambitious task of reorganizing the entire British parliamentary system ... governmental system so that it actually works.
	Well, that's not the ambitious...
	You do understand we have a 230 cut-off point for this, right?
	The ambitious bit is not redesigning it.
	The ambitious bit is getting the point across in 20 minutes.
	I'm gonna give it a try.
	I mean...
	Maybe we should cut the preamble and actually get going on the second episode and I've got half a child.
	I don't know about that, I'm trying to sabotage you already.
	Okay, and without any further ado in that case, we should probably get into it.
	So, you may have heard of this little television program being produced by Netflix with no influence from the UK government whatsoever called Adolescence.
	It's a little indie flick starring a bunch of no-name actors that nobody's ever heard of.
	Have you heard of it?
	Only from the government.
	Yeah, I know, right?
	It's funny that, isn't it?
	I haven't yet been mandated to watch it.
	This show about incels, incel murderers, is being shown in secondary schools, or about to be shown in secondary schools across the country, alongside a load of NGO-organised class plans that'll be going with it.
	It's about a 13-year-old, isn't it?
	It's about a 13-year-old, white 13-year-old, murdering a girl that he was going to school with because he'd watched too much Andrew Tate.
	And because he's an incel.
	And because he's an incel.
	At 13. Yes.
	Well, I don't know about you boys, but were you crushing the punani at 13?
	No, I was also an incel at 13. I think most people are supposed to be incels at 13 years old.
	Right, fair enough.
	So it's a very interesting message, but obviously what's happening is manufactured consent, the government has been ...
	propping up this television show, which is a fictional story about incel killers, and then forcing everybody to watch it so that they can pick up the real-life messages that you're supposed to get from this fictional story, and then we're going to make sure to add in lots of nice legislation against online activity so that we can prevent all of these incel killers who are infesting our cities.
	That's the big problem that I'm aware of in London, Manchester, London.
	Birmingham. It's just a constant problem.
	Is the incel.
	The incel killers.
	Or perhaps it's the ninjas.
	I've not quite figured it out yet.
	But, before I go into the details, you should go on the website, on the merch site, and buy a shirt.
	This is 100% incel protection.
	You will not be able to be stabbed by incels whilst wearing these shirts.
	That's not a legal guarantee.
	That's not a promise.
	But... I'm saying it anyway.
	I think you should lean into You Totally Get Laid.
	You want to make this like the Lynx adverts that you used to get ten years ago.
	You'll be an anti-incel wearing this.
	You'll have to beat these women away from you so that you can try and protect your precious, precious virginity.
	So spend some money on this, please and thank you.
	Anyway, so again, the big thing is that it's the incel show.
	John, I actually shared this little clip that I think is quite funny where they actually just mention Andrew Tate by name.
	Let's take a look here No, I don't know what that is, what is it?
	It's the um...
	involuntary celibate stuff, it's the...
	Andrew Tate shite And- And Andrew Tate's notorious incel, that's what he's being charged for in Romania, isn't it?
	Not that I'm a fan of Andrew Tate.
	Andrew Tate, and they're in Parliament trying to get him extradited to Britain.
	Andrew Tate extradited for being a virgin.
	I love that clip because it's just so naked what this whole show is all about.
	...
	is that there are people saying things online that young men like.
	We do not like that young men like this.
	Therefore, we're going to make a television show where the man talking about this is a big, stinky, murder-face man.
	Even though, again, I'm not a fan of Andrew Tate, I don't like him, I think all of the, like, loverboy scam stuff and camgirl sites that he ran back in the day are completely scummy, beyond redemption.
	But this is not what we should be condemning him for, and this is just being used to, again...
	Condemning him for being a virgin, not me!
	I know, it's very strange tactic, but you know, we'll see how it pans out.
	And this has been enough because of course the incel rage that watching people like Andrew Tate or perhaps even a little-known old 2014 Gamergate YouTuber I've heard of, Sargon of Akkad.
	Never heard of him either.
	But watching these kinds of men makes young boys just furious with women and want to go out and murder them.
	Can I just interject a second?
	Because one thing that really freaks me out Frustrates There are lots of young men in society who have interests, who have personal interests, who have a desire, what they want out of the world and out of society.
	Sounds a bit sexist to me.
	Yeah, it does.
	And now it is, right?
	It's like, what would young men want?
	And the issue is that all of society is geared to satisfying the interests of young women or the The purported interests that feminists would say that young women have, right?
	Now, so what this does is it means that our society is entirely geared towards, essentially, the left, and anything that would be geared towards young men is just considered the right.
	And so if you've got, like, the incredibly left-wing Blairite establishment, who are like, no, we just want young men to sit on the plantation, do exactly as they're told, and then essentially die of old age without ever bothering us, well, yeah, that's great.
	And so any incel Andrew Tate crap, or whatever she called it, that's just essentially a kind of broad representation of just, oh, men aren't happy with the current circumstances.
	Well, we need to just stamp them down.
	We need to get them back on the plantation, back in their box.
	How dare they say we deserve something out of this society?
	And it's like, yeah, that's, yeah.
	And so from this perspective, I can kind of see why they're panicking about incels or Andrew Tate or adolescents.
	Well, funnily enough, the whole thing reminds me of why some people call this a gynocracy, that we're living in the right.
	Because what this is, is waking up next to your missus in the morning, and she's had a bad dream where you did something wrong, and you need to apologise for what you in that dream did.
	I've made up a fictional scenario in which you were radicalised by Andrew Tate and murdered me.
	How dare you do that?
	Do that.
	You need to shape up your behaviour right now, young man.
	And we've all been through something like that.
	You've woken up and she's in a bad mood with you.
	And you're like, what's wrong?
	My wife just calls him Dream Carl.
	Yeah, Harry isn't bad.
	Dream Carl did this.
	And I'm like, I'm sorry, darling.
	I've got to go to work.
	I've no excuse for what Dream he did last night.
	I'm sorry.
	I can't explain it.
	But is that not what we're seeing right here?
	Because it clearly is.
	And of course, Keir Starmer, being a spiritual woman, has decided that he's going to take the ball and run with this, possibly because this is all just being used to justify legislation the government was going to pass.
	Anyway, so on the 31st of March, which was Monday, Keir Starmer hosted an adolescence, which they've spelt wrong here, roundtable with the creators of the Netflix drama, a group of charities, one of them being a charity called We work together,
	and what can we do as a society to stop and prevent young boys being dragged into this whirlpool?
	of hatred and misogyny.
	And it is young boys predominantly in this particular instance.
	But also how can we protect young girls that are at risk?
	Because obviously that's a very strong feature of the documentary, the drama.
	And that again, as I say, my boy is 16, my girl is 14. So I'm seeing this very much through both sets of eyes.
	And that's why I think it hits hard He's such a compelling public speaker, isn't he?
	But also, what a horrible thing to do.
	Yeah, so I think my 16 year old boy might be an incel killer.
	Bit worried about it.
	Uh, you know- And my daughter might be at risk of being murdered by my incel killer son.
	Yeah, it's like, God, Keir.
	What a horrible thing to say.
	Well, yeah, basically what you're doing is you're putting kids through, young boys especially, especially when it comes to This, which is Netflix, saying that they're going to make it available for free across all secondary schools in the UK through Into Film Plus.
	Additionally, Healthy Relationships charity Tender, who we'll get to, will provide guides and resources for teachers, parents and carers to help navigate conversations around the series.
	What this is, is a struggle session.
	Yeah, a matriarchal struggle session.
	A Soviet Maoist style struggle session where young boys are being told The same thing that they've been told for decades, which is stop being boys.
	Yeah, you're bad, and we're afraid of you.
	Because boys are just defective girls.
	What you need to learn to do is be a better girl, which will solve the problem of you being an incel.
	Because you'll be so much more attractive to women when you become a girl.
	I've not heard that from anyone.
	Weirdly. That's a questionable line of logic to go down, but hey, let's see how it pans out.
	It's the only way they know how to process people.
	It's the only way they know how to deal with it.
	Oh, look, girls tend to sit quietly in class and do as they're told and do, you know, they've got brilliant handwriting, they do lots of work.
	Boys are rambunctious and disruptive.
	It's like, okay, well then, well, that's dangerous to this order.
	It's like, okay, but you could also instead create something for boys that dealt with their intrinsic nature.
	I think they should split them.
	I think there should be girls' schools and boys' schools.
	Absolutely. And whenever that is tried, The boys' schools, they always end up realising that a happy boy is a tired boy.
	A bit like a happy dog is a tired dog.
	And so they double the amount of physical activity that goes on in the day and they get much better results from it.
	They are not the same.
	The actual grades go up.
	But moreover, I don't think that women should teach boys and I don't think men should teach girls either.
	I think that actually it should be like it was in the Victorian era or something.
	You know, where it's like boys' schools with only male teachers, girls' schools with only female teachers.
	And this will actually produce better results for everyone involved.
	And in fact, it is the sort of unisex modern liberal paradigm that says, oh no, boys and girls need to be smushed together in the same classroom and taught by women.
	It's like, no, I don't agree.
	I mean that makes a fair amount of sense to me if only because I saw it many times when I was growing up in school which is when the boys would have a class that would be mostly boys with a female teacher the boys would basically go out of their way to annoy her as much as possible and she wouldn't be able to Properly control them?
	Yeah, properly control them.
	Shouldn't have a way to bite back.
	Whereas the male teachers, you know, they could get on with it and they could hit back if they wanted to.
	There's a natural sort of masculine hierarchy and the older man at the front of the class, you're a 15 year old, ultimately it's not going to happen but in the back of your mind it's like he could just clip me around the bloody head and I'd be, you know, bursting into tears, right?
	And so there's this natural authority that older men have over younger men On the basis of size, right?
	And again, if we can't admit this and we can't do anything about this, then we're going to end up, oh, well, young boys are all evil.
	We've got to stigmatize.
	And that's the worst part.
	Stigmatizing half of the children in the country.
	You're a potential killer, but also telling the other half, these guys are probably going to murder you.
	You know, watch out.
	It's like, God damn it.
	What are you doing?
	Also with the dynamics of a lot of young girls with a male teacher, if he's young enough, that was a weird thing that happened in my school that happens everywhere where they all start And also it's like it's not a good dynamic for just to have in the classroom.
	Do you really want like this kind of atmosphere in your classroom?
	No, probably not.
	Yeah, it's healthy.
	It's weird.
	But so as part of this, these classes where they're going to be shown adolescents will form part of the government's new relationships, health and sex education guidance, which will be introduced Before the end of the academic year, though Labour's classroom guidance is still being developed,
	it's understood to include content to support healthy relationships, because your school and your government are the first people that you want doing that for you, to enable schools to tackle harmful behaviour and ensure that misogyny is stamped out and not allowed to proliferate.
	So is this going to be basically telling the young white boys, don't watch Andrew Tate?
	Or is it going to be telling all the young Pakistani boys, By the way, when you're a few years older, all of these young girls are off-limits.
	Don't get all gang-rapey.
	I doubt it's gonna be the latter.
	Yeah, it's definitely not.
	It's not gonna be that last one.
	Although I would be interested to be a fly in the wall in inner-city schools in London where they'll be showing this.
	I doubt they will.
	They probably won't even bother.
	Well, if they do...
	Yeah. I'd like, again, to be a fly on the wall just to see how they all react.
	They'll be cheering on the young 13-year-old killer.
	Show the kefir!
	But the idea that this is going to work is absolutely preposterous, and it shows to everyone that these people have absolutely no idea how to handle the problem.
	Well, listen to this.
	This is secondary school, but as part of these new guidelines, from as early as primary school, children You're literally turning them into girls?
	The thing is...
	Young boys are sensitive, right?
	If you respect young boys for what they are and treat them, as you were saying, as if they are men or men-in-waiting, then they will respect you for it, right?
	And that means, you know, getting them to do things that are much more physically active.
	Things that are competitive, right?
	You can get young men to buy into something if you make it competitive.
	And then they're like, oh brilliant, you know, we're going to win this.
	You're going to lose this because you suck, right?
	That's what they're going to be like.
	You can't do that with girls.
	That's what I was like at school.
	You know, that's what all of my friends were like at school.
	You can't do that with girls.
	You tell them, right, we're going to sit you down, we're going to talk about your feelings.
	You're going to get them taking the piss out of whatever it is you're doing, because they won't respect it.
	Because it won't speak to them in any way, shape, or form.
	They won't speak to their preferences.
	You get called gay a lot.
	Yeah, exactly, right?
	You're going to get insulted.
	You're going to get them literally winding you up.
	And they will play elaborate pranks on this system.
	Well, that's why I'm so enthusiastic about them showing this in schools, because I think it is going to backfire massively.
	It'd be funny.
	Yeah. Also, that bit on your list, one of the things on the list was they're going to be teaching young boys how to handle disappointment.
	Jesus Christ.
	That's young men's entire life.
	Yeah. Up until at least your mid-twenties.
	Yeah. It's just disappointment the whole way through.
	One crushing defeat after another.
	Of course, it's not just the children that need to be propagandised with this as well, it's the politicians themselves.
	Femi saying, honestly, any politician who hasn't watched adolescence at this point, unless they have the excuse of personal trauma, doesn't give an F about our society.
	Femi, I'm against your society.
	I'm 100% against it.
	By the time I'm done, it's going to have been destroyed and replaced with something good.
	I'm against it.
	Jesus Christ.
	Sorry, go on, this really annoys me.
	No, that's fine.
	Well, yeah, he wants our democracy protected.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Screw your democracy!
	However, I'll just point out, he is exactly the type of man that they want.
	Yes. A feminized...
	Domesticated. Yes.
	Yeah, whipped.
	Yes. Absolutely whipped.
	But an enforcer of it as well.
	Yes. Oh, now I'm gonna go and try and whip other men.
	No, come over.
	Come here, bro.
	You know, we're not having this.
	Grow a set of balls, lay down the law, And then get back to us, alright?
	Nick Ferrari, supposed conservative on LBC, decided that he was going to browbeat Kemi Badenoch about the fact that she'd not watched it, which was apparently a dereliction of her duty as ... leader of the Conservative Party.
	Nick, do you really think that you're melanated enough to be browbeating Kemi Badenock over anything?
	James O'Brien, spokesperson for testosterone.
	Same point again to you, James.
	Yep, saying it was unthinkable.
	LBC posted three separate clips of James O'Brien whining about this.
	He said- He does look evil, doesn't he?
	He really does.
	Look at his face!
	I'm sorry, you need- I would never recommend this to a normal person, but James, you're not normal.
	You need TRT, mate.
	You absolutely need TRT.
	I think I'm a replacement there.
	Yes. Your T levels are through the floor.
	Your estrogen has spiked.
	You need to get some TRT.
	If we had a proper base society where you did like a year or two of national service, can you imagine how James O'Brien and Femi would have done in the barracks?
	They wouldn't exist.
	They'd be different people.
	Do you remember that bit at the beginning of Full Metal Jacket where the fat one is being beaten with soap because he keeps getting them all in trouble because he's useless?
	Yeah, but at least the fat one had calves.
	I mean, he had legs and quads and everything.
	Have you seen his legs?
	I've seen his strange morphology, his strange shape.
	Yeah, again, he's just keeping on going with this.
	Apparently, he must have just spent an entire broadcast whining about it, pointing out, oh, she seems to have believed online racist lies because...
	The article linked to one of these supposed cases, which was a case of a young black man in Wolverhampton, I think?
	I think a black teenager killing a black girl.
	There was one in London as well, where it was a diverse teenager killing a diverse girl.
	Yes, but apparently that's a lie, according to James O'Brien, who said that he hadn't actually looked into it.
	But to be fair, let's see what...
	I haven't looked into it, I just know that's a lie.
	Well of course, the online far-right incels said it, so it has to be a lie.
	But in this Radio Times article, they ask, is adolescence based on ... on a true story, and the writer says here that following on from some misinformation online about the basis of the hit Netflix series, Jack Thorne has firmly underlined that the series has no basis in any particular case in response to allegations of race swapping characters, telling the news agents that there is no part of this...
	I repeat, no part of this that's based on a true story, not one single part.
	Right, so this is a moral panic.
	Keir Starmer calls it a documentary.
	And Keir Starmer says it's a documentary when one of the writers explicitly says, we made it up.
	And so this has just caused a complete moral panic because What it does is it speaks to the reality that young boys are being essentially demonized in society, and they know that that means basically half the population in the country has got every reason to just walk off the plantation.
	They're like, no, I reject all of this.
	I reject the Blairite paradigm.
	I reject this kind of oppression.
	I reject being feminized.
	I reject matriarchy in its totality, and I want an alternative.
	Well, what's the obvious alternative to a matriarchy?
	Right? You can see why they're panicking, being like, well, look, you know, What's the one cohort of Britain who might actually overthrow the system?
	Oh yeah, actually, straight white men.
	Young, straight white men, actually, who have got every incentive to do so, and the physical energy to do so.
	Well, and also, I don't want to be even a teeny tiny bit sexist or anything, but it would be the half that actually matters, because I think it's Greenland or something like that, they have this national holiday once a year where women don't do any work, and everything still happens, the trains still run, the postal gets delivered.
	If it was the men who checked out, I mean, how long would this country last?
	I mean, the HR departments would be fine, but apart from that...
	What's the productivity rate of the HR department?
	That's the problem.
	I'd say it's probably negative to be honest.
	But this article then goes on to contradict itself because one of the writers says we made it up and then Stephen Graham who's a star of the show and one of the co-writers says actually it was based on not a single case but inspired by a series of disturbing real-life events which seems to again be a contradiction from the original statement that it was based on two in particular but Graham says where it came from for me is there was this incident in Liverpool a young girl and She was stabbed to death by a young boy.
	I just thought, why?
	Then there was another young girl in South London who was stabbed to death at a bus stop.
	That's the diverse one.
	And there was this thing up north where that young girl, Brianna Gay, I don't want to be crass here, but I have to point out that Brianna Gay was a boy.
	It was transgender.
	I was lured into the park by two teenagers and they stabbed her.
	I just thought, what's going on?
	What is this that's happening?
	So with the Brianna Gay thing, I would imagine, given the circumstances, there was a bit more going on to that.
	That wasn't a relationship thing.
	That was them.
	That was two predatory kids who were just evil.
	Yeah, obviously.
	Obviously a horrible, horrible thing to do, whatever your ideology.
	But again, it seems to be a bit more complicated than just saying, well, they were radicalized by online misogynists.
	But it carries on.
	The actor also echoed these comments at a Next on Netflix event earlier this year.
	The idea, quote, came as, over the past 10 years or so, we've seen an epidemic of knife crime amongst young lads up and down the country.
	I wonder why that is?
	Who's committing those knife crimes?
	Must be those ninjas, I would imagine.
	It literally is the ninjas, yeah.
	It is the ninjas.
	And you've got to admit, again, the manufactured consent is incredible.
	We know that there's this real problem, but the establishment...
	...
	doesn't actually want to address who is causing this problem, who is the main disproportionate, not saying that young white kids aren't also doing some stuff like this, but who is the disproportionate people committing these crimes.
	I had somebody- They do not want to address it.
	I had somebody come back on me on Twitter on that point and say it was the effect of, oh, well, the Jamie Bolger killers were white, and it was like, yeah, that was a remarkable case, and it happened like 35 years ago or something like that.
	And one of them is still, John Venables, is still basically under witness protection because if he reveals himself he will be murdered.
	Yes. But now it's just part and parcel of living in multicultural Britain.
	Of course...
	People weren't too long to find out that there were government connections with this.
	Charlotte Gill's done quite a bit of this that she's been posting on Twitter.
	So this is the charity that's been working with adolescents in conjunction with them.
	Tender, who did a screening of Netflix's adolescence when it first came out, they have received £3.4 million in taxpayer funding from 2020 to 2024.
	They also ... are very well connected to the drama world, as she points out here.
	Olivia Colman is one of their patrons.
	They did the big screening, launched a special screening at Soho's hotel with over 40 people from organizations working to end violence...
	That's an ambitious goal, bloody hell!
	That's huge, that's huge!
	Just the concept of violence, we're against it.
	Oh, okay.
	The drama shines a light on online misogyny and its dangerous impact on young people today.
	Tender CEO Susie MacDonald, MBE, joined adolescence co-creators Stephen Graham and Jack Thorne and producer Joe Johnson to explore their motivation and they will be the ones producing the coursework and teaching guides for All of these showings at the secondary schools.
	Also, they've done things like an event in February called How to Be a Boy Conversations with Men.
	A panel including Nazir Afzal, Dan Snow, and the Global Director of Diversity and Inclusion at Clifford Chance, and Olivia Colman was there as well.
	This is the man I want describing masculinity to me.
	He's the people who want to be teaching you masculinity.
	Dan Snow, the ultimate Nepo historian.
	Do they think they're going to out-compete Andrew Tate in talking to young men while they do this?
	Oh, come on.
	Do you not just see the appeal to young disenfranchised boys that this panel has?
	They're literally saying, hey, young boys, don't you just want to be basically a domestic pet and stay on the plantation?
	And these young men are just like, no.
	I would rather watch Andrew Tate.
	I guess we're going to have to censor the internet then.
	Yeah, that's literally going to have to be it.
	Everyone on that panel looks like a lesbian, including the men.
	Yeah. I mean, they've all got their knees together.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	And look it, he's crossed his legs like a woman.
	Terrible showing.
	Terrible showing.
	Atrocious. Of course there is connections to Sadiq Khan.
	Of course there are.
	In 2022 he launched a £1m anti-semitism toolkit for all secondary schools in London.
	Anti-sexism.
	Oh sorry, anti-sexism.
	I was like, jeez, now that as well.
	I'd be surprised if Khan was doing that.
	And that was delivered by Tender.
	And they're the ones, again, doing this coursework from Tuesday the 1st of April.
	Secondary schools will stream all four episodes to support teachers, parents and carers to navigate conversations around the important topics the series explores.
	Tinder will produce guidelines and resources that will be available through the streaming service alongside the Netflix show.
	Let's take a look at some of the...
	This is a quick thing here.
	If I was at school, I'd be like, brilliant.
	Because that's basically an afternoon off, right?
	Oh yeah.
	That's like when you're getting to Christmas break, you've run out of lessons to teach, so let's put Home Alone on.
	Yeah, exactly.
	There you go.
	And this time it's, let's watch a 13 year old murder some girl.
	Jesus Christ.
	I haven't seen it, but I'm sure he doesn't actually do the stabbing.
	I don't think you see it on the screen, but the whole thing...
	The most I've seen normies talk about is, oh, each episode's a one-shot.
	Ooh, isn't that amazing?
	That is impressive.
	I mean, it is impressive, but I find it funny that the normies that have spoken to me about it don't seem to care about the politics.
	They're just dazzled by the technical aspects of it.
	I did watch a bit of it, and actually, the girl who was stabbed was a bit of a cow.
	I mean, I'm not saying that it justifies the made-up murder, But she was a bit of a cow.
	But the point being though is that, you know when they do that sort of thing?
	It's not like the normie is sat there with his film critique studies or something.
	They've been told, oh it's been done to one shot and therefore you can think that this is more impressive than the average thing you watch.
	This is a status symbol now.
	Knowing this is a status symbol, you're more smart than your friends.
	But what it actually does is gets them to be even more passive ... while absorbing the propaganda that's being spewed to them.
	So what kind of guidelines and resources could you expect?
	Well, here's a pyramid of sexual violence that Tender has produced...
	Genocide?!
	...
	in the past.
	Yes, yes.
	So it starts off...
	Is that sexual violence?
	Yes. It starts off with locker room banter, thinking men and women are different, and bragging.
	And it ends in genocide.
	So, so literally, again, wrapping back around to the beginning, this is all female hysterics going like, oh, I dreamt that you did something bad last night, you've got to apologize to me.
	This is, listen, it's not what you said, it's how you said it.
	You started, you started bragging with some locker room banter.
	This is basically genocide.
	Next step.
	Permanent sexual violence and like, okay.
	So, when men are being genocided, that's not sexual violence.
	But now, when women are being genocided, that is sexual violence.
	How is murder different from femicide?
	How is murder different from homicide?
	I like that they've separated gang rape from war rape.
	Important distinction.
	Sexual abuse from sexual assault.
	A lot of this just seems to be filling up space in the sexual violence pyramid.
	Wait, what?
	Safe word violations there.
	Removal of autonomy.
	Safe word violations?
	What does that mean?
	That's one step away from murder.
	From gang rape.
	That's one step away from gang rape.
	Wait, so safe word, does that mean like literally people doing kinky stuff in the bedroom have a safe word?
	I assume that's what that means.
	I've never done anything that requires a safe word.
	So they think if you forget the safe word, you're one step away from murdering.
	You notice how femicide is higher up the list than murder, so presumably murder of a woman is worse than murder of a man.
	It's always worse when it happens to a woman, no matter what it is.
	So, there you go.
	Expect this in a school near you.
	If you've got kids who are going to be going through some of this teaching, let us know how they get on.
	If nothing else, I imagine it'll be quite funny.
	That's wild, man.
	Oh man, it's insane.
	It's absolutely insane.
	Right, okay.
	The Last Russian says, Yeah, long way off that.
	Ramshackle says, Years later, a male teacher with another girl's grammar We knew admitted to upskilling kids.
	Yeah, well, that's why I don't think there should be any male teachers there.
	Genuinely. Dragon Lady Chris says, not sure I want a woman teaching my daughter maths or science.
	Merit-based hiring.
	Women can learn to count and do science.
	I'm a progressive.
	In my further maths class, we had a female teacher, but she was horribly boring.
	Well, that's always a threat when you're doing anything math related.
	Hewitt says...
	Maths. We're English.
	Good point.
	Unfortunately, boys acting out in response to being shown out of lessons would just be used as proof of the message.
	Yes, it absolutely will.
	That's a great point.
	And Russian says, you guys say showing this in schools will backfire.
	You must be aware of how low testosterone levels are.
	I am certain one third of boys today will support this.
	Even one third of men support this.
	They vote Labour.
	Like, that's the thing.
	If they do support it, I can guarantee that of that one third, most of them will be supporting it to try and get in with the girls.
	And not just that, they'll just be the sort of naturally conformable types.
	But yeah, there will definitely be boys who like this, but there'll be a lot of boys who just take the piss out of this.
	But anyway, right, let's move on.
	So. Multiculturalism in Britain.
	Shocking success, everyone agrees.
	That's an interesting lucky scheme there.
	Where's this going?
	It's going brilliantly.
	You can tell that it's going brilliantly because we nearly created a racial caste system.
	We avoided it by literally a hair's breadth.
	Okay, so we're past that and nothing's going to change.
	I'll go through that in a minute, but before we begin, go over and watch on Let's Eats.com Dr. Benedict Beckhold talk with Stelios about the dangers of multiculturalism and explaining why exactly this paradigm is so bad for us.
	And this segment is just going to show us exactly proof of what.
	Is it necessarily so bad?
	Because they instantiate an ethnic caste-based system.
	Yeah, it's bad if we're at the bottom of it, Dan.
	Yeah, but if they say, okay, that principle is fine, in the future we could just reorder it?
	No. So then Wessex Man is at the top and then Mercia Man and you basically just- Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey.
	I think there's equal space at the top for Wessex and Mercia Man.
	Okay, now I agree with you now, Dan.
	This is bullying.
	Stelios is not the only culprit.
	It's all of them.
	You're all just jealous of my purebred English genes.
	You're 99%.
	Anyway- You're Irish.
	You may remember that on the 5th of March, the Sentencing Council, which is a quango set up by the Labour Party to create more communism in Britain, decided that what they were going to do is For some reason, and no one was provoking this, it just came out of nowhere and said, you know what?
	We should have the courts in Britain consider various attributes about people when they start sentencing them.
	So if they were, say, a young adult, a woman, from an ethnic minority, or a faith minority, or maybe if they're transgender, or they're addicts or something, maybe they should get a lesser sentence than would otherwise be handed down.
	And of course there was one particular cohort that wasn't included in that, which was being a straight white man, you'd get the full sentence.
	It makes sense to me to take the people who are statistically the least likely, generally, to commit certain crimes, outside of maybe women and East Asians, and to punish them more.
	Yeah, why not?
	I mean, again, it's about keeping men on the plantation.
	You have to be like, no, this is the Blair-Wright paradigm.
	This is the matriarchy.
	You've got to understand.
	I mean, it's literally women, transgender, or minority.
	And if you're not one of those, you're a man, and you deserve the full force of the law.
	Right? Is that what you were going to say?
	Well, I was going to say, actually, in a lot of countries, I mean, it just is the system that if you're not native, you automatically get a harsh sentence.
	Oh, yeah.
	And you don't have access to various privileges.
	Like Latvia recently disenfranchised 80,000 Russians living in Latvia.
	Just on the basis that they're Russian.
	I was like, oh, didn't know we could do that.
	Anyway, so yeah, like I said, this is a Quango that was set up by Tony Blair.
	Begins with the advisory panel, gets into the sentencing guideline panel.
	Then in 2008, the sentencing panel finally created in 2010, I think it was, under Gordon Brown.
	And they've been making bad mistakes ever since.
	I mean it was set up under Labour of course it continued the whole time during the Tories as well.
	Oh yeah yeah yeah obviously the Conservatives were like right Labour have done something we accept that 100% and in fact I'll get back to that in a minute uh and so anyway yeah.
	So this sentence in Quango decided that they were going to try and create a racial caste system in the UK with white men at the bottom and presumably everyone else on a kind of stratified progressive stack heading upwards.
	And so when this came out, Shabana Mahmood, who is the Secretary for Justice under Keir Starmer's Labour Party, came out and said, you know what?
	I actually don't agree with this.
	Because, of course, there was a massive amount of backlash.
	And I think the alternative would have been saying, I'm okay with this.
	She 100% does agree with this.
	She just got caught out.
	Well, she didn't cause this, right?
	So I'm not going to suggest that she is the author of this or is endorsing it.
	She's done nothing but condemn it, right?
	I would bet my entire net worth that in private she agrees with this.
	I can't critique that.
	I've got no position with which to critique that.
	But she, like I said, she's not the cause of this and she has done nothing but oppose this.
	So... I don't know, but she said the Sentencing Council is entirely independent, which is part of the problem, in fact.
	Now there's an independent woke quango that has control over the courts that we can't democratically remove people from.
	Yeah, actually, good point, Shabana.
	That's exactly one of the problems with the Blairite state.
	Yeah, no, they're entirely independent.
	Yeah, okay, what are they doing then?
	For this entire Blairite project, we're going to take every aspect of power of the state and we're going to put it in a quango, stuff it with our people, so that we control the state forever.
	Yes. That's precisely the point, and precisely the problem with this.
	And so, the Labour government, who themselves are consciously a continuation of the Blairite project, after the Conservatives, after Labour, and Tony Blair himself, have come out and been like, yeah, so, I don't know what this quango's doing, I don't agree with it.
	It's like, okay, well, you are the government, You could do something about that?
	And so instead they say, I'll be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and recommend reversing- Just change the guidance!
	Oh yes!
	I wrote them a letter!
	Oh well, I guess there we go, job done!
	It better have been strongly worded.
	I'm sure it was very strongly worded.
	Right? And so she says, as someone from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law or anyone of any kind.
	So this is, you know, a perfectly reasonable and sensible position for someone She's only the justice minister.
	What could she possibly do?
	She's only the person who decides all of this.
	On the other side, you had Robert Jemrick, who was the only Conservative to make a lot of noise about this.
	Now again, there was another voice that was remarkably absent from this.
	Did anyone hear anything on Nigel Farage from this?
	Nope. I will look into that right now.
	I don't remember a word.
	He may have made a tweet or something, but this went under his radar for some reason.
	At least, I didn't see it.
	Anyway, if not, why wasn't I just hearing it non-stop that two-tier Keir and his two-tier Blairite society were going to literally make straight white men the underclass?
	I guess it's just not an issue that's important to him.
	I guess not.
	I mean, he's only got grandkids.
	Anyway, so, yeah, Robert Jenrick was the, and again, the one Conservative who was okay with this, who's against this, and actually decided to make a, kick up a big stink about it.
	Every other Conservative MP is just like, I think Farage might have spoken about it at a reform conference when giving a speech the other day because I can't obviously listen into it right now but there's a Facebook post where he was saying tonight I will speak live on illegal migration sentencing guidelines and Labour's NHS lies.
	And what's the date on that?
	That was yesterday.
	Right, so a full month after this has all been done, and after we've got the result, Nigel Farage is finally prepared to come out against two-tier sentences.
	So he's slightly behind Labour on this.
	He's massively behind the curve.
	Keir Starmer came out and condemned this.
	Yep. Right?
	Like, long before Nigel Farage.
	So anyway, I'm just going to show you how useful Nigel Farage is.
	So anyway, on the 11th of March, Robert Jenrick presented a private members' bill to Parliament, which was There we go, you can see it.
	Just to make sure that the Sentencing Council is actually beholden to the Secretary of State.
	So they can't just do this without the approval of at least a member of government, right?
	So it's no longer independent, it would be actually directly under an elected official.
	So the Sentencing Council go, look, we've got this thing we want to send out to the courts, we need you, an elected official, to sign off.
	Okay, that's actually a much better structure.
	It's not an independent Quango that gets to do whatever the hell it likes without any accountability.
	This was shot down by Shabana Mahmood.
	Oh! Right.
	She blocked it.
	Yes. So...
	Hang on a minute.
	You're trying to introduce law to stop a bad thing happening.
	Have you considered a letter instead?
	Yes. The bad thing that she herself has condemned, there will never be two-tier sentencing under my watch because my letters are deeply important to the Sentencing Council.
	Which they can just ignore.
	But she is also going to block a legal challenge to make it so she can't do this.
	So, just a quick thing as well.
	This bill was presented by Jamrick, but it was also supported by Kemi Badenoch, Rebecca Harris, Dr. Kieran Mullen and Helen Grant.
	So Badenoch was also backing this.
	Fair enough.
	Worth pointing out.
	But for some reason, Mahmood was just like, no.
	It's interesting that she rejected it because this would actually fit quite in line with Keir Starmer having abolished ... NHS England, which was itself a quango and...
	I mean, part of the Labour goals at the moment seem to be to attempt to re-centralise a lot of the power strictly within government and take away some of the power that was originally created with those quangos in the first place.
	Because they're back in charge now, I imagine the quangos were like a, well this'll keep us in charge during Conservatives and then when we get back in- Yeah, we don't need them now.
	We'll re-centralise everything because we don't need them anymore.
	If it helps, it seems to be a genuine- like, there's been a changing of the guard in Labour, right, from the Blairites Bureaucrats want to bureaucrat.
	And half their bureaucrating has been pushed out to Krangos.
	The thing carried on.
	Apparently Mahmood's letter didn't work.
	And so Labour threatened the two days before the guidelines were due to come into effect, the Sentencing Council had refused Mahmood's request to rethink it.
	And so she threatened them with legislation that would override them.
	Okay, okay, okay.
	Maybe something will happen here.
	Maybe. And no, it didn't.
	Are you telling me that Nothing happened?
	Oh dear.
	So, just absolute Lib Dem voting pons, basically.
	There are two paths for the Anglo to choose, and he chose the wrong one.
	Yeah, but he absolutely looks like the kind of person who really likes Ed Davis, right?
	Yeah, easily could have been a turnip farmer in the 8th century.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely, absolutely right.
	But anyway, so he rejected their demands saying that claims that judges were intervening on policy mean any judge or magistrate required to sentence an offender must do all they can to avoid difference in outcome based on ethnicity?
	What? Did you not read your own guideline?
	It's the direct opposite of what it does.
	Yes, like the the guideline itself.
	Let's get the guideline up, shall we?
	Just because it's just one of those, like, preposterous statements.
	Right here, like, reduce, consider the following, uh, to reduce the, uh...
	The thing is, here'd be one of those lefties who thinks that certain people start three steps behind and therefore at every opportunity...
	That is 100% true.
	And then that is balance.
	Yeah. So anyway, just a preposterous statement from Lord Justice William Davies.
	So anyway, why reduce it because of it?
	So the government eventually does bring forward legislation saying, look, okay, we are going to work with Parliament to fast-track this legislation to stop this from coming into effect.
	So we've written you the nice letter, We've rejected the conservative attempt to legislate on this, and now you've gone, yep, we're just going to keep doing it.
	Under the guise of anti-discrimination, we're going to make enforced discrimination the norm in the courts, and so Mahmood and Stahmer have actually gone, no, we will actually fast-track legislation if you don't back down from this.
	And they back down from it.
	It's like, right, okay, great.
	That's great.
	That's something at least, right?
	But what stops this from happening tomorrow?
	Well, the only reason it did happen this time is because Jenrick made a big fuss out of it.
	Yes. Otherwise, it just would have been one of those bureaucratic thing that just goes through the background.
	Because Jenrick was hammering this drum and two-tier Keir is already very sensitive to allegations of being two-tier.
	But the thing that I found really annoying about it, right, was Jenrick.
	Because, like, it's not that I don't like Jenrick, I do like him.
	But listen to this.
	Why don't they just abolish it?
	Because Keir Starmer suddenly woke up one morning and decided to abolish NHS England.
	Couldn't he just abolish the Sentencing Council?
	Don't you think you should do that?
	I think the Sentencing Council needs total reform.
	It is not right that you've got judges, unelected people, setting really crucial policies affecting our criminal justice system, like saying that certain groups should be privileged through the system over others.
	We want equality before the law.
	He's probably the best Tory, but he's still a Tory.
	Exactly. You know, no matter what good things a Tory does, they still end up as a Tory.
	They still end up as someone who fundamentally supports the Blairite Project.
	Listen to what he said there.
	I think it's terrible and unacceptable that unelected judges are making decisions for the legal system in Britain.
	Okay, but that's what that quango is, right?
	Every single time they do something, that's what they're doing.
	And so Mike Gray unbelievably made a good point.
	Like, why don't we just scrap it?
	No, I want to reform it.
	Reform it into what?
	We've come a long way from the common law system.
	Absolutely. He's suffering from a terrible bout of Tory, well, we can't do anything.
	This is terrible, but we can't do anything.
	The secret is, especially if you're in power, if you're in government, you can just do things.
	Which Keir Starmer showed us with NHS England, and is showing us in this case, we will literally just legislate if you don't do what we say, and what they do, they back down.
	The Society of Black Lawyers.
	Why? Does an openly sectarian organisation have to have any say on the legal sentencing guidelines for this country?
	I don't know.
	I mean, you could probably outlaw the Society on Black Lawyers using current anti-discrimination law.
	Oh, well, we couldn't do that, though.
	If you don't allow white, Asian or whoever lawyers into your society that are racially discriminating, you know, we could probably outlaw that using the current No, they only ever apply those rules one way.
	Exactly, they do, yeah.
	You're never going to see the Society of White Lawyers.
	Or maybe you see the Society of Asian Lawyers.
	Anyway, they say that this was terrible because they were an attempt, quote, to achieve equal treatment after racist two-tier policing for 500 years.
	Stop you there.
	You have not been here for 500 years.
	I don't care what Netflix has told you.
	I do not care.
	Saying that Henry VIII's trumpeter represents a black community in Britain for 500 years is preposterous.
	Since 1948, okay?
	First thing.
	But secondly, how does it achieve equal treatment if you're literally given time off your sentence because you are black?
	That's literally not equal treatment, so I'm tired of hearing this.
	And also, doesn't it just basically require every criminal in the country to convert to Islam?
	I mean, it opens the door to that.
	I know a lot of them convert in jail anyway, because they're fed up of getting beaten up.
	But if you get arrested, you just say, well, I am a Muslim, you know?
	And they'll be like, oh, are you?
	And it's like, yeah, I know I'm not dressed like one, but I don't have to be.
	Or you could say I'm transgender, but I don't have to look transgender.
	And then suddenly get put in the women's prison for a much shorter amount of time.
	Like, sorry, this is...
	I mean, this is literally what undid Nicola Sturgeon.
	But anyway, so Peter Herbert, the chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, says that, and then Pavan Dilwal, the head of the charity Revolving Doors, says the Chancellor's decision to block recommendations for pre-sentencing reports for minorities is to ignore lived experience, evidence and the disparity, the reality of disparity in our courts.
	And so this pre-sentencing was one of the few tools we have to challenge those disparities.
	By giving the courts their full context.
	Poverty, trauma, and racial discrimination.
	So those communities that may have a higher propensity towards crime anyway, and therefore a higher rate of recidivism, and therefore a higher length of sentencing because of past crimes that are contributing to the sentence of the current crime, they will get let off just purely because, well, they're brown, aren't they?
	That's not good enough.
	Well, I'm sorry he murdered somebody, Your Honour, but have you considered he does have traumatic mental health issues?
	Well, in that case, he's free to go.
	So, this leaves us, just to end this quickly, in exactly the...
	this is a perfect example of why this is everything that's wrong with Britain, right?
	So, the first time you've got the administrative Blairite state, no-one's been fired, nothing's been changed, It's going to continue in perpetuity.
	It's going to be that Labour governments are at war with their own Labour Bureaucrat state.
	Great. What are they trying to do?
	Literally create a racial caste system to give minorities privileges over the majorities.
	And this has got, you can see this, you know, the charity, the Society for Black Lawyers, this has got a large, well-funded and protected activist class whose entire job is to create racial privileges for the people they belong to against the majority of the country.
	All the time there's stuff like this that flies under the radar that never makes it to the top of the news cycle.
	Exactly. This is why this is such an important.
	And the only real Any of those comment things?
	No, no, no.
	You've got plenty of time to tell us how you'll reform the entire system.
	Right. So I've got a question for you.
	Do we actually have our first choice as our elected representative?
	So, So, think about whatever constituency you live in.
	If you even know who your MP is, would that be your first choice as your person to represent you?
	I mean, at this point, my first choice would be Genghis Khan, so no.
	Right, so probably not then, but again, do you even know who your MP is?
	Yes. The point is though that is more or less what we're supposed to have.
	We're supposed to have the person who best represents you is the person who is your representative and clearly that is not happening.
	So that's the starting frame point I want to start with.
	I'm going to have to do a little bit of background because you see I have been doing some thinking lately about well the way that the The whole system works.
	It's a big big picture.
	The first part of my thinking on this was this video that I put out on the Daily Channel which is what's the points of cities.
	Now I'm going to try and very quickly cap my argument here because I think it is kind of key.
	So basically end of the 13th century you had a gravitation away from the land being the primary factor of production to capital being the main factor of production.
	So effectively went from an agricultural based society to a city based society where you got artisans and all the rest of it who emerged into industrialists and so on and it changed the entire system.
	So under the old system the two key factors of production was people and land and that was controlled by the bishops and the lord.
	So the bishops commands loyalty and the lords control land.
	Now as you start to move into towns and you get that rise of the artisans the proto-industrialists you get the rise of the money lenders you know the bankers as they come to be known you get a new mix which is going to be again people and.
	So again the controlling class here was politicians who control consent and the banker and the industrialist who controls capital.
	Okay and we've moved to this new system and what we're seeing now is a new shift from basically capital being the key factor of production to knowledge being the key factor of production in the digital age.
	Okay so So, you know, I'll come back to what I think that tells you.
	But if you do have capital, what can you do with it?
	Well, one of the things that you can do with it is you can go to the merch store and you can buy a t-shirt and then you will have deployed your capital into something useful.
	So anyway, what's the new model?
	If I follow this logic, that the key factor of production is the power class and the people who can command either you know loyalty or consent or other are the second part of that equation.
	What does the new governing structure have to look like in a digital age?
	Well it's basically you need to control again people and knowledge so but this time it's leverage and knowledge so it's tech bros controlling the government We're already seeing that in the United States, and it is influencers controlling the people.
	Because they do.
	Because when people are thinking...
	Well, this is the point of the BBC.
	If you look at it now, the BBC in the 20th century having essentially a monopoly on almost all information that people received.
	Well, less and less.
	No, no, but think about it.
	So up until, what was it, 1995 or something, there were only three terrestrial TV channels anyway.
	And then I think it was like 1990 that Sky came in, but that's a barrier to entry anyway that most people didn't have.
	And so for about 50 odd years, or 60 years in Britain, the BBC had just literally a monopoly on the information that TV watchers would have.
	That's incredible.
	That's the sort of thing the Soviet Union was trying to have.
	And essentially they're trying to control consent.
	consent for the industrialist and the banker controlling everything behind the scenes which they do and they use media in order and they use politicians in order to get that yeah so you can see this whole dynamic repeats time and time again if you want if you if you're really interested before the agricultural system it was just hunter gatherers and the only factor there was was people um so you know the tribal chief or whatever but you can see this consistent times yeah consistent theme of how Power works.
	Quick thing on that as well, just to be clear.
	I agree with your broad analysis of the economy.
	I think it's worth pointing out that this is a very English analysis you're giving, because from the 13th century onwards, England had a thriving land market.
	Most places didn't have a thriving land market.
	Like, for example, by at least the 15th or 16th centuries, England wasn't a peasant society and didn't have any peasants.
	Yes. Whereas most countries...
	I don't concern myself with the foreigners, like the French or whatever.
	Just to make it clear to people watching, you have this work with the Russian 19th century peasant commune, right?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, in the earlier video that I showed, I mean, a key split point was the Black Death, where basically, if you're an English peasant, you got more, because there was fewer of you, so you were able to You're able to collectively bargain for better conditions, you're able to move around, and that's what allowed the formation of the early towns, because people could go and reposition themselves to somewhere else.
	In Russia, it worked the opposite way around, because with two spread out, the Black Death actually increased the power of the aristocracy.
	Really? I didn't know that.
	And that led to the problems they had later on.
	Moving on with the theme, this is actually something that the wife showed me, because she doesn't use the Twitter, she uses the Facebook.
	This is the ultimate boomer screenshot.
	Yes. You can see the reflection of your phone on the screen.
	You couldn't just take a screenshot?
	No, she did this.
	Oh okay, alright.
	Anyway, so she found this thing about some lefty on the Facebook complaining about how this kind of works.
	And I won't go into it all now because it's a typical wordy blah-de-blah lefty thing.
	But anyway, he's basically saying if you confuse what Musk is trying to achieve with Doge, and he goes through it all and he basically says the power is with the PayPal mafia, the tech bros essentially, and they're trying to take over government and it's this dark magma agenda and they're going to basically get rid of elections and democracy because it's obsolete.
	Elite and you know they're gonna push this through and all that kind of stuff.
	And they might create a Quango or something.
	I wish we lived in this kind of world.
	Exactly! So my first reaction to this is what I always see when I see a Lefty explain a post, if only.
	But actually I think he's got a big part of it.
	I actually think the thing about the tech bros taking power is That is a real thing.
	That is really going to happen.
	And it's consistent with what happened before.
	When the artisans and the industrialists started to become powerful, they started forming guilds.
	And that was the basis of the modern power structure that we have today.
	the capital class came together and created that.
	Just a quick moment, that's the entire liberal revolution, the bourgeois revolution of middle class capital learning people who wanted to break through the feudal social Yes. Yes.
	Control the key factor of production, it was inevitable that they were going to get that power.
	And the true break point for this, a little bit of history, was...
	I just noticed another one of his little things there.
	The strategy is to gut the government via RAGE.
	Retire all government employees.
	That's amazing!
	We need to adopt the RAGE strategy.
	And make the government incapable of operating!
	Yes sir!
	I think he's right, he's just a little bit early.
	But actually, I think he's more or less right, and I'm just explaining why.
	Now the key break point for when this happened the last time round was going to be the Great Reform Act of 1832.
	You find that particularly funny, do you, Harry?
	You're still sniggering over the last thing.
	I'm just feeling the urge to rage right now.
	I just love this.
	I love this to make, to use distraction and chaos to prevent public resistance.
	Why would there be public resistance?
	The people looting them on the daily.
	I should have given you guys more time on this.
	Great Reform Act 1832.
	Parliament has failed us before.
	Now why was the Great Reform Act of 1832 so necessary?
	It's because the parliamentary system that we had was still wedded to the old structure, the landed system.
	So you had rotten boroughs, you had landed aristocracy who were controlling things and were massively over-represented.
	So some of these rotten boroughs you'd have, so for example you'd have no parliamentary seats for entire new cities that had merged or towns that had merged.
	They'd have no parliamentary representation but some little village somewhere would have like several MPs and it would be basically controlled by whoever the landed aristocracy in the area would say oh yeah we want that guy.
	Right so there's actually a good example fairly near us.
	There's an old Pre-Norman Hillfort, called Old Sarum, that I went to and visited.
	It's very nice and stuff.
	Was that a constituency once?
	It was.
	Right. I think also Crickley, down the road, was a rotten borough as well.
	Because literally there were two people living in Old Sarum, something like that, because the thing was...
	Were they both MPs?
	Probably, yeah.
	No, no, that's probably it, actually.
	And they voted for each other.
	But there was basically no population in this old ruined Norman...
	Because the Normans built a castle on it.
	But then...
	Yeah, and almost certainly how that would have worked is whichever Sorry, yeah, that's exactly it!
	Like, it was Edward I who in 1295 gave Sarum the right to return two members to the House of Commons, and yet if you actually went there, it's a desolate ruin, right?
	It's a hill.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's got a ruined castle on top of it.
	It was as deserving of political representation as anywhere else, Karl.
	Well, it was when it was a Norman king, right?
	Anyway, yeah, so.
	So, anyway, right, so, um, that, that, in 18th, and, you know, Think about how long it persisted, right?
	Because the model effectively changed at the end of the 13th century.
	There's literally 500 years.
	Yeah. Yeah, until 1832 when they said, okay, we've got to reform this.
	Now, to be fair, things worked a little bit slower back then.
	But what it effectively was, is like I say, it was the capital class, it was the urban growth, it was the rising middle class.
	They're all asserting themselves and saying, no, that's not how it works anymore.
	We're working on a new system.
	Now we've moved over to away from capital to knowledge as being the key thing.
	By the way, if anyone doesn't believe me when I say that that is a real thing, explain to me why Netflix is a giant company and Blockbuster isn't.
	Oh, it's also...
	You didn't have to break my heart like that, Dan.
	Yeah, but it's also so obviously true because if you look at the companies that began the internet, most of them don't exist anymore.
	Yes. And yet the new ones are all knowledge-based companies that have used a different technique to Employ the technology to create the modern world to become what they are now.
	They're all tech companies.
	All the biggest companies are all tech companies, yeah.
	And yes, they have accumulated a lot of capital, but that's a function of them having a lead on knowledge.
	It came downstream of the knowledge.
	Also, companies like Google, what's-his-face, talked about how they were set up using government money anyway.
	A lot of them, oh yeah.
	A lot of them were already started by the government.
	A lot of them won contracts for stuff.
	Yeah, so on.
	But yeah, I mean, the Blockbuster v.
	Netflix thing is, okay, if you go back to 2005, Blockbuster had, well, if it was, something like 25,000 stores around the world, 80,000 employees.
	It was an institution.
	Yeah, it had all the capital base.
	Netflix just had a bit of extra code.
	And with that, they were able to...
	Well, Netflix used to deliver DVDs.
	They did.
	Initially, it wasn't a streaming service.
	But that was low capital based.
	Yeah. Yeah, and you transition.
	And all the big companies are knowledge-based, so I think it is inevitable that the tech pros are just going to take over government, as inevitable as it was that the industrialists and the bankers took over the parliamentary system.
	It's literally about productivity and efficiency.
	Exactly, right.
	So if knowledge is going to be the second piece, the governing, what's the balancing side of the equation?
	Who's going to control the people?
	And on this it has to be leverage.
	It has to be who can lever the eyeballs and the attention and the focus and the concerns.
	It's not Andrew Tate, is it?
	Well, it's going to be influencers.
	It's going to be people like us.
	Oh, no.
	Literally. See why adolescence is such an obsession for you now?
	I appreciate that this is...
	A little bit self-referential in the same way that...
	TikTokers are ruling the world!
	Well, yes, I mean, I know that, what was it, Aristotle or Socrates basically thought Philosopher Kings should be in charge?
	Plato. Plato, right, okay, and then Curtis Jarvin thinks that Californian tech bros should be in charge, and here I am saying that...
	You think that you should be in charge.
	Well, yes, yes, but I do think I'm essentially correct on this, because what is the system that we've got at the moment?
	So I come back, you know, we started with Nobody has their first choice as their MP, right?
	Maybe some people in Rupert Lowe's and Nigel Farage's constituency would consider them the first choice.
	I mean, you could suggest that sort of 30% of people in every constituency who vote Labour are getting their first choice if you're a Labour MP.
	Yeah, but no, but they're getting their first choice of party.
	They're not getting their first choice of person.
	Sure. Yeah, it's just whoever the party decides to stand in that area.
	Yes. So, um, What I'm suggesting is we have the technology to easily implement something much closer to a direct democracy system.
	Now, I'm not...
	I don't actually think we want to go with direct democracy.
	Oh really, why not?
	Well, because most people aren't interested and they're not going to take the time to study these things.
	That's the worst reason.
	The reason we don't know what direct democracy is is because direct democracies are bonkers.
	People believe bonkers things.
	Remember, something like 50% of people are conspiracy theorists.
	In some way.
	Oh yeah, the moon landing stuff.
	You don't want to put the great search for Bigfoot on to vote?
	I mean, I do, but that's also one of the points I don't, because, okay, fine, great search for Bigfoot's a good idea, but what this reveals is that, essentially, the public at large are very susceptible to demagoguery.
	Hang on, how are we sectioned?
	We already know this.
	Parliament is susceptible to demagoguery, or whatever the word you use.
	Well, no, Parliament isn't susceptible.
	They want this.
	They want.
	Adolescence. How is it worse if we spend our time on Bigfoot as opposed to adolescence?
	I'd say Bigfoot's a much more noble cause.
	It's not about Bigfoot, though.
	It's about, look how people have been propagandised about Ukraine.
	A successful demagogue can easily drag you into wars very, very efficiently.
	It's actually very easy to get people to drum up for this.
	And against what's at stake is good for the country as well.
	Under our current system, people will vote for people who say we won't drag you into a war, and then they get dragged into a war anyway.
	That is true.
	Yes. It might just be that the whole democracy thing is a yes in the first place.
	I agree.
	I'm not saying there aren't issues with democracy.
	And that the people in charge will do whatever they want anyway.
	If you think about it, a representative democracy sort of It softens the blow of direct democracy.
	It helps the medicine go down.
	It resists the excesses of it.
	If we have a direct democracy, it's literally the most popular guy who makes the point.
	Andrew Tate is way more popular than every politician in this country.
	So I am suggesting a representative system.
	I'm simply making the point that we have the technology that it actually is viable to have a direct democracy.
	There's no reason why you couldn't have...
	I'm not sure we should, though.
	I agree.
	I am simply making the point that I have considered it and dismissed it.
	It's because we will literally be run by Love Island.
	Love Island.
	I'm simply making the point that it is still possible to do it.
	I think that might be better than what we have right now.
	To be fair, the Dino Reich might be better than what we have.
	The Dinoocracy.
	Because you could have an app on your phone and every time...
	By public taxpayer expense for everyone!
	You could have an app on your phone where every time a bill came through Parliament, each individual got to vote on it.
	I think most people wouldn't.
	Most people would rather delegate that over to somebody else.
	The thing is, you could always take that as consent, anyway.
	If you didn't vote for it, then you just agreed with whatever the outcome is.
	Or, if you don't get quorum, it doesn't go through, which would be even better, because then nothing would ever happen.
	But anyway, so I do agree with the point with a representative system, but the problem we've got at the moment is very centralised parties, and basically they've become more gatekeepers than anything else.
	100%. Yeah, their entire job is to keep out people who have views that they don't want.
	Which is why I'm kind of laughing at the idea that Rupert Lowell joined the Conservatives.
	So the solution is you let voters delegate to the individuals that they actually trust.
	We break the link with representation from geography because I don't think we need it anymore.
	There was a time when the concerns of a man from Winchester were largely the concerns of the other men from Winchester.
	It's not the case anymore.
	I've got neighbours who are I've got one guy down on the road who put up a Ukraine flag for six months.
	His concerns are not my concerns.
	My network of influence of concerns are built up online and they're geographically spread out.
	So we don't need that link with Would it not be a goal of anybody who wants to go back to a more wholesome Britain or to push us forward to a more wholesome Britain to try to decouple politics from this kind of National, globalist kind of mindset and say no your concern should be in your local constituency.
	That's what the local level is for.
	Right so let me get to it because we're 20 minutes in and I haven't got to it yet.
	Right so first thing I did is I needed to work out what I had to work with.
	So basically I took how much we spend on democracy.
	So this is not This is not ministers, this is not the executive, this is purely what we spend on the democracy layer, the representation layer at the moment.
	So you're not including the half million civil servants?
	No. No, all of that is out.
	This is purely the democracy layer, okay?
	So I added up all the costs.
	Yeah, there we go.
	You can check my maths if you want to go through I'm gonna skim through it now blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Oh, yeah, and I did I did local as well.
	So basically we're spending 1.6 almost 1.7 billion on the democracy layer at the moment And that's purely the like I say the legislative function and that's at least three days of NHS spending Yes that that that breaks out to about about a billion for the national level literally 1% of the NHS spending yes, so it is quite tiny and And, you know, about two-thirds of that for the local lever.
	So that's what I've got to work with to design a new system, right?
	So what I'm thinking is...
	The NHS costs more, a hundred times more, than democracy!
	This is going to be a three-hour segmentary if you don't let me get through it!
	I'm just finding it for the calculations!
	That is totally true!
	Right, so...
	Basically what I'm suggesting is that you basically get to allocate your votes to the person you want.
	Now I've got my budget for that, and I've set up certain tiers.
	I don't have time to go through it, but basically I set up certain levels.
	Office stipend, I'm not going to go through that as well.
	Again, limited time.
	So... You get to directly elect your influencer who's going to represent you, okay?
	And you pay them per vote.
	So if you've got a local representative, you can afford to pay them £14 per vote, right?
	And that means that you can have a low-level representative on a particular issue like a local park or hospital or something.
	You can get 500 votes.
	They're a local representative in your local council, right?
	And you can afford to pay them £10,000.
	But if you get 15,000 votes, you're up to £200,000, right?
	I reckon I get 50,000 votes.
	What do I get?
	Well, no, I'll come to you.
	You'll actually mention later on.
	So this makes being a representative a serious professional.
	Profession. Yeah.
	And also it's a very entry-level thing.
	You could have a retired person who gets into this, gets a small number of votes.
	And they get a nice little supplement.
	But also a young person coming into this can get into the representation game, okay?
	But it scales nicely with the more impact that you have, okay?
	Now look at it on the national level, okay?
	So I've proposed a smaller minimum there.
	You know, you need to get at least 5,000 votes.
	And again, what I'm envisaging is not A parliamentary system where you all stand up and get indoctrinated into things.
	You know, this can be done digitally, it can be done from home offices, although in fact I think what would happen a lot of the time is people would start to pool together in places like this, where they would discuss ideas between them.
	So you wouldn't have political parties, you'd have much closer to what influencers do at the moment, which they form networks of like-minded people.
	Conferences, basically.
	Yes, you sort of come together.
	But again, you know, here...
	Podcasts, perhaps.
	Government by podcast.
	Says podcasters.
	Yes, right.
	And look, you can afford to spend £21 per vote by simply reorganising the structure.
	So again, it's massively attractive.
	You only need 5,000 votes as a rep under this system and you're earning £350,000 a year.
	You could easily afford to run an office on that and do all the rest of it.
	But it actually incentivizes you to make that sort of direct connection right up to and let's say we because I want to limit it because you don't want thousands of them and you probably want to cap it because you want diversity otherwise you just have three MPs would be Jeremy Clarkson and Andrew Tate or something and I'd like to see how they come up with policy.
	I could think of worse ways of governing.
	No, I've been thinking this through.
	I'm going to develop this idea.
	I'm just throwing it out there at the beginning while I'm developing this idea.
	You get up to £150,000, you're earning almost £2 million a year as a representative.
	Now, I think I would put some restrictions in place, like no stock trading and stuff, and regular audits and things like that.
	One of the incentives of paying them a massive wage like that would be a disincentive for actually taking backroom dealings because you're already rich.
	Well, yes, and because, you know, there's no incentive to try and do all the lobbying shit or the backroom deals.
	Although you would probably still have to put a lot of rules in place because that could just be used for money to do even more backroom.
	Well, if you want to sign up for this, you're going to get audited every year and for ten years afterwards.
	You know, is this a deal you want to sign up for?
	So, it really incentivises the representative.
	and it links you get it to get to your bugger um that's the wrong thing there right now actually this is not wildly like out of line because people might say oh we can't it's got the largest electorate yeah so the isle of wight already has a situation where it's got a hundred over a hundred thousand people being represented by one mp and harry do you want to pronounce that for me nope right somewhere in probably wales or something has a constituency with only 20 000 people No, isn't that going to be Scottish?
	Or Northern Irish, maybe?
	It says Western Isles, so just say the Western Isles.
	Okay, somewhere, right.
	Anyway, so some bloody island somewhere has an electorate of 20,000.
	So we already have a system where you have wildly disproportionate...
	Except in my system, if you've got 150,000 votes, you are on a weighted basis.
	That's how much you're casting.
	Whereas you've got 5,000, if you've got a niche interest, you know, Transveganism or something, you know, there'll be somebody who gets elected on that platform.
	You know, you're only casting 5,000 weighted votes when it comes to this system, okay?
	Right. Oh bugger, I keep pressing the wrong button.
	Right, here we go.
	So then I thought I'd have a look at who would you end up as with MPs in this system?
	Now, this isn't entirely accurate, right, because we don't know all of their followers are British.
	Yeah. And some of these people over count, so people who follow Simon Cowell might also follow Ricky Gervais and so on, but it gives you a broad idea as to who you could reasonably expect.
	Do I want Piers Morgan to have an enormous amount of power in the British government?
	He kind of does, doesn't he?
	Yes, and I would like to take that away from him.
	Andrew Tait's got more followers than Piers Morgan.
	Don't know why he's got more than 4 million, he's got 10 million on Twitter.
	Oh, uh, okay.
	Are these just Twitter followers that you've taken?
	No, I kind of either went to YouTube or Twitter, whichever one was higher.
	Oh okay.
	Right, but how much more interesting would this be as a parliament?
	So Simon Cowell, JK Rowling.
	Now I don't know whether these people would do it because they might just be too busy with their other thing but they don't want to do this and they don't want to sign up to the intrusiveness of the audits and stuff like this right?
	Sure. But you would have a parliament that looks more like this.
	Jeremy Clarkson.
	Now the other clever thing about this is because it's captured 150,000 votes, You'd be wasting your vote if actually 8 million people voted for Jeremy Corbyn.
	So you'd incentivise the people to distribute their votes effectively.
	That's interesting.
	Now, we currently have wasted votes in our current system.
	We have millions of wasted votes in our current system.
	Two thirds of votes are wasted.
	Yes. Because if you've got a majority of 15,000, well, 14,999 of those are wasted.
	If you look at just any constituency, like the last one, it was Labour-Tories reform.
	Yeah, and all of those are wasted as well.
	Yeah, and as well as like Lib Dems and Greens, so yeah.
	Right, so what the...
	Oh bugger, I keep pressing...
	Right, Andrew Tate, James Corden, Russell Brown, Nigel Farage...
	I don't know who KSI is, maybe...
	You don't know who KSI is?
	No clue.
	Then keep it that way.
	Right, okay.
	There's you, Karl!
	Oh yeah, look at me.
	You could be an MP under this system.
	Yep. Tommy, he makes it on.
	Owen Jones, someone you would have leftists as well.
	Yeah, Jeremy Corbyn would be on there.
	Jeremy Corbyn's basically an influence.
	Katie Hopkins, she could be in.
	Philip Schofield, so we've not solved one problem with current government.
	I put Narendra in out of order, but I just wanted to have her next to Laurence Fox, because they would probably both make it in as well.
	Paul Joseph Watson.
	We've got Campbell back in there.
	Unfortunately, James O'Brien would probably be it.
	Don't know who Joe Wicks is, or Stacey Solomon, or Holly Willoughby.
	Joe Wicks is literally a fitness influencer who tells you how to get 15 minute abs.
	I'd love to see what his policies would be.
	15 minute abs?
	I don't think so.
	Mind you, if it's only 15 minutes, I'll give it a try and report back.
	Julie Hartley Brewer.
	Rupert Lowe, I think he would make it back in.
	He's probably one of the very few MPs who would make it back in and under this system.
	Oh yeah, most MPs would not make it back in.
	Sorry, how many followers do you have to have on social media?
	Well, so basically my system I'm imagining is you'd have some sort of app where you would nominate who your representative is.
	Yeah. So, and then, you know, you'd need a minimum of 5,000 and anything over 150,000 was wasted.
	Right, right, right.
	Okay, yeah, right.
	So if you had something like 300,000 people nominate you, you would probably then say to them, because you've got an engaged base, actually I only need the first 150, why don't you go and support, you know, Harry or Dan or something like that.
	You've got 37.7 thousand followers.
	Oh, don't worry!
	Just about.
	No, no, no!
	I'm coming to that.
	Oh, alright.
	Ash Sarkar, Peter Hitchens, Constantine, he would make it as well, wouldn't he?
	Dan Hodges, Aaron Bastani, he would make it in.
	Dominic Cummings.
	How much of a better parliament would this be, even if it was digital online?
	Gary's... Just a quick thing.
	You could set this up and just have it virtually legislate, and it wouldn't have any real world effect, but it would be an interesting debating clause, basically.
	I don't think anything would get done in this parliament.
	Well no, likely for the best.
	It wouldn't have the power to do anything, but like, actually it would be an interesting sort of virtual representation.
	What would they do as a parliament if they had the option, right?
	But these people actually represent what people want.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	These are the people who capture the attention.
	These are the people that speak to the concerns of people.
	Is there any reason why this shouldn't be how it works?
	Because I don't want KSI in parliament.
	Worse than...
	Well, some of the twats we've got there now, I don't know.
	They're worse than Diane Abbott.
	I don't want any of them involved.
	I might have spent a bit too much time on them.
	We have a lot better representation than they do at the moment.
	There we go.
	You get a mention.
	I've only got 37,000 followers.
	I rounded to you, it was 10. Thank you very much.
	There we go.
	Both of us.
	Although I don't necessarily agree with the description there, Dan.
	I think I gave you a pretty good description there.
	Anyway so the point this would be such a better way of doing it because you could have a whole so you'd have all of these guys presumably then you'd have a whole bunch of special interests they'd all they'd all vote on there's no reason why you need to meet up in Parliament in person anymore you just don't need to operate on that system and the other the other cool thing that it would do as well and this sort of speaks to your point Karl it kind of abolishes political parties yeah You wouldn't need them in this system, and they wouldn't work in this system.
	Instead, you'd have networks.
	Like, we've got a network that includes us, but people like Academic Agent and Ed Dutton and a whole bunch of other people.
	It's kind of a network.
	We don't directly control each other or anything.
	We just think along similar lines, and we'll get together every now and again.
	That's what a political party would look like in this system.
	I think that'd be a really nice idea, Zox.
	I mean, any MP can provide So what I want to try and do is I'm going to work on this a bit more but my idea is is we need to get to at some
	point ... hammering the political class just like in the early 1800s they're hammering and saying hang on we can't have rotten boroughs anymore this system Parliament needs reform.
	I'm going to work this idea up and I'm going to get everybody talking about it and we're going to start hitting over the next couple of decades Parliament and saying you need reform you need to move over to this new system.
	Just keep hammering them, put them on the defensive.
	I need Andrew Tate in there now.
	Yes, yes.
	So anyway, I think that would work.
	Let me know in the comments if you've spotted any flaws.
	Not that you will, but tell me just how great an idea it is.
	And yes, we will move over to this system imminently.
	Very interesting.
	Yes. We'll see how the government and the country fares with that.
	Let's go to the video.
	It is a work in progress, Harry, but I think we're getting there.
	It's not a terrible idea.
	It's an interesting proposal.
	I would like to be paid.
	GLE for $20 says thank you.
	Government by podcast and executive order by Super Chat for max chaos.
	Like those streams where people have chaos mods on video games.
	All I'm saying is if the government was exclusively funded by Super Chats, that would be way more democratic than it is at the moment.
	It'd be way more democratic, and you'd actually be able to put your money where your mouth is, and probably get the things that you wanted.
	If it was like, literally, your elected streamer, you know, he's like, look, I've got to do an hour of constituency- So all MPs would just be Twitch IRL streamers walking around with- It doesn't have to be IRL, they could be in the bedroom.
	There'd be so much walking around- There'd be a bedroom!
	Asmongold style, just like, rats infesting the place.
	Yeah, but Asmongold is also, he's also quite- Quite a base guy.
	And he needs to clean his room.
	Yeah, sure, he needs to clean his room.
	But like, otherwise, you know, Asmongold seems fine.
	He seems like a fine guy, yeah.
	Actually, somebody did spot a Fairpoint scanline saying how quickly before it's run by OnlyFanThots.
	Actually, that would be a problem.
	Well, we'll have to legislate against thottery.
	Thankfully, because we'll have...
	Well, you'd need to do that before you implement the system, don't you?
	Oh, yeah, sure.
	But, you know, anyway...
	Who knows what those women would be doing?
	Somebody says, Yes, legitimately.
	Yes, that is true.
	Also, all of the other Brokenomics are also insanely good.
	Well, thank you.
	Like they have mock trading apps where you can trade with a pot of 10,000, try and win stocks as a teenager.
	Yes, I like your idea of bringing it in virtual and then you can prove that this is the superior system and then transition towards it.
	I think we've got another great reform act a couple of decades in our future.
	Moreover, the more you acclimatise people to it and make it an interesting thing to watch, the more they'll be like, why isn't it done this way?
	The old way will seem archaic.
	Alright, let's go through the video comments.
	I know we've got quite a few of these, so we'll extend it by maybe five to ten minutes to accommodate.
	Harry, I ordered Islander 3 before I received Islander 2. You know what that means?
	You need to buy my books!
	Witness the Star Warriors assembling and saving the world in the Axon Saga.
	And read Final Flight of the Renegade, the epic sci-fi fantasy.
	Its sequel is in development.
	Go to cscooper.com.au and use the promo code SAVEHARRY for a 20% discount.
	These are the kind of sponsorships I appreciate, though.
	He has got a point, though.
	The Islander 2s have been sent out by Pete now, because we got just persistently screwed over by the distributor, so we're just manually sending them ourselves.
	Much apologies.
	But that's a perfectly good video comment.
	No, no, no, I was mainly confused as to why you started directing it at me to begin with.
	Obviously, thank you for trying to stave me from Stelios's bullying.
	Honestly, the man's a monster.
	Nothing will stop him.
	Should we be charging him an advertising rate rather than a gold tier?
	Well, the gold tier is technically the advertising rate, right?
	If he can put up a video comment, then there we go.
	And if we get one from Coca-Cola or something, that might change.
	Dan's already thinking of ways to screw over the gold subscribers.
	Now that he's spoken to all of them on the Zoom call, he's like, how can I get more money from you?
	Is that the card?
	It is, yeah.
	Um, did a drama, it's forgotten about, called, I think it's called Clash of Eagles.
	Before his disturbingly good role as Sir Janus in One Clavdivs, Patrick Stewart appeared as Lenin in the 13-part series Fall of Eagles.
	You know, one day, the whole of Europe will be one vast socialist state.
	Dramatising key moments between 1848 and 1918, the series shows the troubling moires of the time, and the slow but inevitable march to the ultimate cataclysm of the age.
	I tell you, this scheme of yours succeeds, Bettenberg Holvey.
	It will become something which Germany one day will live to regret.
	I cannot recommend it enough.
	I have seen clips from that pop up of Patrick Stewart as Lenin and it did look excellent so thank you for telling me what the name was.
	Is that Captain Picard as well?
	I don't think so, I think that's just a man with a moustache.
	Okay, fair enough.
	Okay, fair enough.
	A.I. has gone too far, man.
	Like, the potential is just incredible though, isn't it?
	Nigel Farage, he'd be offering a helping hand.
	Let me help you get to the shore.
	I don't think Farage would do that, but that is a nicely put together A.I. clip.
	Most extraordinary day a day which has seen I have never seen so many white people in one place It's an extraordinary story.
	There are people everywhere.
	There are crowds everywhere Right That's me every time I walk into like a rock gig in a big city like Manchester.
	I've never seen so many white people in one place So This is actually something that a fan, Brittany Johns, fellow lotus eater, had wanted to send me since the COVID years and it has finally, finally arrived.
	This is her rendition of a character from one of my novels.
	Creature by Kaz.
	I think it's very well made.
	That's very cute.
	I really, really appreciate this form of economy as well, right?
	It's not just, you know, megacorporation has created 32nd hyper, you know, expensive advert and now propaganda, propaganda.
	It's like, you know, it feels like the sort of village economy of like the Middle Ages or something where it's just independent, you know, Producers and landowners and artisans being like, yeah, here's the thing that we've done.
	Here's the thing that we've done.
	Look at something our Sarah made.
	Yeah, exactly, right?
	And so it feels totally wholesome and like...
	I still think we should be charging him whatever we charge Ground News.
	I told you!
	But I think that's such a good, like, step into the future, you know?
	This is what the internet really should be for, is individuals who are working themselves.
	Yes. Like, literally, like back when, you know, 14th century England, when the guy's, like, choosing to labour for himself for the first time, rather than being a serf, right?
	Like, it's such a wholesome step forward.
	Is this another one from- Harry?
	I ordered Island of- I think- No, we've looped!
	I think, uh, there was another one, perhaps?
	Samson, what's going on?
	We've not run out of video comments, have we?
	Because you told me we had loads.
	Yeah, you know what?
	I thought there were more.
	You thought there were more?
	Oh, alright, well...
	It's just the same ones on loop, we just...
	Well, we'll go through five minutes of comments on the website then.
	Oh, right, okay, yes.
	I'll get some.
	Cheers. Oh, okay, if you want to read them.
	It's alright, I'll do them.
	George says, All Netflix shows are subversive propaganda meant to demoralize you.
	Remember Cuties?
	Well, Cuties wasn't actually a Netflix show, it's just Netflix were like, oh, we definitely want that.
	Yeah, we want the exclusive rights to distribute CP on our platform.
	Anyway, someone online says, Adolescence is a Tumblr arena makes up a scenario to get mad at a situation, give it a bunch of funding and then push on to everyone else.
	I mean, only by the authors of it.
	Like, that's their admission.
	But even then, I think they're just lying about that.
	Well, yeah, they've given many conflicting stories.
	At first it was inspired by two specific incidents, then they say, no, we made the whole thing up.
	And then Stephen Graham comes out and says, well, actually, it was inspired by lots of different things.
	Omar's made a good point here.
	Gentlemen, you should know by now that inceldom has nothing to do with sex.
	It's all down to insufficiently caving to the feminine longhouse.
	Literally, that's all it comes down to.
	Which is why Andrew Tate can be held up as an incel icon.
	Andrew Tate's the complete other way.
	He needs to be less of a degenerate.
	It's literally the opposite problem.
	North FC Zuma says, well, most of Europe is just one step away from genocide, giving the amount of gang rape, all those bloody insults.
	Yeah, I mean, that literally...
	I mean, unironically.
	Yeah. Jimbo says, Two-tier care, trying to bring each cord into their ability to prison system.
	No, this wasn't Keir, actually, and I hate to have to defend Keir Starmer from the Blairite establishment that he then had to Threatened to legislate against this this actually he did come out against this fairly early earlier than Farage and so did his justice Saying much came out against it yesterday.
	Yeah, exactly after it had been resolved.
	Thanks. I didn't hear that.
	Has Keir Starmer come out yet?
	Against the two-tiered king.
	But a lot quicker than Farage did.
	Yes. So, you know, interesting.
	Nick says, are there new sentencing guidelines an attempt to get in front of any vigilantism that's undoubtedly on the way?
	No, no, what this was is an attempt at social justice.
	That was the entire point.
	They want, they, honestly, from their point of view, they think that the brown population is just violent and not competent.
	And so they need special treatment.
	Which is why you need to put them in prison less when they commit violent crimes.
	Yeah, otherwise it's an inequality.
	As far as the sentencing counsel is concerned, their propensity for violence puts them in jail more.
	It's like, well look man, I just think we should all be treated the same.
	It's kind of what prison's for.
	Well yeah, there is that.
	Colin says multiculturalism has indeed been a success.
	It's doing exactly what it's intended to do.
	Angus says Wellington warned us that the Great Reform Act would fundamentally damage the traditional nature of Britain.
	We should have listened.
	It's going to fundamentally damage the traditional rotten borough.
	It was our great tradition.
	I should quickly point out the system I proposed is not my ideal solution.
	I'd probably rather go back to a monarchy or something.
	It's just more...
	I'm saying that is what will happen, because it's always those key factors of production that end up governing.
	So I'm just saying that it will happen, or something like it, not that I think that that is my preferred solution.
	Honestly, it does sound like an episode of Black Mirror.
	Yes, my preferred solution would be me as king, or somebody...
	I think you are right.
	The productive forces can't be contained by the old order.
	Yes. That gives rise to the new mode of production.
	It is inevitable that we get.
	Even if it was only...
	Even if the actual physical working of the system didn't change, the way people are getting their information about who they want to vote for would change.
	So, the only reason the old system works is because the boomers still watch terrestrial TV.
	Yes. That's the only reason you're not seeing Andrew Tate's in Parliament.
	So that's why I give our current system two more decades, because 2045 and you'll be a post-boomer.
	Exactly, right?
	And so when no one watches the TV, when there's no filter on the information people get, you are going to get just wild conspiracy theory types popping up.
	You're going to get the Manosphere types popping up.
	You know, a proportion of insane feminists.
	And those guys will capture the attention and the leverage.
	Exactly. And even if the current system doesn't change, The people who go through it will still end up being the massive influencers.
	Yep. The Unbreakable Litany says, it's alright Dan, we just go military elective monarchy and the problems go away.
	To be honest with you, I'd be up for that.
	Yeah, so would I. Elective monarchy.
	So would I, but what I'm trying to describe is not what I want to happen, what I think will happen because it follows the power dynamic that has always existed and every time there's been a power shift before, that has ended up what's happening.
	But I bet the people on the Maybe you could ask the editors to edit this little bit into the video so that they're not confused.
	The thing is, though, it's kind of cringes.
	It's like, look, I just want my base dictatorship.
	It's like, okay, but that's not going to last, right?
	That's not going to last, right?
	But what you want is the opportunity of a government, because a government is for everyone, so you have to have a government that does include the lefty subversives.
	But what you want is one that just gives a preponderance towards baseness, right?
	Like, what serves the people's interests.
	And I think if you go direct, you will get that.
	Exactly, because at the moment, like, essentially, they do everything by avoiding the electorate.
	I think the entire point at the moment is gatekeeping.
	Exactly, because the electorate is way more based than the politics in this country.
	There isn't a single politician we have got who's in any way in favour of the death penalty, whereas most of the electorate are in favour of the death penalty.
	So on that issue, the electorate is insanely far right, Compared to our lefty liberal politicians.
	It's like, okay, yeah, but that wouldn't be the case if we had something like this.
	We'd be hanging nonces every goddamn day.
	It'd be amazing.
	But anyway, we're over time, so...
	And with that, and on hanging nonces, I think it's time that we end this episode.
	Join us again tomorrow for the podcast.
	Thank you for joining us today.

▲