Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 1, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:02

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1155

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of Lotus Eaters, if I can get that right.
	For Thursday, the 1st of May, 2025, I am joined by Josh and Harrison Pitt.
	Thanks for coming in, Harrison.
	And today we're going to be talking about how the public in Britain is not happy at all, how the Dark Lord Tony Blair is clearly in command of everything that's happening, and how Sadiq Khan isn't an Englishman.
	It's a day ending in Y. I woke up this morning, Sadiq Khan was on my Twitter feed.
	So, day ruined.
	And I was like, right again, I know what I'm talking about in the podcast today.
	You know, fucking English, Sadiq.
	Anyway.
	A bit of continuity between these as well.
	Yeah, I know.
	There is.
	Yeah, there is.
	Anyway, after the podcast, of course, is Calvin's Common Sense Crusade, so do tune in to lotuses.com for that.
	And so, let's begin.
	So, I saw this video going around this morning, and I'm sure it's just a meme video.
	If I can get it to play.
	I'm going to play.
	There we go.
	Right.
	As you can see, A chap with a British flag.
	Replying to Rupert Lowe, MP.
	Well, the only way to do it is that his army!
	Send for them!
	The military police!
	France should do the same!
	Such great...
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	All caps.
	Now, I'm sure this is a meme.
	I'm sure this isn't a real thing.
	But I think it does capture a very present spirit in the country at the moment.
	And that is, everyone is furious.
	Everything's crap, everything's falling apart, and people have decided that democracy just isn't that big a deal anymore, and they would rather get the problem solved.
	Have you encountered any real-life examples of this, perhaps?
	Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't want to out people publicly, but certainly there's a weariness and frustration and righteous indignation growing in the public at large.
	I think a particular...
	The cause of this isn't just the weekly casualties of diversity that anyone who's genuinely interested in what's going on in our country can find in the news, but just the palpable sense of decline and also the fact that what distinguishes the Boris wave from previous migration flows into this country,
	immigration being the main.
	The main cause of people's concerns, of course, is that it is just so visible on the streets of this country and the consequences of their being here is so visible.
	And so what were once kind of, you know, very familiar homely hamlets and towns are now just sort of saddled with these people.
	I saw one the other day just five miles away from Windsor, which is a beautiful city about 20 miles west of London.
	There was just this Somali chaps seemingly just causing a nuisance on...
	A lovely village road and people see this tangibly in their lives and they think we're supposed to live in a democracy.
	You would imagine that given that one of the words in democracy is demos.
	The demos would be able to exercise some control over who the demos was.
	That is arguably the most fundamental principle of self-determination.
	If freedom of association is violated to such an extent that the people, the demos, doesn't exercise control over what the demos is, then in no way can that be described as a democratic country upholding the principle of popular sovereignty.
	And so people just sense that we're a democracy in name only.
	If we're pretending to be a democracy and getting nothing for it for not being a democracy...
	It's worse than getting nothing for it.
	Getting actively replaced for it, we may as well just be more open and go for something much more like a military strongman.
	And I'm not saying that I would support that, but I do understand why people feel a need for there to be a stronger sense of identity between ruler and rule than often in the past.
	One man embodying the will of the people rather than these kind of oligarchic processes manipulating the will of the people strike people as more attractive.
	There is definitely a sense of that.
	I've actually found that there's not a single person in my life anymore that is unwilling to talk about the negative effects of mass migration, which is a massive change from just five years ago.
	And I don't think it's that everyone who objects to my political opinions has...
	You know, disappeared from my life.
	Quite the opposite, actually.
	Everyone's been quite supportive.
	I'm friends with quite a few left-wing people.
	You were right all along, Josh, is what they're saying.
	Yeah, there is an element of that going on.
	And I think people are far less afraid now that they see the existential threat to their civilization, more or less, not to sort of amp up the threat of it.
	But I think that that is how people are perceiving it.
	And I think that people's quality of life has tangibly gone down.
	The things that people are hearing are going on in our country are quite frankly horror stories compared to what we're used to.
	150 stabbings a day.
	Yeah, well, one stabbing in the country would have been national use for weeks before mass migration.
	And so people...
	Don't forget that sort of thing.
	When it comes to their personal safety and their quality of life, I think actually you've got to give the public a lot more credit for these sorts of things.
	I know people can be quite inattentive and it can be quite frustrating when you're following politics that people aren't necessarily aware.
	But they are aware of this sort of thing because it's of interest to everyone.
	And I think that this is what is shifting the public towards being more accepting of these sorts of things.
	Pretend that my circle in my life is representative of a greater whole.
	But I do think that there is a general trend of people more willing to talk about these things.
	And we see it in the media discourse, don't we?
	That now when people bring up mass migration, no one's saying, that's racist, you can't talk about that.
	That era is almost over, isn't it?
	Everyone's sort of conceding that, okay, this is legitimate to debate now.
	There is a problem here that is legitimate and people are justified in...
	Yeah, no, I think you're on something here, because I was thinking about this the other day, because I saw someone on Twitter call me a racist, and I was like, wow, it's been a long time.
	Very quaint.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's been a long time since I've been accused of being a racist, and it was a totally minor comment, and nobody cares.
	It's also one of the things that makes it especially frustrating, that at the very same time when the left's...
	Already very blunt rhetorical tools are becoming blunter still through overuse and have become blunt through overuse over the last 20 years.
	They're not even blunt now.
	They've become floppy.
	Yeah, and I think badges of honor even.
	It makes it very, very frustrating that rather than realizing the opportunity that this presents to do things that would have been unimaginable 20 years ago.
	What makes it even more frustrating, the fact that Reform and Farage in particular have been tacking to the centre, because public opinion isn't just this fixed thing.
	It's something that you can help to mould and to reshape, not by being Machiavellian, but by just being honest about what's going on in the country.
	And you can win people over.
	And people have never been...
	People's sentiments and their intuitions and their votes have never been more up for grabs.
	And you should be leaning into that rather than...
	It's a pattering around.
	It's strange how Farage is desperate to be behind the curve of the wave.
	But the thing is, the polling is all in.
	We know how the British public feels about the current state of affairs.
	Even Liberal Democrat voters would like...
	I saw a poll the other day, 52% of Liberal Democrat voters just want every legal deported.
	That's Liberal Democrats.
	More Labour, obviously almost every Conservative and Reform supporter.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, and something like 75% of Labour.
	And it's like, look, there's just no one on the other side of this.
	You know, you can't drop the ball by saying, I'm going to deport the illegals.
	And what did Farage do on the Winston Marshall podcast?
	No, what was it?
	It was with Edgerton, yes.
	No, I just don't want my name attached to my deportations.
	It's impossible.
	It's impossible.
	It's like, what are you talking about?
	You know, it's the most...
	It's a salient political issue right now, and everyone's in favour of it.
	Another quick detail I put in is that what's especially remarkable as well is the extent to which public opinion is radicalising at a time when, God bless the British public, they don't actually know a huge amount about the details of the issue's concern.
	No, they have no idea.
	So, for example, they have the right intuitions and the right sense of what's going on, so I don't begrudge them that.
	But when you ask British people, the average, the median British voter, like, what do you think net immigration is right about?
	70,000.
	I think it's 70,000.
	It's crazy.
	So think how much more radical they'd be.
	It might be over a million.
	We don't know.
	It's at least a million, probably.
	And so think how much more radical they'd be.
	Think how more aggressive still that tweet would be if he actually knew anything.
	He'd be bold, wouldn't he?
	Add something a little bit controversial here.
	I think that Black Lives Matter has done more for Britain than Nigel Farage has.
	And I'm saying that in the sense of Black Lives Matter was absolutely Perfect to get us in the position that we're in because not only was it an incredibly ineffectual movement in its aims and a lot of the money was provably siphoned off to people that were just out for enriching themselves.
	Absolutely no purchase in Britain as well.
	Exactly but not only that it made it acceptable to then start talking about identity more because it was constantly under attack and there's this immune system reaction against that whereby British people started to realise, yes, we do have an identity actually,
	because I think people sort of forgot or didn't think about it to the same degree that we do now.
	And we've sort of opened Pandora's box and we can't put that back away again now.
	This is going to be something that is going to be a part of the public consciousness for the rest of people's lifetimes, I think.
	And I think that people's awareness, okay, we're not actually like...
	These other groups of people that are coming to our country, that is a very invaluable Insight that is now circulating very widely amongst people that, quite frankly, surprise me.
	People that I used to think of as very left-wing now just concede this and say, yeah, of course this is the case.
	We covered the Politics Joe podcast the other day.
	We did, yeah.
	I don't know if you saw it, but basically...
	I think I saw your clip of it.
	Yeah, they were talking about English identity, for anyone who didn't see it.
	And after the first 15 minutes of them blustering as left-wingers...
	They just conceded absolutely everything.
	The whole ground.
	Yeah, no, where's our parliament?
	Where's our rights movements?
	Yeah, that's a great question, isn't it?
	Also, when you're living in a very settled, mild-mannered, homogeneous England...
	The question of identity doesn't thrust itself upon you any more than the fact that a goldfish is swimming in water particularly matters to the goldfish.
	It's when you put something new in that, this is just a metaphor, when you put something that's not water and thereby corrupts it to some extent.
	Separates it.
	Or separates it.
	Add oil to the water.
	Exactly.
	And the goldfish will notice it and likewise take the goldfish out of the water and it will also notice.
	And so you're right, the question of identity is back on the table whether we like it or not.
	So one of the things that, and this is another just Amazing paradigm example that I'm going to play through in a second is Labour going to people's doorsteps.
	Now, I don't envy Labour Party activists having to go to people's doorsteps.
	Hi, guys.
	Can we count on your vote?
	This is the kind of reaction that they've been giving.
	And...
	Hello there, my name's John.
	I'm calling from your local Labour Party.
	Labour can fuck off.
	Labour has fucked this country right up.
	Fuck off.
	Go on, fuck off.
	Fucking Labour.
	All they've done to this country, all they're for is fucking Muslims and all the shit.
	That's all they want in this country.
	This country's fucked.
	You fucking lot.
	Go on, fuck off.
	Fucking Labour's scum.
	The ranting carries on.
	It's just a clip.
	And to be honest with you, that would be exactly my reaction, but probably with more swearing and possibly slightly violent.
	I would have been exactly as angry as that guy.
	And this is a...
	I also love the look on the Labour guy's face.
	I get the sense that's not the first time that's happened to him that day.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	This is another thing, isn't it?
	When Corbyn was in charge of the party, they kept getting...
	On the door.
	I just hate Jeremy Corbyn.
	I'm not going to do it.
	Because Jeremy Corbyn is obviously a traitor.
	And so this is basically what Aaron Bastani found when he went to run Corn.
	Because of course we've got the by-election there today.
	If you're there, vote for whatever you want.
	I don't care.
	It just doesn't matter to me.
	Not Labour, hopefully.
	Who cares?
	Voting, will that make a difference?
	But what's interesting is Aaron was going around and talking to regular people and none of them are happy.
	Even the people who were Labour voters were not happy with Keir Starmer and with Labour and with what they've been doing.
	Some quotes are, Labour are scrounging parasites.
	I don't like Starmer because he doesn't know what a woman is.
	Everyone he speaks to is furious about paying for the illegals.
	And that's something that comes up a lot.
	Worth adding that this by-election is happening because a Labour MP punched one of the electorate.
	So not only is that bad press in that area, but also they elected a Labour representative once and now they're coming out.
	With a lot of this, right?
	Because there's a new constituency that was created.
	And so they elect a Labour MP and then he punches some guy for some reason.
	But yeah, so everyone repeatedly, I mean, one of the chaps he's speaking to is just, oh yeah, everyone's talking about the illegals.
	Because Aaron is doing a good job and his...
	Gauging how often they bring up subjects.
	And this one market trader he's talking to is just like, yeah, no, everyone's talking about the illegals.
	Why are we paying for them in the hotels?
	This is outrageous.
	You know, everyone is genuinely outraged.
	I mean, at one point in 7.15, he describes them as bringing in a conquering army like William the Conqueror to take over England, which is like, right, okay.
	Now, I'm not saying that's happening, but if that's the general perception of what's happening...
	It's less honest than that, really.
	The advantage of a formal declaration of hostilities is that you can actually fight back, presumably with your own state on your side, with military equipment and machinery, whereas unarmed conquest is much harder to fight by virtue of the fact that there is no such formal declaration of hostility.
	I've honestly said this before.
	I would rather it just be an open war.
	Then we can fight.
	Then the argument makes itself.
	Exactly.
	There's one thing we're good at, it's organisation.
	But yeah, so you've got lots of people.
	He managed to find one die-hard Labour woman.
	Really?
	Yeah, yeah.
	He was obviously there all day.
	He found one die-hard Labour woman who said, quote, Nigel Farage is a fascist and we're a tolerant nation.
	Like...
	I mean, Nigel Farage is not a fascist.
	Also, if we're a tolerant nation, why are they polling, like, 25% of the electorate?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, and he bumped into a chap and was like, no, liberals, Labour, Tory, reform, they're all the same.
	I hate them all.
	And towards the end, people...
	Pointing out that immigration is the big issue that's affecting everyone, and everyone knows it.
	Because like you're saying, they don't actually know the numbers, but they're looking at the street and saying, where is this?
	And they don't call it the Boris wave, but where is it?
	I did my Swindon, walking around Swindon, showing how it's the climb video, and I was speaking to a chap who I've known for years now who runs a comic shop, and he was like, yeah, it seems just after COVID, it's just gone wild.
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	He's seeing the effect of the Boris wave, even though he doesn't follow politics and is not interested in any way, shape or form.
	It's actually very heartening that people are so accurate in their assessment of the situation, because I found previously, I've caught myself being quite cynical about the electorate for obvious reasons, and actually it seems like people are catching on.
	Now there's a real problem.
	Yeah, they absolutely are.
	And so there's a sort of...
	I don't know who this chap is.
	He's not like a random nobody.
	He's got an account and stuff.
	But he, I think, represents a large swathe of working-class opinion in this country.
	I think everyone's asking themselves the same fucking question at the minute.
	It's very simple.
	It's like, when are we going to do something about it?
	It being the fucking government, the state of the country, all the shit that's going on, like fucking mass uncontrolled immigration, tax to fucking death, cost of living crisis.
	I mean, we're letting out in private companies to run riot, taxes to death.
	The water bill's just fucking doubled again.
	I mean, everything they fucking do is set up to keep you dumbed down.
	Yeah, I've had enough.
	Yeah, I had enough during COVID, to be honest.
	Once that is done, let's all start fucking videoing ourselves.
	All start taking direct action.
	Well, I'm not suggesting anyone takes direct action or anything, but again, I think he represents a large swathe of this country.
	Again, the working class area of the country.
	Now, if you're in a Liberal Democrat voting area, you probably don't know many chaps like this.
	I've noticed a phenomenon whereby whenever I go for a lovely quaint village in rural England, there is always one or two Lib Dem signs.
	I'm just like, oh right, so you're voting in favour of something that you're...
	Almost entirely isolated from, except it won't stay that way forever, will it?
	If it helps, a Lib Dem sign also means I'm a secret racist.
	That's true.
	As we saw from Ed Davies.
	And Keir Starmer came out and said the same thing.
	He endorsed that very same thing.
	So the centrist ads are actually secret racists.
	They just need essentially social permission, which is what they're lacking at the moment.
	But anyway, the working class of this country are absolutely sick of it, and I...
	Completely agree with them.
	And they've arrived at a point where there's just no light at the end of the tunnel.
	And so they're like, it is the government that is the problem.
	It's the state.
	And this is correct.
	This is the Krangocracy set up by Tony Blair with all the various human rights legislation and ECHR and all this sort of nonsense.
	It all is the problem.
	And again, it's percolating completely through everything.
	So I saw this really superb thread of Luke Trill, who works for the More Uncommon Foundation.
	I think he's a...
	Founder of it.
	And he did focus groups in Beverly Hull, Scunthorpe, and Peterborough.
	And without a doubt, the disillusionment was the worst I've heard.
	And just some of these quotes is incredible.
	I love this Gary, sales manager in Bourne, right?
	He says, I've actually given up on the system if I'm being totally open and honest with you.
	Yeah, nothing ever changes.
	You go from one bunch of lying so-and-sos to the other.
	It's almost going to sound really extreme, but the country almost needs a coup d 'etat and needs someone to come in and say, right, this is what we're doing and you will conform.
	There's no proper leadership by anyone.
	Nobody likes any of the candidates.
	Nobody really trusts any of them.
	It's almost like we need the king to just say, right, I'm in charge and this is what we're doing.
	And that, honestly, is a conversation I've had with normal people at some point.
	They've literally said to me, why isn't the king doing something about this?
	And that's fascinating because for my entire life, I mean, since World War II, the idea, in fact, since before that, the monarch was...
	Informally an apolitical role.
	And so you'd think it'd be in everyone's minds that, well, the king's just a symbolic thing.
	He's not going to do anything.
	But no, it's still in the back of the minds of the hand.
	We are a kingdom.
	The king should be doing something because we're suffering.
	And it's very interesting that it's still in the back of their minds.
	And people have said to me, is the king able to do anything?
	He's able to do whatever he likes.
	He's the king, actually.
	He could dissolve parliament tomorrow, and there's literally nothing parliament can do about it.
	Things have dismissed ministers over...
	Even since 1688, since we became a so-called constitutional monarchy, over things far less severe than this.
	I mean, William Pitt basically stood down at George III's urging in 1801 because William...
	William Pitt wanted to extend toleration to Catholics in the kingdom, and King George III thought this was incompatible with his coronation oath.
	It basically got rid of William.
	I think William Pitt the younger came back later, but that's nothing compared to decades of sustained replacement migration.
	I should have thought that the bare minimum a king should do is look after and look out for the interests of his own people and their future and their posterity.
	You might think that, but King Charles was...
	Giving a nice salam alaykum during his Easter message.
	So it was very frustrating.
	But yeah, I was having this conversation with just, again, non-political people who suddenly turned to me and said, so you know about politics.
	What's going on?
	And can the king do something?
	Yeah, the king, he has the control of the army.
	They pledge their allegiance to him.
	The parliament are his servants.
	He could at any point dissolve the parliament.
	And moreover, the parliament couldn't pull a Cromwell in this day and age.
	There's no way in hell the Parliament would be able to resist it in the slightest.
	No one is fighting for this Parliament.
	They would not be able to raise an army to resist him, so the King could just take over.
	But of course, Charles is a woke globalist and he won't do anything with the sort.
	And so that was pretty frustrating.
	This is why I think we need to work on Prince George.
	I think William probably beyond saving at this point.
	What's William like?
	I don't really know.
	I get the sense that he...
	I get the centrist dad vibes from William.
	Whereas I think George could be a radical Zoomer of sorts.
	I was hoping William would be a bit more based.
	I think William is also quite canny in terms of optics.
	He's not fallen for the same mistakes that his brother has, let's just say.
	This is true.
	I think the interesting thing about this is that people are at a point now where the government's authority is so illegitimate in their mind that they're looking for other forms of authority in the king, and of course they're not going to find it there, but the fact that we've got to this point and it's commonplace enough that you can encounter it in your daily life is something to take note of at the very least.
	I mean, people are just openly saying this sort of stuff now.
	Five years ago, even during COVID, Boris Johnson comes out, right, we're locking down the country, folks.
	You've all got to stay in your houses for two weeks or whatever it was.
	No one was like, okay, yeah, we kind of need to overthrow the government.
	Everyone's like, oh, I guess we've just got to go along with it then.
	And five years later, nearly, no, it is five years later, we're at the point where Gary, sales manager in Bourne, is thinking, yeah, we do need a coup d 'etat.
	If only we had a new Cromwell, things might get better.
	Which is, again, it's just bonkers when you think of the kind of normal people, middle manager types, who, I mean, he works in an office all day, Gary.
	You know, Gary, you watch, like, you know, like normie TV, you watch X Factor and stuff, and he's like, yeah, we need a revolt.
	Yes, and he's put his finger on one of the major problems that all democracies face, which is that...
	While the governing principle of any democracy is that of popular sovereignty, in practice, people, the people having been set free, having been empowered theoretically by democracy, they're actually quite poor guardians, God bless them again, of the power that democracy theoretically confers on them,
	because many of them have neither the inclination or the interest to be as actively involved in politics, so there is always going to be a minority that's in charge, and if that minority doesn't share...
	The basic, the fundamental values and beliefs and interests of the people over whom it rules, it will not serve them, but remould them and reshape them.
	Sometimes by actively sponsoring replacement migration, but otherwise by just nudging them in certain ways, trying to indoctrinate their children, trying to do all these sorts of things.
	And another thing that makes this very difficult to fight is because it's an oligarchy.
	It's a small group of people.
	Power is dispersed in a way that makes it very, very difficult to fight.
	And towards the end, it's interesting that he's putting a personal face on power and a singular personal face on power by saying, we need the king to just say, oh, we need a kudita where one person just comes in charge and says, I'm going to do this.
	Because when you put a face on authority, it makes that person accountable in a way that a process or a shady oligarchic class is not accountable.
	In many ways, it's more consistent with the true spirit of democracy because people would be much happier with a patriot king than they would be with a treacherous oligarchic class.
	Even though the processes would be less democratic, the outcomes would be more democratic.
	And that's the ideal.
	And that's the ideal of something like...
	Lord Bolingbroke wrote the idea of a patriot king, which advances this critique of democracy in very humane ways.
	But another problem is that since the 1940s, any desire for sort of concerted executive action of the kind that Gary is calling for is just equated with fascism, which isn't true.
	Yeah, and would be completely outside of our tradition anyway.
	Very uncharacteristic of English people.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Gary is not calling for fascism.
	What Gary is calling for is a Cromwell.
	And there are lots and lots of Cromwell edits going around on TikTok at the moment.
	Um, which I'm going to borrow.
	Put your fake things on!
	And keep your powder dry!
	I am resolved that this battle will be won.
	Therefore, it is my intention to return to Cambridge and raise an army of antique men, the light of which this nation has never seen!
	Though we be outnumbered, we shall win this battle, I promise you!
	The king is not England, and England is not the king!
	It's very interesting that they've got Radiohead in the background there, because, you know, in 1997, I think it was, on the ascent of Blair, they released OK Computer, which is still one of the best encapsulations of how the modern world, the sort of liberal world order,
	is soulless and crushing and miserable.
	And even though Tom York is very left-wing, the lead singer, and maybe some of the members as well, a lot of what they're hitting on there is true.
	And I think that they've chose that in the background to encapsulate the mood of the country in a way.
	Very interesting.
	And Gary, sales manager from Bourne, is probably going to be like, yep, I have to go and join the new New Model Army now to fight Parliament because they're the problem.
	You may well be watching these Cromwell edits on TikTok.
	Who knows?
	That was just my favourite one that I saw.
	But it's genuinely something that's in the cultural milieu.
	It's indicative of a cultural mood.
	I hope it's obvious to all the people that we're not actually saying that this should.
	What happens?
	Apart from anything else, because if you are going to do something like this, and again, I'm not recommending it, then there's no room for half measures.
	I mean, as Benjamin Franklin said, you know, we must all hang together or we should all hang separately.
	And during the American Revolution, you need to be very, very committed to it.
	And the fact is, is that compared to where Britain was in the 1630s and 1640s and 1650s, when the Civil War was sort of, we were in the foothills of a Civil War, and then of course it blew up in 1642.
	It was a very young population full of very, very, very motivated people, many of whom had been in battle before.
	They were very hardened people, whereas we're a very domesticated population, a much older population.
	The idea that anything like this would be practical...
	Yeah, I don't think it's possible.
	It's not possible.
	You either need to go the full hog or you don't do it at all.
	But on the plus side, what I think this means is that democratically the paradigm is ripe for change.
	Yes, that's right.
	So anyone who comes along who is very clearly not part of the Blairite consensus...
	I think, actually, because, I mean, as we saw in the last section, 40% of people don't even vote.
	And I'm guessing, I asked Matt Goodwin about this, and he was like, well, they don't really think the political system is serving their interests, and he is a pollster, so he would know.
	And I was like, yeah, so why isn't Nigel Farage attacking towards them, rather than saying, hey, actually, I am a Blairite just like you.
	It's like, okay, the ground is incredibly fertile.
	Anyway, we'll leave that there.
	That's a random name.
	Something that wasn't addressed at yesterday's roundtable for lack of time is how to reach the 40% who don't vote.
	Here's his suggestion.
	Round time, in fact.
	Promise to lower taxes for natives.
	0% native married couples trying to start a family.
	Increase taxes for all foreigners.
	You know, I don't think that sort of thing is going to be the sort of thing that works.
	you would have to do it along the lines of habit and let people fall into their choices by their habits.
	You can justify it by promising you'll tremble the fat off the government by nuking the NHS and sacrificing the government.
	Yeah, no, I don't actually think that'll work, but I...
	Appreciate the fact that we do need to reach that 40% there.
	Anyway, let's move on.
	You've got a better chance of convincing the English people that we need to nuke the sun in order to fund the NHS.
	And that we need to nuke the NHS in order to...
	Well, they literally did say that we're going to dim the sky to save the planet.
	I do appreciate your hatred of the NHS.
	I, too, despise that socialist institution.
	I like the idea of an NHS if it was a national health service.
	And if it worked.
	Yeah, well, it did.
	It used to work, though.
	Yeah, again, you guys are too young to remember.
	Don't remember this.
	But back in the 90s...
	You just get an appointment like that.
	It was no problem at all.
	Everything actually worked because we didn't have 15 million extra foreigners leeching off the state.
	Anyway, let's move on.
	The Dark Lord has spoken and everyone will do well to listen because he knows the future.
	And how does he know this?
	Well, because he tells people how to make it.
	And it's worth mentioning that the current incumbent Labour Party are not very popular.
	Oh, Jesus.
	Here we go.
	Both Ed Davey and Nigel Farage more favourable than Keir Starmer, which, you know, a Lib Dem topping the incumbent Prime Minister is normally quite embarrassing.
	I think the last time that happened may have been maybe Nick Clegg.
	He was quite popular, wasn't he, before?
	Sorry, can we go back to that for a second?
	Because this is actually a fascinating graph, because it's usual to have an unfavourable net rating.
	And I suspect that in Nigel Farage's case, the unfavourable isn't just a general sort of, I don't like him.
	It's going to be, I really hate him.
	Because he's a polarising figure.
	With Ed Davey, I imagine people are a lot softer on it.
	He just seems rubbish.
	But I think Keir Starmer having 52%, and from what we've seen about people saying on the doorsteps and things like this, I think there's a genuine hatred of Starmer.
	That's the lowest net favourability there, isn't it?
	It is.
	Other than Rachel Reeves, which...
	You know, is his net favourability by extension.
	Yeah, she's tied directly to him.
	It's actually remarkable how unpopular Keir Starmer is.
	But again, Nigel Farage being the most popular is not very popular either.
	That's true.
	And there are some other sort of numbers here where the Labour Party are polling beneath the Lib Dems, the Green Party and reform in terms of...
	Popularity, and they're the most unfavourable, and they have the lowest amount of net favourability.
	Nice to see the Conservatives right at the bottom there.
	And everyone hates the establishment, don't they?
	I'd argue as well that the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats being included is somewhat distorting the real picture, because I would just imagine that they're not sufficiently salient as parties to arouse strong feelings from anyone.
	I think that big gap in the middle is don't know, right?
	It's also interesting as well that there's not that much difference in terms of favourability between the parties either, because there's not much difference ideologically, I imagine, too.
	So one thing that has changed in terms of popularity is that of Tony Blair, the Dark Lord himself.
	Here he is amongst millennials.
	He is number one amongst Labour politicians.
	Which is very interesting.
	44% popularity, and we have to scroll all the way down.
	Where is Keir Starmer?
	Where is he?
	There he is, 17th.
	22%.
	There are some names here that most people won't even be familiar with, even if you follow politics quite closely, that are above him.
	Neil Kinnock, they're going to say, is above Keir Starmer, which is...
	Emily Thornberry.
	I know.
	John Prescott isn't even alive, and he's more popular than Keir Starmer, which is interesting.
	That's true.
	He's actually, amongst men, John Prescott was the most popular.
	Yeah, yeah, and his polling went up after he punched that guy in the face.
	This is among all millennials.
	Or Labour-supporting millennials.
	This is millennials, yes.
	This is just millennials more generally, not necessarily Labour supporters.
	But this is crazy, because Tony Blair is the architect of all of these woes.
	He is the one man that we can lay all of these problems at the feet of.
	But one thing you can say about Tony Blair that sets him apart from the rest is that he's a very canny operator.
	He is...
	He has...
	Insights into PR in politics that I think many of them do not have.
	And I think that that's why he has the global power that he does have.
	You know, his Institute for Global Change consults 40 different countries around the world.
	I think it employs more staff than our own parliament.
	And so, in some ways, you could argue that he's actually more powerful than our own government.
	The workload is still very much structured like that of a prime minister.
	He's given a sort of briefcase in the morning full of the requisite papers that people think he needs to read.
	I'll bet you anything that he is one of the most diligent readers of someone like Matt Goodwin Substack, because I imagine that he is driven by a genuine interest to try and understand national populism.
	I'm sure he's very read up on all of that literature.
	Not so that he can be the voice for it, but so he can devise strategies for combating it.
	So yes, you're right.
	He's a very sort of canny operator.
	And I would even go so far as to argue that he might actually be one of the more competent politicians around in modern Britain, at least from the current crop.
	And that's not to say that I agree.
	The rest of them are useless.
	I have had these discussions and it has been pointed out to me that he was sort of the last perceived competent.
	Prime Minister who existed in the pre-internet age, so to speak.
	And so he didn't have the same level of scrutiny that some others might have.
	But I think the perception still stands regardless of that fact.
	And here he is more generally.
	I don't know what's going on there.
	So for some reason, David Blunkett is number one.
	This is just all adults.
	So John Prescott's still more popular.
	But he's fifth, which is significant, I think, because he did...
	Bring us into a, you know...
	Of course.
	Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, bloody hell.
	These are just the Labour Party.
	Can we see the Boomers as well, please?
	Yes, we can see the Boomers.
	The Boomers, this is a deemable fact for the Boomers.
	Blair is not very popular amongst the Boomers, which is interesting, actually.
	19%.
	They presumably, I mean, they lived through...
	They used to live in a nice country.
	Yes, yes, indeed.
	So they've experienced mass immigration.
	And of course, I would imagine that the Iraq war looms larger in the minds of boomers and Gen Xers.
	I was just about to bring that up.
	In the minds of millennials and Zoomers, for whom it's just a bit of history.
	I'm not even sure if it's that big a deal to them.
	I really think it's what he's done to the country.
	But would you not say that, because I agree, but when people say Blair, I immediately think...
	Of the Iraq war.
	That is a fair thing, but whenever you talk to a boomer about Blair, they say he ruined this country.
	That's the thing.
	Their view has always been to me.
	He ruined this country.
	Well, he's not done yet.
	Of course he's not.
	There's still something in Britain left I can smash down.
	His links to Keir Starmer are quite...
	Strong, actually.
	And here's a headline.
	When was it from?
	March 2024.
	Starmer talking to Blair a lot about how to prepare for power.
	This is, of course, before his ascent to...
	The Prime Ministerial Office, and I think that some of the lessons Keir Starmer has learnt from Blair, he's not quite imbibed all of them.
	He made a lot of mistakes initially, but I think Blair basically rang him up and said, stop this.
	I think that that is what's going on, because Starmer has been more astute in recent times, I think.
	I mean, Starmer is the direct heir to Blair's project, consciously so.
	Yeah.
	And here's another one as well.
	Tony Blair keeps texting Keir Starmer advice as he moves into Downing Street.
	This was from July of 2024, and so it's proof that this relationship began before he reached power and has continued into it.
	And I think that Starmer might have realised, because Starmer did scorn Blair on a few things, didn't he?
	And those things have since changed, which I find interesting.
	I did amusing to reflect that there probably is a WhatsApp chat somewhere in which Starmer isn't even dignified with the status of admin.
	I would not be surprised, yes.
	I always thought that Blair must have been raging after his Southport response.
	That's my view, yes.
	Because to come out and attack people was just...
	I mean, this has definitely killed Starmer's reputation forever.
	One thing that Blair did very well is he would say, I understand your concerns.
	But I disagree about how to deal with it.
	And he could frame it as, listen, he sort of takes all of the steam out of a lot of political agitation by doing that.
	And it's a rhetorical trick that Starmer has not done.
	And I was actually very surprised when Starmer was releasing those statements that...
	Someone hadn't said that sort of thing to him, because even to someone who's not politically savvy, it seemed pretty tone deaf to the mood of the country.
	We were talking about 20 years in which we've had to contend with countless imported horrors from endemic knife crime, Islamist intimidation, even terrorism, but increasingly Islamist intimidation, sectarian infighting, industrial rape gangs, and then people's...
	Impatience.
	People's sensibilities hit a fever pitch after three girls are slaughtered by a savage in Southport, and yet all he can do is admonish us.
	You're far right.
	I'm giving 30 million to the mosques.
	It was just completely clothed.
	So even The Guardian here in September of 2023 acknowledged that Starmer had been borrowing from Tony Blair.
	And, you know, The Guardian, I think, generally supportive of Starmer, if not sometimes critical from a left-wing perspective, in that he's not going far enough.
	But it's very interesting that even they're making this link, which even for their own ends might not be helpful.
	And I think it's an acknowledgement of a real political reality.
	And what they're talking about here, the byline I found was the most interesting part of the article actually is, one thing they share is the belief that the purpose of politics is to make things happen, and you only get to do that by winning power, which is a very real critique.
	Very true, but I'm not sure I agree that Starmer is a...
	Is of that view.
	I think he sees himself as more of a manager of what has already happened, namely what Blair has done.
	I mean, I don't think he views anything that he...
	I don't think he views any position, I'm talking about Sturm, any position that he might hold as being capable of being given any legitimacy outside of the framework that Blair left in place.
	He sees himself as a complete creature of process.
	And I think we really got a sense of this recently when that recent Supreme Court decision was laid down.
	Because he said...
	I'm so glad that the Supreme Court has clarified this issue for us.
	It's like, well, hold on, as if we've all been sort of clambering in the dark for 2,000 years about the definition of a woman.
	But it's interesting because think about what happened there.
	You're talking about a Blairite institution, the Supreme Court, interpreting a Blairite piece of legislation, namely the Equality Act, in order to arrive at the conclusion inscribed in law, remember he's a human rights lawyer, that...
	The terms woman and sex have their natural meanings in said equality.
	And it's only then that he treats the Supreme Court as a kind of oracle of Delphi that gives him the right to admit what the rest of us know to be true simply by using our eyes and reasoning correctly.
	He views the only source of legitimacy in modern politics as being what Blair has already made happen.
	It's not that he's in favour of making things happen himself.
	It's worth remembering as well that he did say that a non-zero percentage of women have a penis.
	Which is, honestly, one of the things that people have just been like, Oh, right.
	Just a quick comment on this image.
	This image is a fascinating image to me.
	Look at the expression on Blair's face, the pose.
	Look at the supplicant position and optimistic, hopeful look on Keir Starmer's face.
	He is offering him something, eyebrows raised, looking up to Blair, saying, do you agree with this thing I'm saying?
	And Tony Blair is looking at him like a Sith Lord looking at his apprentice.
	Like, no.
	That's very much the dynamic that's going on, I think.
	Isn't it?
	Guarded with the hands, disdainful downward look.
	He just needs the hood.
	Listen, my young apprentice, you're still not ready.
	It really is Saruman and Wormtongue, isn't it?
	No, no, no, it's worse than that.
	It's like Tony Blair is sitting with authority here and has a disdainful downward look on him.
	He almost looks like Peter Hitchens.
	I thought that, actually.
	And Keir Starmer is saying something that's obviously not quite correct.
	He's obviously missing the point.
	He's reaching out, don't you agree with me?
	And Tony Blair is obviously thinking, you're going to mess this up.
	I think the key distinction between the two men is that byline is much more true of Tony Blair.
	He's far more of a real politique kind of guy.
	And Starmer is quietly ideological in the background.
	I think Tony Blair will do whatever it is to achieve power and maintain it.
	And he will argue for whatever.
	Reaches that end.
	And I think that it's interesting that from, you know, this is from 2022, Tony Blair tells Starmer to drop woke politics and focus on economy.
	And I did this segment not too long ago about how Labour is Britain's most right-wing party now.
	And this was only from three weeks ago, and it's going through countless examples of how Labour was outflanking all of the current parliamentary parties to the right.
	I think this is a strategy that, again, it will be at Blair's urging.
	It won't be because of anything that has popped into Keir Starmer's mind.
	But this is a very interesting strategy.
	The left have spent the last 20 to 30, arguably even 40, 50 years, trying to yank the Overton window to the left and to try and make that which confers status and legitimacy in British politics as being equivalent to just going along with left-wing talking points like diversity is our strength.
	We're a multicultural tapestry.
	This attests to the glory of Britain.
	It's so interesting that then Kostama starts accusing, talking about the Tories, doing an open borders experiment, sounding like Renaud Camus.
	And it's just such an effective tactical feint as well, because while Kemi Badenoch and the Tories have felt an immense amount of pressure to measure up to this sort of left-wing narrative framework, all of a sudden the left just changes the script at the last minute.
	We need to understand that Canada's identity has always been rooted in its Anglo-French heritage, which would have been completely verboten in Canadian politics ever since the Multiculturalism Act of 1971,
	and the Conservatives have been dutifully going along.
	I don't mind where you come from, just leave your ethnic conflicts at home.
	It's like, no, we're Anglo-French, nativists.
	And all of a sudden you're outflanked from the right.
	The right is outflanked from the right and then it has no purpose anymore.
	And that is exactly why.
	Not only the...
	Like, the Conservatives are basically the executive wing of the Labour dream machine.
	Like, Labour dream up, oh, we should be multicultural, we should be inclusive.
	And so, you know, we need to be feminists.
	And so the Conservatives have had two female Prime Ministers and an Indian Prime Minister.
	They've currently got an African immigrant leading the party.
	And Labour are just nothing but straight white men.
	And then, like, so they can always outflag them for the right.
	There's nothing the Conservatives...
	Well, they've been duped on the rules of the game, haven't they?
	Yeah, the Conservatives...
	I'm not going to swear, but they're very...
	The left see the role of politics as being to shape the rules of the game.
	Conservatives, by which I mean the conservative, like fake conservatives, see it as their role to obey the rules of the game.
	And it may even have something to do with certain sort of psychological modalities that conservative people, you're the psychologist in the room, that conservative people naturally have.
	I've thought about that a great deal, actually, and I think you're onto something.
	Because I think certain things, certain...
	Ways of viewing the world attract certain personalities, and that is very uncontroversial, but you see it very much in our modern politics, don't you?
	When you have a healthy society, that kind of psychological modality is helpful because you're preserving something worthwhile.
	But if there's already been a revolution, you're not very conservative if your conservative commitments motivate you to conserve the fruits of this revolution.
	You actually need to be more psychologically like a left-winger in wanting to reverse it and actually do things.
	That's very true.
	So, the latest proclamation from Blair has been announced from the rooftops from all of the mainstream media, because of course it has been, and that is, Net Zero is doomed to fail, Blair tells Starmer.
	I love that this, you are exactly right, this is a proclamation from the true emperor of the world, right?
	The emperor said Net Zero is doomed to fail, and you know now that Ed Miliband is like, oh dear, I'm in trouble.
	I'm probably going to get into that.
	Ed Miliband, of course.
	Never exceeded the popularity of Tony Blair in opinion polling.
	Obviously.
	He's not very popular at the moment.
	But the point is, this is like Tony Blair putting a marker up on Ed Miliband and saying, right, your time is coming to an end now.
	He's like called out a political hit on him, really.
	And in fact, this was before the electric blackout in Spain, wasn't it?
	It's like the day before.
	As if Tony Blair's like...
	You know, let me show you how it's doomed to fail.
	We found the culprit.
	Yeah.
	Literally a Sith Lord uses the force to make Spider-Fortical go dark.
	He needed it for his force lighting and all that electricity.
	Right.
	But the point is he proves the point by the next day.
	An entire country going...
	Black.
	It's like, right.
	Again, Ed Miliband must be like, okay, I'm just going to see about retirement.
	And of course, this is a political reality that Keir Starmer can't ignore, because Britain is paying the highest electricity price in the world, and no matter what your politics are, that is a massive problem.
	It doesn't matter your ideology.
	If you want a functioning country, you want cheap energy, because it is the bedrock in which all economic activity is based.
	Prosperity is not possible without cheap energy.
	Absolutely.
	Simple.
	And so this has to be dealt with, lest Starmer really jeopardise his political future, which he's done a good job of so far anyway.
	So this actually has a quote from Tony Blair, which I think is very interesting, and I actually agreed with.
	The current approach isn't working.
	These are the inconvenient facts, which means...
	Any strategy based on either phasing out fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.
	The disdain for technology, interesting how he throws in basically a call-out for his allies because, of course, he is very much of the techno-globalist faction and he's constantly pushing technology as a solution to problems,
	which...
	The frustrating thing is technology can be a solution to many problems.
	That's what technology is.
	Yes.
	Like the very nature, the very first time that man crafted a stick with a stone on the end.
	We have technology and it solves a problem.
	Club something.
	And he carries on to say, in favour of the purest solution of stopping fossil fuel, production is totally misguided.
	The COP process will not deliver change at the speed required.
	Political leaders, by and large, know that the debate has become irrational, but they're terrified of saying so for fear of being accused of being climate deniers, which is a perfectly...
	This is a perfectly accurate...
	Assessment of the situations.
	You can't fault it, really.
	And I'm not saying this, you know, I'm not some rabid person who's just like, I love fossil fuels, I drink a pint of petrol every day.
	It's more, you know, I'm aware that the emissions aren't particularly good for us just from, you know, an individual basis, breathing them in.
	So I would rather have cheap technology to produce this energy, if possible.
	I just think that it makes perfect sense that we have as cheap energy as possible.
	We've got the North Sea oil field.
	We have coal.
	We have lots of options available to us.
	There's no reason.
	We have nine nuclear power plants.
	We know how to make nuclear power plants.
	France has 56 and they didn't go dark.
	So another quote he said of voters.
	He's saying voters feel they're being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know the impact on global emissions is minimal, which is another.
	Perfectly fair assessment.
	And this is how Blair operates, really.
	He puts out something that is very uncontroversial after he's read The Public Mood.
	Because he's had plenty of time to study the arguments either way and I think the mood is shifting against net zero at the minute.
	And he's saying things that resonate with your ordinary voter.
	It seems very common sense, doesn't it?
	And that's deliberately crafted.
	He knows what he's doing and what he's doing is setting up for a justification for Keir Starmer to do a U-turn on these policies.
	I think that that's what's going on here.
	You know, he's not going to just come out and criticise Labour because it's his project at the end of the day.
	So why is he going to the media and saying these things?
	Well, he's setting up a justification to ceding.
	Exactly.
	And a certain admirer of Tony Blair has pointed out that the Tony Blair Institute has more employees than the British Parliament and also American members of Congress.
	And look at some of the people he's got in there, like the former Prime Minister of Finland there, and lots of other key people.
	Sir Patrick Vallance as well, he was one of the key architects of the pandemic.
	The answer is...
	Of the lockdowns bonds.
	Whoops!
	That was a genuine misspeak there.
	The answer is that he's setting up a world government.
	It seems like it, doesn't it?
	This is what he's doing.
	Another thing that I thought was quite astute as an observation was that the phrase making a rare intervention from Prime Minister Tony Blair, which is not rare actually.
	In an unprecedented mood.
	Yeah.
	We hear this constantly, don't we?
	But he's constantly commenting on politics all the time, and it's interesting to me that people say this.
	Often specifically saying Starmer's government have to do something or else.
	That's the kind of sentence that he's now dead, but that's the kind of sentence that would have made sense about someone like Jimmy Carter.
	Like, oh, Jimmy Carter has criticised Biden's immigration.
	Okay, but Blair very much remains an active player.
	And even...
	Aaron Bastani has recognised this.
	He's made a bit of a more vulgar comparison here.
	It did make me laugh at first.
	He says every media intervention is finely tuned to maximise a reaction but instead of an OnlyFans page it ensures dollars from the Saudis and Larry Ellison.
	He doesn't believe any of it.
	Stop Brexit.
	Accept Brexit.
	All the same.
	And I think that's actually true.
	Yeah, that's totally true, because what Tony Blair wants is to create a digital one-world order.
	So he's got essentially a sort of informal global government that is formalized in the nature of the technology it uses to achieve its goals.
	And these things will be useful for the average person.
	That's the problem.
	So basically, you know, you'll get your credit card and you'll go to, you know, some backwater place.
	You know, you go on holiday in the Congo for some reason, you'll tap your card, and it'll be Tony Blair's doing that.
	This all goes through.
	He's weaponised the everyday desire for convenience.
	Exactly.
	Digital ID, yeah, you go to Peru or Papua New Guinea or something and the facial recognition scanner goes and you don't even need your passport now.
	But Bastani here sort of hit the nail on the head.
	The mainstream media is Tony Blair's megaphone, really.
	Yes, it is.
	They exist to amplify his voice and legitimise it.
	Completely uncritical of it.
	It's very interesting, actually, because there are very few figures in British politics that are comparable in this way.
	I can't think of anyone else who has seen it.
	No, not really.
	And you actually sent this to me, Carl.
	I would be remiss not to mention that there are some people that are critical of him.
	These are the people sort of on the left in the Guardian.
	The thing is, right, so you've got to remember, in the early 2000s, late 90s, early 2000s, Tony Blair had the left wrapped around his finger.
	He would go to these Labour conferences, and there was this one particular clip that always stuck with me, where on the far left, his opponent is saying, we need to be arguing for insane work policies.
	And this is like in the mid-90s, I think it was.
	And then Tony Berg gets up and goes, yes, but we won't get any of that, because we will lose.
	Whereas if we argue for 30% of what we're asking for, then we'll get 30% closer to where we want to be now.
	And so the left were like, oh yeah, okay, fair enough.
	Now the useful idiots are like, but we supported him because he promises things like, well, you weren't really that important, actually.
	The more sort of unhinged, wild-eyed leftists just want to get in and then just splurge all of their potential political capital and power and just spend it all in the space of five minutes.
	Whereas Blair is, to his core, a Machiavellian, and one of Machiavelli's bits of advice in The Prince is that the only really defensible use of power is in the acquisition of more power.
	And he gets that.
	Tony Blair actually visited the home of Machiavelli.
	Oh, did he?
	I didn't know this, yes.
	I think he paid for the most expensive option to actually dine in his house.
	Is that right?
	The very interesting thing to do.
	If you're not a Machiavellian, isn't it?
	Well, he absolutely is a Machiavellian.
	He is, yes, and probably quietly proud of the fact.
	And the final thing is, here's his Institute for Global Change and a very long article outlining what will be done.
	If you want a prediction for what will happen in Britain, this will be it.
	I'm happy to put my credibility on the line to say that some of these policy suggestions will be enacted by Keir Starmer in the future.
	Give me a couple that'll come out.
	Well, it's basically just saying we need to rely more on fossil fuels, isn't it?
	Saying that we need to make energy cheaper and the way we do that is not by limiting the use of these fossil fuels.
	And it's pretty common sense stuff, actually.
	And it's almost...
	Certainly going to have to happen, because the political reality says so, and Tony Blair has foretold it, and Keir Starmer will obediently obey.
	So yes, this is a little way of telling the future in British politics, is whatever Tony says tends to go, it's just a matter of time.
	And Denism says, UK politics is screwed, and thus reform creates a Trumpian coalition amongst the party's leadership, but Farage is too insecure for that, so what hope is there?
	Well, I mean, things can't get any better, so there is that.
	Matt says, Will a new party consider a primary system so local MPs are selected by the populace in a separate election for a general election and not centralised party leadership in London?
	Well, I mean, it would be up to the party.
	That does go on to a certain extent.
	Yeah, it does to a certain extent, but you could do things in any way you like.
	The question is, what new party would we be looking at?
	And the only one we've got at the moment is reform, which is literally a dictatorship.
	So, good luck.
	Yeah, the early 2000s were a good period.
	I have very fond memories of them, yeah.
	Yeah, everything was going quite well.
	Yeah, but the neocon bit is not really something people care about, because foreign intervention, okay, it's bad, theoretically, but if you're in Britain, And like, look at this bombing in Iraq.
	Well, in fairness, I have an essay in the most recent edition of the European Conservative where I go into the kind of paleocon, neocon thing.
	And I actually do think that while it...
	It's true that most people are not really that interested in what's going on in Iraq and Syria and wherever else the neocons might want to invade.
	The fact that they want to invade those places and turn them into liberal democracies goes to show that they do believe in the interchangeability of all peoples because they think that that can be done.
	So the very same motivations that drive neocons to want to invade abroad also drive them to want to invite at home.
	So Steve Saylor has this sort of invade and invite sort of neocon policy.
	So mass immigration is to some extent a function of neocon beliefs about the fungibility of all peoples and the plasticity of human beings.
	They were just liberal imperialists.
	Yes. So obviously all the liberal assumptions hold.
	And one thing I really despise is the, if you hadn't bombed my country, I wouldn't have come to your country.
	It's like, we're going to see how well that plays out.
	Yes. You pack Star Wars.
	No, of course they're not.
	Of course they're not.
	The idea is that if you can turn every Iraqi in Iraq into a Liberal Democrat, then maybe you can turn every Iraqi in Britain into a Liberal Democrat.
	Which is working just fine.
	Is there anyone Trump-like in the UK?
	Maybe?
	I guess we'll see.
	And Hewitt says, Blair just wants to push digital ID, cache society, stay in the state first.
	The idea that being net zero can be implemented without opposition.
	Well, I think Blair is actually not that bothered about the net zero stuff.
	I think he genuinely just wants the technocratic control.
	And after that, anything is fine.
	It doesn't matter if we...
	I think for most people who are more globalist-minded, the results of net zero are more important to them than the actual net zero.
	Anyway, so let's move on.
	I would like to talk about the cuckoo bird.
	Now, I'm not a wildlife expert, but countrylife.co.uk have a superb article here telling us all about the cuckoo.
	Now, for anyone who doesn't know, this is just a British bird.
	It's kind of evil, actually.
	I heard one over the weekend, actually.
	Yeah, they've got an appealing call, but...
	You might have a clock with one that pops out every hour.
	Yeah.
	So they say, the cuckoo is the only British bird not to rear its own young.
	The common cuckoo makes no nest of its own, instead using other birds to handle incubation and feeding duties.
	Favoured host species, or dupes, include meadow pippets, robins, dunnocks, reed warblers, pied wagtails, and willow warblers.
	For anyone who knows anything about British birds, these are all lovely little British birds.
	Quite the ornithologist, actually.
	Yes.
	That's interesting.
	So, one of the things, I don't know whether you're going to get onto it, but there are lots of interesting analogies here that you can make.
	For example...
	How are they?
	For example, the chick, when it's born and raised by the non-cuckoo bird, whichever it may be, then pushes the unhatched eggs out of the nest...
	Let me get to that.
	...and becomes the sole...
	Yes, let me get to it.
	So, yeah, the point being, though, these birds are all much smaller than the cuckoo.
	The targeted hen birds proceed then to hatch the egg and rear the cuckoo chick, even after the hatchling has ejected all of the other eggs, legitimate eggs, and chicks from the nest, sending them to the nest, because the cuckoo chick is obviously bigger than the small chicks that it's surrounded by, so it can just physically overpower them.
	The foster parents tend to ignore this outrage and put their energies into feeding the young cuckoo, because of course they're just animals, even as it grows to five times their size.
	As the Fool put it in King Lear, Act 1, Scene 4, the hedge sparrow fed the cuckoo so long that it had its head bit off by its young.
	For years, naturalists struggled to accept that such behaviour even existed.
	The Reverend Gilbert White called it a monstrous outrage on maternal affection, one of the first dictates of nature.
	Others tried to find mitigating explanations.
	One of White's correspondents, Daines Barrington, advanced the comforting thought that the mother cuckoo probably carried on feeding its young, visiting the foster parent's nest, which is, of course, Not true.
	Even when Edward Jenner, better known for his pioneering work on vaccination, produced a paper in 1787 describing the process by which the young cuckoo tumbled the eggs and chicks out of the nest and told of watching the foster parents feeding the cuckoo, it was initially rejected by the Council of the Royal Society because they thought it was too monstrous.
	But not all of the mysteries of the creature have been fully explained, given that young cuckoos aren't read by their true parents, which begin migrating back to Africa in July.
	When their offspring are being reared by the parents, the fledglings must find their way out of the country to their ancestral wintering grounds alone.
	So how do they do it?
	Remittances.
	And if a mother bird notices that they have a cuckoo egg in their nest, they will push these eggs out.
	So, you know, some slightly smarter ones will do it and save their own babies.
	This is a mother who's done this at some point in this video.
	But the point is, anyway, so you can see that there is a sort of natural defense mechanism.
	It's like, this is not my egg, therefore I will get in and out.
	He does have quite the beak on him, doesn't he?
	He does, indeed.
	He does.
	There's many similarities.
	But for no apparent reason, we're going to move to Sadiq Khan, who yesterday published this article on LBC Opinion.
	Quote, English, Muslim, European, and proud of every part of my identity, writes Sir Sadiq Khan.
	And this article is just incredible, because one of the things I like is when Sadiq Khan tries to explain why he's doing something.
	Because Sadiq Khan has understood the Blairite Project, and he's decided, yeah, no, it is power at all costs, and therefore I am an Englishman tactically, says Sadiq Khan.
	And so we'll go through this.
	And I just want to be very clear, Sadiq Khan isn't an Englishman.
	Never will be and cannot be.
	So anyway, he says, quote, as mayor of London and as a proud and patriotic Englishman, that's why he spent his lawyer career defending jihadis, you know.
	Every proud patriotic Englishman does this.
	I've always been passionate about ensuring our capital city not only recognizes St. George's Day, but does so in style.
	Never heard you mention it before you...
	Got worried that English identity became part of the mainstream conversation.
	Why would a Muslim venerate a Christian saint as well?
	It's an unusual choice.
	He was also very popular during the Crusades.
	But anyway, he says, Growing up, I wasn't always comfortable around the St. George's flag.
	There was a time when, first the National Front, then the BNP were on the march, and it felt that our flag had been co-opted by them.
	Our flag.
	Right.
	Our flag.
	Very interesting.
	But for me, everything changed.
	One glorious summer.
	What do you think happened?
	I think it was something truly momentous.
	Did he follow the football or something?
	Something as meaningless and trivial as that?
	It's exactly it.
	Is it really?
	Yes.
	In the Euro 96?
	Yes, that's exactly correct!
	In Euro 96, England defeated the Dutch 4-1 at Wembley, and that was it.
	Sadiq Khan was a proud Englishman from that moment on.
	It was an exhilarating performance that led to an outpouring of joy and euphoria.
	After the final whistle, tens of thousands of us waved the Red Cross with gusto and embraced while chanting, football's coming home.
	Right.
	That's all it takes.
	That's what it is for Sadiq Khan.
	I mean, there's, you know, the thousand-year-plus great ancestry and history of England.
	None of that mattered to Sadiq Khan.
	It's also worth mentioning here that the game of football is something you don't participate in if you're watching your national team, unless you're one of the very fortunate 11. And so, actually, you're watching from the sidelines with very little input in it.
	And there's a great analogy there to the influence he's had on British culture, which is, he's never been a part of it, so he can't really influence it.
	He's been a part of British culture, I can concede that.
	Well, English culture.
	But he himself viewed himself as an outsider, of course.
	This is the flag of racist, as far as he's concerned.
	Well, I was just going to say, it's remarkable how as soon as these claims are made in an ethnic or racial context, they are untouchable.
	Whereas we have gradually come around to understanding the idea that you can't just...
	You can't be self-assigned with regards to gender, with regards to personal identity.
	You can't claim to be Napoleon.
	A man can't claim to be a woman.
	This is not countenanced in any other situation, and yet it's remarkable that it is countenanced here.
	And the reason why people like Sadiq Khan do this is that they completely...
	So I'm in favor of roughly classifying immigrant populations living here into three groups.
	People who are hostile to us, and that's Sadiq Khan.
	People who are indifferent to us, that would be Rishi Sun.
	No, there are a fact few of them.
	God bless them.
	But people like Sadiq Khan, who is on the hostile end, and people like Rishi Sunak, who's on the indifferent end, but still identifies as English, but also while identifying as Indian, is they completely flip their identity in accordance with how it benefits them politically and in terms of expedience.
	So a really good way of smoking them out and testing them, particularly someone who's hostile, like Sadiq Khan,
	If it were agreed in Parliament that the British people, the English people, were going to pay reparations for colonialism, how much would you pay as an Englishman?
	And given that you are the descendant of people who were colonized in Pakistan, I believe, would you be a recipient of that money or would you be coughing up?
	And obviously he would...
	Well, this is a form of political rhetoric, really, that is only possible with the notion of a civic identity.
	You see this all the time in the United States, where people describe themselves as American up until, you know, something goes on in their ethnic homeland, and then all of a sudden they're speaking, oh, as an Italian.
	And it's like, hang on a minute, where did this come from?
	And it's worth pointing out, there is no such thing as an English or Welsh or a Scottish civic identity.
	The only civic identity we have is British.
	Yes, even that is a function of, that's a function of sort of institutional facts that could cease to exist.
	All civic identities are.
	No, they are, but this is the problem.
	I mean, this is a point that's routinely made.
	Like, when Yugoslavia exists...
	You can have this Yugoslavian civic identity, but it's since broken down, and at that point you are just...
	Left with Serbs, Croats.
	Ethnic identities.
	Ethnic identities.
	And so let's say that Tito in Yugoslavia had sponsored wave upon wave of, say, Rwandan immigration, and all of a sudden there were one million Rwandans living in Yugoslavia, and they could claim some kind of Yugoslavs.
	Yeah, one million Yugoslavs.
	Well, as soon as Yugoslavia ceases to exist, that claim to a civic identity can't be staked anymore.
	And so if a similar thing were to happen in Britain, they wouldn't even be able to take refuge in a kind of non-committal, overarching British civic identity.
	In America.
	Yeah, they wouldn't be able to...
	Yeah, so the English identity is purely ethnic at this point.
	But he says, you know, watching the football, in that moment, it felt as if our flag had been reclaimed and recast as a symbol of national unity.
	Well, it is for the English.
	It's never not been.
	Something that no longer belonged to the hateful few, but to the decent majority.
	Again, it is the national flag of England.
	It has always been our flag.
	Why would you even...
	Anyway.
	So, this all sounds perfectly fine so far, but then this is where the subversion comes into it.
	This is where the eggs get kicked out of the nest, right?
	So, the new egg is in the nest, the cooker is hatched, and now the eggs are being pushed out.
	He says this.
	In the years that followed, There's no doubt that we made real social progress as a country.
	We became more liberal and inclusive in our understanding of national identity as Englishness and St. George's flag covered and were adopted by a wider cross-section of our diverse society.
	Go your eggs.
	There's the next one.
	Increasingly, we came to appreciate that our people could have multiple identities.
	Oh, our people can have multiple identities, can't they?
	Multiple identities, though, isn't that...
	A disorder.
	Last time I checked the DSM-5, it was multiple identities.
	Yes.
	I mean, can I identify as a Pakistani man?
	I would imagine not.
	If I became Prime Minister tomorrow, would India celebrate?
	Possibly not.
	Would you identify, would you bow deferentially to Narendra Modi, if you met him, on behalf of Britain?
	I mean, he's very short, as I understand.
	So he might have to, but not deferentially.
	No, not deferentially, just crouch.
	He says, for example, I'm proud to be a Londoner and to be English.
	The thing is, Londoner was always a subset of the English identity, as being a Yorkshireman is, as being a Wiltshireman is.
	These are all English subsets of the English identity.
	Also, where I'm from, it's a bit of a slur.
	Well, yeah, I mean, it is now.
	Well, it probably was then, actually.
	But the point being is, this is not an identity that is outside of the identity of being an Englishman.
	It is not an ethnic identity to be a Londoner.
	The ethnic identity is Englishman.
	And so, he says...
	People can have multiple identities in that way, but they need to be consistent with one another.
	There's a hierarchy.
	You have an identity on something, because you are only one thing.
	You have a personal identity, you have a familial identity, you have a regional identity, you may even have a...
	And when I say civic identity, I mean like a city identity.
	These are components of a greater whole.
	They have to be consistent with one another.
	And this is where he becomes inconsistent.
	So he says, I'm proud to be a Londoner and to be English, which is just funny to look at you to say that.
	He says, just as I am proud to be Pakistani and Asian.
	Right.
	So, I mean, don't go wrong.
	If his mum was English and his dad was Pakistani, I would concede this.
	So, yep, you are literally mixed race.
	You have half and half.
	These are both identities you have.
	But that's not the case for Sadiq Khan, who is 100% Pakistani.
	So, you are not an Englishman.
	I'm sorry to tell you.
	But he says he's also a proud European and someone of Islamic faith, because so many Europeans are Islamic.
	Oh, so many.
	Can I make a quick point here?
	I think one of the reasons why we're so petrified of making this very banal and straightforward observation is that over the last 60 years in the case of America and over the last 30 years in the case of European countries, not least Britain,
	We have defined what it means to be a nation purely in terms of values.
	And so the implication, given that we've been running on that software for 30 years or so, the implication, if I say that Sadiq Khan is not British or is not English, is that he's morally defective in some way.
	Now, I happen to think that he is morally defective in all sorts of ways.
	But he's not morally defective in respect of not being English.
	And he's not morally defective in respect of being a Pakistani.
	Like, there's a difference between...
	An evaluation of someone's moral character and an evaluation of their identity.
	And when you talk about someone's identity, that doesn't have any necessary bearing on moral character.
	But because we fuse these two categories in order to get civic nationalism working and to say that, well, what makes Britain Britain is its values, all of a sudden if you're excluding someone from the party, it is an implied moral judgment against them.
	In a way that wouldn't have been the case when people were just living that identity freely and were able to make category distinctions between a claim about unalterable identity, you're not a woman, you're not Napoleon, you're not Dutch, completely...
	Just the thing, also it retroactively does crazy things to our perception of the past.
	For example, Wellington didn't hold British values.
	So going over to the podium, don't worry, you're not fighting the British today because they don't hold British values.
	It's like, well, who am I fighting?
	The British don't exist today.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The British actually don't exist there.
	There's no army over there now.
	Don't worry about it.
	I was just going to say ever so quickly that it's very interesting that the incidence of the term British value or terms British values Spikes massively from 1997.
	Of course.
	Because all of a sudden you need to impose some kind of artificial unity on this newly balkanized population.
	And so you resort to Mickey Mouse values.
	And because they need to accommodate so many different people...
	No, no, you resort to Paddington values.
	Paddington values.
	That's exactly what it is.
	And so there is thin anodyne as possible.
	Sorry, it's just that you are completely on the money here.
	And he basically admits it throughout this piece.
	It's incredible, actually.
	But no, you're completely correct.
	Ethnicity is just inherited, regardless of what your values are.
	You know, my values are not the same as my 12th century ancestors, but they're still my ancestors.
	Yeah, actually, now you say it.
	Maybe they are a lot more similar than I first gave them credit for being.
	But the point is, you are fictionally English, Sadiq, and we all know this.
	I mean, if one were to deny your Englishness, Sadiq, how would you prove it?
	Say that again, sorry.
	If one were to deny Sadiq Khan's Englishness, how would he prove it?
	It would be an appeal to authority, surely.
	It's like, I'm the mayor of London, of course I'm English.
	Wow, that's not a given.
	In fact, he's the proof of that.
	But the point is, if Sadiq Khan would say, I'm English, I'm going to prove it.
	How's he going to prove it?
	There's no objective category he can use to prove it.
	I mean, it is the same logic of self-ID that is increasingly...
	The right is very, very eager, and not only the right, but certain portions of the left are very, very keen to point out the absurdity of transgenderism, the metaphysical absurdity of it.
	And I think this is on a par with that in terms of its metaphysical absurdity, but it's just because the race taboo is much, much, much, much stronger in our society and much more salient in our society than, say, the trans taboo, to the extent that...
	I mean, they tried to create one, but it didn't really work.
	So, logically, they're just as absurd.
	I would argue there's actually, it's more absurd in this instance than the other, because there's more similarity between men and women of the same ethnicity than there is between two very distant ethnicities.
	So, Sadiq Khan, like he says, he says, you know, I'm a Londoner, I'm English, I'm Pakistani and I'm Asian, and I'm European as well, and I'm a Muslim, and in my eyes, these identities don't contradict one another.
	They have to, by the nature of categorization itself.
	If one thing, I mean, the very nature of an identity is defined against things that it is not.
	Otherwise you don't have an identity.
	And he says, they make us who we are.
	There is no tension between patriotism and pluralism.
	And so this is essentially a form of identity theft from Sadiq Khan.
	You inherit your ethnic identity, which is why he even referred, I mean, if you're an Englishman, Sadiq, why did you even say, I am a Pakistani and Asian heritage?
	Why even bring this up if you're just an Englishman?
	This is the other thing that makes it particularly profligate in this case, is that at least the transgender law didn't go...
	Well, some of them claim to be gender-fluid, so they would be a man one day and a woman the next, but they would usually just stick to whatever they have assigned themselves as their gender.
	They would continue performing manliness or performing womanhood and identifying as such.
	Whereas what's particularly outrageous in this case is that...
	He is on record, not only claiming to be Pakistani, but talking about the need to advance certain Pakistani interests.
	It clearly matters to him a great deal.
	He's sort of passionately Pakistani.
	Very few Englishmen are passionately Pakistani.
	The reason these dual identities exist in a public-facing way is that it's whichever is politically expedient.
	Of course, yes.
	And we're getting to it now because this is...
	The point.
	This is about political expediency.
	He mentions Rishi Sunak, of course.
	If you close your eyes, he sounds like the quintessential Englishman.
	But if I have to close my eyes to think Rishi Sunak is English, then perhaps that's an indication that he might not be English.
	Radically limit your sensory apparatus, and I may seem correct, until you turn it fully back on again.
	Exactly.
	So the question of whether Rishi Sunak is English...
	He's not English.
	He's Indian.
	Which is why India celebrated.
	And again, no judgement.
	On a personal level, I think I probably quite like what he's saying.
	He seems like a nice chap.
	And I bet he throws a good barbecue.
	But he's not an Englishman.
	Wouldn't you invite him to your lockdown-breaking party, though?
	I would, yeah.
	Well, it was his office that he took the pictures.
	Oh, was it?
	Very interesting.
	Anyway, he says that was a thoroughly depressing episode for you, but also revealing the fact that too long politicians, leaders and others have not done enough to make the case for a progressive patriotism ceding ground to the populist and far right.
	And there we go.
	This is about, we have an identity that he is not privy to.
	He is not a part of this.
	And they know that English is not only an ethnic identity, it's the one they've been calling far right all this time.
	But actually...
	The world is changing, and everyone's thinking, oh, what am I?
	And it turns out that 75% of the country is still English.
	So if an ethnic consciousness arises in the English against multiculturalism, do they have the power to vote their way out of this?
	They actually do, by quite a long margin.
	Because people might think that we've been taken over by Muslims because they're literally represented everywhere, but they're still only about 6-7% of the population.
	No, it's mostly still us.
	And we're just slumbering.
	Anyway, so he says, well, that means it's quite difficult to pin down exactly what it means to be English.
	It's like, no, it doesn't.
	Being English means you would just have an English parent.
	It's literally that simple.
	There's nothing else to it, really.
	But he says it's fluid.
	No, it's not.
	It's not a fixed concept.
	Yes, it is.
	And it's been fixed for a thousand years.
	In fact, it's one of the most fixed concepts in all of history, if you think about it.
	Because if you look at a map of the Borders of England...
	They just haven't changed since, literally, Ethelstan.
	So it's actually, again, of all the identities you could have, it is actually one of the most fixed.
	Anyway, so he says, Okay,
	Sadiq.
	And he says modern England is a tapestry of cultures, faiths, histories, and influences.
	Yeah, forced upon us.
	Without our consent.
	And he says this country is bound together by the values of democracy, decency, fairness, and respect.
	So it's purely about taking whatever you think your English identity is and substituting it with modern progressive values.
	This is what it really is.
	It's about...
	Democracy, decency, fairness, and respect.
	So it's just British values.
	And it's a place where we're not forced to choose between our flag and our family history.
	Yeah, I don't know about that, Sadiq.
	Our home or our heritage?
	A country that is proud of its history fighting fascism.
	We've fought a lot more things than fascism, Sadiq.
	Again, we had way more crusades than we had wars against Germany.
	We're proud of our NHS, because of course the NHS, England didn't exist before the NHS.
	What year was the NHS founded?
	48, there we go.
	So that was the official formation of England.
	And key workers, I'm proud of its diversity and inclusive ethos.
	Are you proud of our diversity and inclusive ethos?
	Not particularly.
	No.
	The idea of progressive nationalism is that...
	Sorry, the idea of a progressive model of patriotism is that the less the country consists of its own people, the more...
	Truly, that country it is.
	That's literally what he's saying.
	That's basically what he's saying.
	It's literally what he's saying.
	He says, there are so many reasons to take pride in being English, but as we celebrate everything that makes our country so great, we must always be on guard against those whose so-called patriotism seems less about love of country and more about exclusion of others.
	Imagine if I went to Pakistan and started saying, you know what makes Pakistan really, really great?
	The fact that it is filled to the rafters increasingly of non-Pakistani people.
	And then I would just try and divert...
	I'd also just try and distract and divert patriotic Pakistani energy, whatever that looks like, probably quite menacing.
	Divert it to things like cuisines and football matches and cricket and all this sort of thing.
	I was just to try and make Pakistani identity as thin as possible just so that I can be accommodated there.
	I don't imagine they tolerate it.
	I don't imagine he tolerates it.
	No, but he ends this by saying, I have faith that the quiet majority will always choose proper patriotism over poisonous populism.
	It's in our DNA.
	And one of the reasons why I'm proud to be English is like, let's do the ancestry test, Sadiq.
	Let's see how much of your English DNA really shines through there.
	So basically...
	It's funny how, when it comes to, you know...
	Testing your ancestry.
	All of a sudden, people forget all of the political programming and they understand it perfectly.
	100%.
	And they're fascinated by it.
	Yeah, like David Lammy did this.
	He's like, oh, I'm part of the Turek tribe or whatever this tribe.
	I'm going to go to Africa and write a book about being an African.
	It's like, what are you doing here?
	You know, if this is fascinating to you, I mean, great.
	I'm glad you're happy.
	Go, you know.
	But anyway, so yeah, he's just trying to make the...
	Being English, the equivalent of being woke, and I'm not going to have it, of course.
	And again, somehow they always find their way back home.
	It's just really interesting how the cuckoo finds its way back to its original continent, right?
	It's just remarkable.
	I just don't know how they do it.
	Scientists have yet to discover.
	Anyway...
	I like to think he was a refugee here.
	Well, no, his family came over after the partition.
	Okay.
	Because they were escaping violence.
	Because, for some reason, if the British aren't in complete control of India and Pakistan, they kill each other a lot.
	Anyway, let's get to the video comments.
	Thank you.
	That's nice.
	That's beautiful.
	Good morning, Lotus Eaters.
	I still have plenty of pictures from this last hiking trip, so I thought I'd share a few more.
	Our first hike up Stacker Buke was towards the east end of the Columbia River Gorge, and our second was further west, and in my opinion, more beautiful.
	As much as I enjoy making fun of Oregon, I gotta say, Mount Hood is a very picturesque mountain, and there is no shortage of good places to take pictures.
	Got a picture of this little guy as well, hanging out on the trail.
	Hope you guys are having a good week so far.
	Oregon's beautiful.
	I really enjoy your video comments because they're always...
	So wonderful.
	It's like such a nice palate cleanser after talking about how bad the world is and you get suddenly reminded how beautiful it is.
	Well, look, if I had to see Sadiq Khan in my mentions first, well, he wasn't in my mentions, but on my feed this morning, I'm going to make it everyone else's problem.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Good morning.
	The sun is rising in the greenhouse across the cucumbers, the tomatoes and the peppers and the equal opportunities tomato.
	This guy only has one leaf.
	They need two in order to grow more.
	This is genetic.
	It came out of the seed like this.
	It can only grow this very thick, creepy stem.
	It upsets me.
	But, equal opportunities.
	He's here.
	Let's see what happens.
	I know that tomato's a D-I-hire.
	Very wholesome.
	Yeah, it's all very wholesome.
	These are great video comments, just FYI.
	Keep sending us nice video comments, guys.
	Next one.
	So, Carl, I've been watching videos about the political divide between genders, and the way I see it is that there's no real way that a man can really form the opinion of a woman.
	There has to be another way forward, there has to be another strategy, another tactic, because anyone who's been in a relationship will understand that they usually make it to their mind, and that's usually about it.
	So, there has to be something else that we can do to help tread to...
	You know, it would have been way easier to have been able to follow that if you weren't firing a gun at stuff.
	It does make it easier to agree with you, though.
	Yeah, but no, I actually did follow that.
	It's something I have to do a longer thing on, but no, men absolutely can set the opinion of women, and actually I think it's kind of our job to do so.
	We just have to be...
	I mean, I think it's the sort of thing that...
	You know, in the sort of really ideologically right-wing...
	Manosphere types are like, men need to be leaders.
	There is something to it, actually.
	I think it's best done when you're not consciously doing it, if you know what I mean.
	If you're being authentically yourself, people are drawn towards that and therefore want to emulate it.
	And also, you need to demonstrate that you are...
	A worthy leader.
	You can't just shout your way.
	You can't just say that you have the power.
	You need to actually embody it.
	Once you embody it, you don't need to mention it.
	That's basically what it comes down to.
	It's not an easy thing, and I don't have time to go into it now.
	Let's go to the next video coming.
	My comment from last week pointed out that Liberal voters tend to be boomers, and your coverage analysed that.
	What you fail to analyse is that they're also strongly female.
	Women vote on emotion, men on policy.
	Trump is highly emotive.
	Also, the spectre of access to abortion is a solved issue in Canada through Act of Parliament.
	Canadians, particularly Canadian women, cannot grasp that they are in the Westminster system, and Parliament is sovereign.
	Still, one woman I spoke to could not grasp this, and kept wittering on about God, they really are just angry non-Americans.
	That's the Canadian identity at this point.
	Well, they exist in the shadow of America, and it's a shame that they don't look to their founding nation.
	There's always been a strong...
	We've got an episode of Deprogrammed coming out with Eric Kaufman this evening on the Canadian election, and it is interesting because Canadian anti-Americanism...
	used to be the flip side of something more positive, namely the fact that, you know, expressed by the British loyalist tradition.
	And so it didn't actually used to be all that bad, but now it's just a sort of demented, directionless anti-Americanism, and it's intensified by the fact that it's Trump's America.
	But Canada's basically been deliberately hollowing out its identity since the 1960s.
	Now, it used to be...
	British loyalism, and then of course we've got the French Quebecois, but now it's very much multiculturalism, we like maple syrup, and we're not America, and still less than we Trump's America.
	And that is not a very good recipe for holding together a national identity.
	So when I was young, the traditional identity that people perceived of a Canadian was like the Mountie.
	That is very much in the ethnic centre of the British view of things.
	The Mountie is a...
	Very respectable chap, you know, very hardy, respectable guy, and he was his own thing.
	They're not Americans, obviously.
	Americans are temperamentally completely different to the very softly spoken but sturdy Mountie.
	Now, you're right, but that's an ethnic identity that has to be whittled away so it can be multicultural.
	It's a shame, really, because Canada had quite a reputation for having very hardy soldiers as well.
	I had family over in Canada that fought for the Canadians in World War I and II.
	And, yeah, they did very well.
	You can't live in a country like Canada without becoming tough.
	That's true, yeah.
	So, yeah, it's really sad that they've turned into whining libs.
	It was just like, oh, we just hate the orange man.
	It's like, shouldn't you be shooting a bear or something?
	It's also that somewhat misdirected nationalist drive if it's all...
	Focused on not liking the president to your immediate south while leaving the back door open to half of the subcontinent.
	It's just...
	How do you feel about Modi?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, anyway.
	Chase says, if the King were just to have enough, what do you think happens to Australia, Canada and New Zealand?
	Could be an interesting lads hour slash roundtable.
	Well, I don't know.
	I don't know what...
	I mean, I know...
	Didn't Australia vote to keep the King recently?
	Didn't see that.
	I'm pretty sure they did.
	They voted against the voice referendum.
	They did vote against that, but I think it was before that.
	But I don't know what the King's actual pull would be in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
	But in England, he would be very popular if he would just sort some of the problems out.
	Anyway, Lord Nereva says, parked in my usual place in the city today, right next to the local migrant hotel.
	Made sure to cast evil looks at the millers outside of it, for people milling around, for all the good it does.
	I know dozens of people who all agree on one thing, the hotel has to go, preferably out of business, once all the chances are ejected from our shores.
	Yeah, I mean, that's...
	Everyone feels this way.
	Well, they're moved into rented accommodation soon, so...
	So they'll be in your street rather than the town centre.
	But, like, whenever I'm, like...
	Like, in a shop or something, and there's some foreigner in there doing something weird.
	I'll see the other English people catch my eye, and just, like, you know, everyone can feel it.
	I've got to the point of just openly talking about it in front of the person doing it, and just treating them like a child, basically.
	But then sometimes they will actually overhear and be like, oh, I'm sorry.
	So I had to get the train back from London the other day, and it was a Sunday evening, and...
	There was no seats.
	Obviously, it was completely packed on a Sunday evening.
	I don't know why.
	But there was an English chap who was sat in the aisle, like, in the thing there.
	I'm stood by the door.
	And there's some African guy eating chicken wings with his headphones and singing to himself.
	And I saw the guy sat there just looking at him.
	You know, just...
	And I was just sat there going, do I say something?
	Do I want to say something?
	He might have a knife.
	You know, I'm not going to say something.
	But I could just see it happening in real time.
	Just, you know, because this guy was a cyclist or something on his bike or whatever.
	But it was just like, You know, the annoyance, the Ed Davey sort of angry, centrist dad energy is rising.
	I just hope that when the Saxon really does begin to hate it, there aren't just six of us left.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, I think it's getting quite soon.
	I think people are already getting pissed off.
	Anyway, one last one.
	Matthew Hammond says, did Tony Blair really tell Starmer to drop woke politics and focus on the economy?
	But he was responsible for de-industrialising what was left of the UK during his time as Prime Minister.
	I think that started with Thatcher, to be honest.
	It did begin with Thatcher, but...
	Tony Blair carried on.
	That's true.
	I mean, everything has been the same program, basically, since Thatcher.
	And yes, he did, and yeah.
	There's a part of me that wonders if Blair ever regrets any of the things that he's done, because he is constantly now reining in the excesses of his own project.
	You can't do this.
	Why are they trying to do that, Tony?
	But anyway, we're out of time there.
	So, Helson, where can people go find more of you?
	Oh, I still write for the European Conservative and New Culture Forum.
	The program goes out every Thursday at 7 o 'clock, and I do a monthly show called The Forge for the European Conservative, which can be found on YouTube.
	Most recent guest was Matt Goodwin, and actually got quite contentious at times, so that's worth a look if you get the chance.
	Excellent.
	Right.
	Well, thanks so much for joining us.
	It's been a pleasure.

▲