Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 4, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:17

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1179

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of Loat Seaters.
	What?
	No, I'm just smiling.
	Smiling and happening.
	Being happy.
	I've not had to do that on this podcast.
	Yeah, yeah, I know.
	Joined by Stephen and Harry.
	Hello.
	Sorry.
	If you're smiling too right now, stop it.
	Stop it right now.
	Sorry, Carl.
	I didn't really put you off there, but I'm just in a happy mood today.
	He's got to get himself picked up before we talk about horrible, awful, no-good things.
	Yeah, yeah, that's good.
	Yeah, so today we're going to be talking about Trump's big, beautiful bill, the fact that essentially we're a de facto Islamic state at this point, and how the British are going to be a minority in Britain by, what was it, 2060?
	2063, I believe, is the current projection, although at that point I feel like calling it Britain would be completely pointless.
	Well, I mean, at that point we're just talking about the landmass rather than the people.
	Oh, yeah.
	We'll get into that.
	So let's begin.
	So Trump's big, beautiful bill has caused a bit of a stir in the past couple of days because it has passed the House and it's moving on to the Senate.
	And it looks like it's going to become a reality.
	And this is something that Elon Musk has recently been causing a bit of trouble over.
	And to be honest with you, you can see why, actually.
	So let's have a summary of what's in it from the BBC here.
	So they tell us that the bill, because the thing is about American bills as well, is they are just hundreds of pages long.
	Hundreds and hundreds of pages long.
	Ron Paul tried to solve this.
	Yes, he did.
	Was it Ron or Rand, actually?
	One of them tried to solve it.
	One of the Pauls.
	Yes, one of the Pauls tried to solve this.
	And they failed, sadly.
	Yeah, so this is obviously open to abuse, which is the case now.
	And so here are just some of the things that are in it.
	So no tax on Social Security, which makes sense.
	Why is Social Security taxed?
	That doesn't make any sense.
	That makes sense.
	And we're taxed in this country on Social Security.
	Yeah, it's weird.
	Just reduce the amount of Social Security you give.
	The bureaucracy.
	Anyway, the deduction extensions begin to decrease after however much.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Okay, yeah, fair enough.
	That's fine.
	Create more Medicaid requirements.
	So, um...
	They're adding additional restrictions and requirements to Medicaid, which is to reduce the amount of money they have to spend on that.
	And so one of them is put in new work requirements for childless adults without disabilities.
	So you have to work 80 hours a month in order to qualify for Medicaid, which...
	You'll get a job.
	So, fair enough.
	There's an increased cap on what they call the SALT tax.
	Now, SALT stands for State and Local Taxes.
	And so, at the moment, there's a $10,000 cap on how much taxpayers can deduct from the amount they owe in federal taxes, which expires this year, and they want to raise that to $40,000 for married couples with incomes up to half a million.
	So that's good for regular people.
	That's a good thing.
	There is also the SNAP benefits.
	So SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which are used by, the BBC tells us, 40 million low-income Americans, which...
	And so the new bill requires that the states add more to this.
	Reduce the amount of funding that federal government puts into it.
	And it also adds work requirements for able-bodied SNAP enrollees.
	Again, very much similar to the Medicaid thing.
	Another thing that Trump made a big deal out of is no tax on overtime or tips, which is also in there.
	So, okay, fair enough.
	That's nice.
	Child tax credit is set to increase from 2005, weird because the BBC said increase, but what they mean is decrease from 2,500 to Oh, no, sorry, increase to 2,500 from 2,000.
	And they have raised the debt ceiling to 4 trillion, which...
	Which I think is what Musk is really angry about.
	So the main issue with all of this is there are lots of tax cuts.
	But there is not revenue being raised.
	And so what this means is just massive amounts of extra debt, which is why they want to raise the debt ceiling.
	Now, you may remember that Doge has saved something like $170 billion, which is a staggering amount of money.
	And, of course, Elon was trying to get to $2 trillion.
	He wanted a trillion.
	Didn't get anywhere near it, obviously.
	And so that's a lot of money that is basically going to be wiped out by this bill.
	And so, I mean, the BBC estimate that this is going to increase the deficit by about $600 billion, which, of course, is three or four times more than what Elon was saving.
	So, brilliant.
	Yeah, I think what I was trying to understand with it is Two elements to this.
	One is the thing that we like, is that it's reducing taxes, particularly those for lower incomes, is increasing it for those families with children where they get some kind of beneficial taxing, the $2,000 to $2,500.
	So what he's essentially saying is if you're the working person on the lower incomes, although having said that, it can go up to half a million, you can make a lot more money on this.
	And if you're an entrepreneur, you can make a lot more money onto this.
	And there is a big cost to that.
	There is a big cost in that we're going to have to increase the deficit.
	But, hey guys, look at what we managed to do.
	We made reductions of 100 and odd billion.
	Okay, it should be more.
	I agree.
	Secondly, we're going to bring in money from tariffs.
	And a lot of people are already recognizing he's made quite a lot from the tariffs so far, just on the increases to that.
	Do you have a number on that?
	It's in the billions already.
	So I needed to look.
	I was just reading around the subject on that.
	And I think many of our kind of viewers from the States were probably able to pick that up and say how much Yeah.
	That's pretty good.
	So it's $68 billion already on that.
	So he's at $250 billion.
	$250 billion.
	So he's a third of the way.
	Now, I understood it, that with that, if Doge had been able to continue, that was the idea, that they cut more from that to be able to, And then we get the benefit coming initially from the tariffs.
	And hopefully the long term, which is where Trump was saying, is that the long term, I'm going to be bringing jobs back on shore, which increases the ability to have jobs and increased wages.
	In the meantime, this is where Trump is right.
	Don't you think that if you've got a deficit, what's going to happen in the markets?
	What's going to happen to the left?
	They're going to use this argument, I would have thought.
	The issue is that it's full of unfunded spending as well, which is not great, which is why it's increasing the deficit's $600 billion.
	And Elon has come out hard against this, saying, I'm sorry, I just can't stand it anymore.
	This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.
	Shame on those who voted for it.
	You did wrong.
	You know it.
	What is he specifically going for?
	Well, he hasn't specified any one particular thing.
	There is obviously loads of spending in it, and there is obviously lots of tax cuts that are going to just lead to the United States piling on more debt.
	And he's not wrong to point out that the debt is actually bonkers in America.
	I mean, we've talked about this before.
	I mean, is there anyone who thinks this is being paid back?
	Like, I don't see how this can be paid back.
	So anyway, he points out that the interest payments are already 25% of all government revenue.
	Come on, this is just like a level of madness that everybody who argues government debt is not like household debt and they hear this consistently.
	Governments can always find their way out of it, issue more money, inflationary, let's increase taxes, borrow more from the international markets at lower rates.
	But it ignores the fact that you're borrowing on your asset, the house, and the people working within it, but the debt isn't going down.
	No.
	So eventually...
	But who's going to do that?
	I mean, paying $100 billion a month on interest on the debt alone is crazy.
	$1.2 trillion a year.
	I mean, that is mad.
	And the thing is, these all just sound like words, right?
	They're just words.
	Oh, it's $100 billion, it's $100 billion, it's $1 trillion.
	These are all just words, right?
	So you get to a number that high, I'm just looking at it on the screen, because it becomes conceptually impossible.
	Exactly.
	But there is actually a fairly good way, Of conceptualizing.
	So, as Geiger Capital pointed out here, a million seconds ago was May the 23rd.
	So, you know, less than a month ago.
	A billion seconds ago was 1993, but a trillion seconds ago was 30,000 BC.
	That is the scale of the difference in the numbers.
	That is, it gives you an impression of just how much larger than a billion a trillion is.
	And it's like, okay, right.
	So all of human accomplishment was done probably about half a trillion seconds ago.
	Right?
	A billion seconds ago, I was a teenager.
	Right.
	A million seconds ago was last month.
	Okay, you see the scale creep.
	It is huge.
	It is...
	It is...
	I mean, I think, isn't it, someone suggests that if you put all the dollars of one trillion up, then it could actually go to Mars or something like that.
	Beyond the sun.
	You know, level up.
	Someone did something ridiculous on YouTube or Twitter.
	There are various graphics you can see.
	Sounds about right.
	Where people get like a pallet of a million dollars and then a billion dollars and then they zoom out and it's a trillion dollars.
	And so there are fiscal conservatives in the United States, obviously being led by Rand Paul, who are like, yeah, I've been pretty consistent on this.
	I oppose deficit spending.
	If we don't get serious about reining in debt, the next generation will pay the price.
	It's like, man, you are right, but come on, look at the numbers.
	It's not just the next generation is going to pay the price.
	How is this getting paid off?
	That's what's going to happen?
	Yeah, probably.
	They will want a war which they can restructure the world and then turn around and say, we've snaffled the assets of China and impoverished them.
	We've snaffled the assets of Russia.
	We've done Iran.
	So now we've got a whole load more assets on our balance sheet.
	That will mix up the dollar a little bit and somehow we'll manage to save our nation and the trillion dollars and we can carry on spending because we've managed to snaffle assets.
	But if you look at our history, I mean...
	You know, the South Sea bubble and when we lost the Empire, look what happened then.
	You know, eventually we can't keep going out and getting assets from somewhere else.
	Yeah.
	Unless we find out there are Martians and they're pretty good and Elon Musk's managed to help take it off them.
	Unless we can steal the assets from the Martians, yeah.
	Yeah, so basically, I sincerely...
	But it feels very much like King Canute trying to hold back the tide.
	It's just like, we should be fiscally responsible, guys.
	I think that ship's sailed, mate.
	And Rand Paul thinks it's going to be something like five trillion that's added to the deficit in the end.
	Yeah.
	Let's watch the segment just so he can tell us five trillion.
	In a separate post, Trump said there's a false narrative about spending in this bill.
	He said it is, quote, single biggest spending cut in history by far.
	Kentucky Senator Rand Paul joins me now.
	Mr. Senator, I know you want more spending cuts included in the bill.
	Can you tell us what specifically you'd want to cut?
	Yeah, it's even more than that.
	The biggest objection I have to the bill is adding $5 trillion to the debt ceiling.
	I'm actually very supportive of the tax cuts.
	I don't accept the CBO notion that the tax cuts will lead to deficits.
	The reason I believe there will be more deficits is they're raising the debt ceiling $5 trillion.
	We know that this year, most of the Republicans, not me, voted to continue the Biden spending levels in March.
	So we're going to go through September of this year, and the deficit for this year is going to be over $2 trillion.
	If you're borrowing $5 trillion, that makes me think you're going to add over $2 trillion, maybe $2.8 trillion next year.
	So it doesn't show me that you've turned around.
	If you look at the spending cuts, it's complicated because it's at $1.5 trillion, it sounds like this enormous number, but it's over 10 years, so it's $150 billion a year.
	They're also increasing spending for the military and for the border, $300 billion.
	That's actually more than all the doge cuts that we've found so far.
	So something doesn't really add up here, and I can't be on record as being one who supports increasing the debt by $5 trillion.
	I think that's irresponsible.
	The bond markets are already starting to show that they're skittish over this.
	We've got interest rates of over 5% on the 10-year bond.
	There are real problems we face as a country, and we can't just blithely go on the way we have in the past.
	So, as you can see, Rand Paul addressing the issue is this is a massive structural problem that is just not being addressed and saying, oh, we've got, you know, 300 billion in cuts or whatever.
	Okay, but that's not going to solve the problem because the scale of what is happening is just way bigger than people can properly conceptually.
	It is, I'm just trying to run some So that amounts to $300 billion, but that's the amount that you're putting on the borders and the military.
	Okay, you might be happy with that.
	But at the end of the day, he said there was $2.8 billion additional spending.
	$300 is identified.
	Where's the other $2.5?
	What are they spending it on?
	military and various other things like this.
	But the thing is, again, even if they were correct, We're still in something like 100,000 BC when it comes to the debt.
	So it's like, okay, we've got ourselves back to the Middle Ages.
	Okay, got a long way to go then, you know.
	So it's just one of those things where it's just like...
	Via democratic means.
	Are there anyone out there in Trump's team that have come out positively and said this is a fantastic idea other than himself on this?
	I mean, he must have run this through advisors who all wrote it up for him.
	In many ways, this is kind of just business as usual.
	I mean, this is one of the things that Elon Musk is objecting to.
	Oh, look, a massive pork-barrel congressional spending bill.
	This is not new.
	This is completely normal, completely business usual.
	And to be honest with you, it's probably how Trump manages to get past all the rhinos.
	Now, this was a particularly strange thing because Marjorie Taylor Greene got pilloried for this because everyone's like, what, you didn't read the bill?
	It's like, it's a thousand pages long.
	Of course she didn't.
	No one did.
	You know, they get a bunch of lawyers to read it, and then the lawyers tell them what they think they need to know.
	But anyway, so she voted for it, and then it...
	That's very strange.
	Yeah, that's weird, isn't it?
	I haven't got an answer to why they've got that in there, either.
	States can't regulate AI for 10 years.
	Yeah.
	They can't make laws about AI or regulate it.
	So they can't ban it.
	And I could theorise, who's that one who works with Blair?
	Is it Larry Ellison?
	Could be.
	Is he part of the TechSphere association with people like Peter Thiel and Alex Karp who have connections through Palantir to JD Vance?
	Well, not just Palantir either, because at the moment, China is trying to catch up with America on AI development, but they're significantly behind.
	They're not nearly there.
	America is definitely the world leader in AI.
	And so what this does is protect that industry.
	Well, and doing that, I think there's also a military side of it.
	If you've got regulations, it might have an impact on that.
	Of course, you're seeing the challenges that companies like NVIDIA, which has about 86% of the major AI chips, and then AMD, which only has about 17%, all of them facing restrictions on their latest chips and semiconductor components being sold, but also like the big Dutch company.
	That is one of the most important countries.
	It's prevented from selling any of its products now to China.
	And they all are putting estimates that we're going to lose 1.6 billion, 1.7 billions of dollars of profits not being going to China because of that.
	So maybe that's an element of saying this is federal.
	We're not even going to allow anyone to get involved in it.
	And that's not capitalist.
	It's cronyism.
	Absolutely.
	Fundamentally.
	Even if it was, it's also directly against, as Marjorie points out, the states' rights issue.
	As in, the states, of course, should be able to make their own laws.
	And she says, I'm adamantly opposed to this.
	It's a violation of states' rights.
	And had I known about it, I would have voted no.
	And she's getting completely pilloried for this.
	And it's not fair at all, because none of them bloody read it.
	Shut up.
	You didn't read it.
	Of course not.
	So it's only a thousand pages long, isn't it?
	The whole point of making them so long is to ensure that just the sheer time investment that you'd have to put into it makes it just so, okay, hand it off to some guy who can give me some bullet points, or now feed it into AI and get Grok to give me the bullet points.
	Which actually might be the best way to do it, to be honest.
	That's why...
	Yeah.
	Anyway, so yeah, the point being of all of this, it's actually in many ways business as usual.
	Elon Musk has stared into the abyss, the umbral darkness of federal spending and...
	The very optimistic, "Hey, guys, maybe we can balance the budget." Yeah, no, that's not happening.
	And you can see why he's given up, frankly.
	So nothing new, essentially, in this regard.
	The debt is going to continue to increase.
	The amount you have to pay to service the debt is going to continue to increase.
	It's never going to be fixed.
	It is!
	You see the success he was beginning to get, and then they fought back and got rid of him.
	Yeah, and not only that, though, looking ahead into the future, you just realise, okay, that's going to be a problem that's going to keep rearing its head.
	It's never going to go away.
	The one chance that they had to fix it, as Elon was putting it, and they didn't do it.
	Well, Elon actually did want to enact some kind of structural change to how the US government works, and the swamp has its own defence mechanisms there.
	Logan says, Social news, there's a rumour going around that the government is planning on seizing all the houses by the ocean.
	Okay, I don't know what you're talking about there, I'm afraid.
	Drunk Changeling says, Americans, along with every other Western country, need to understand they have two options.
	Cut welfare by 50% today, or wait 10 years and cut it by 100%.
	But option two is the next admins issue.
	Yeah, that is the problem, isn't it?
	And Habsification says the biggest obstacle are the establishment Republicans in Congress that want to keep the status quo.
	They're just as bad as the Democrats.
	Of course they are.
	Too many Mitch McConnells and not enough Thomas Massys.
	Yes, and this is what I mean.
	Trump doubtless had to just include all of this just to get it past the rhinos.
	But yeah.
	Honestly, it's impressive that Thomas Massy is even in the government at all.
	Well, I want to let everyone know we've had sessions on the Trivium which have worked out really, really well.
	And if you've not looked at it, you've not read it, if you've not even joined up, then you should do because it's impressive.
	And Carl is rereading the rhetoric section now and going through it because it's really good.
	So you've got an opportunity to buy the whole lot of 375.
	It's been extended.
	For a period of time, because obviously lots of people have different paydays, they've got different ways of getting their money in, so there's an opportunity for you to get each of the individual bundles at $150 each, or take the lot at $375, which makes a lot more sense if you do so.
	So get in it, get the Trivium, and let us know whether you're enjoying it or not.
	I'm going to move on now to what we're calling, we are an Islamic state now.
	At least de facto.
	Yeah, this is worrying for me.
	Most of you know, as a lawyer, I've kind of been in the courts.
	I defend the courts.
	I defend our legal system.
	I think compared to many countries in the world, it's one of the best.
	It still has a reasonable opportunity for fairness.
	But over the past 20 years of me being in law, I've seen a decline, both in the way that we're extending legislation, which I blame on Tony Blair and its extension of two elements.
	Legislation.
	And this is going to be one of them that we're going to deal with.
	the courts being out of the hands of the lawyers themselves and just having no political input.
	And that's why we have the Supreme Court, which just allows those who are within the select group to make the decisions on them.
	Unlike the US, where at least you get a balance between Democrats and Republican sides of the argument.
	And this latest one.
	It's about Hamik Koskan.
	And some of you may have watched the stories, some of you may have not.
	But Hamik Koskan was two days ago convicted for burning the Koran in public.
	Wow, he was guilty of burning a Koran in public.
	Burning a Koran in public.
	Although, you know, we'll go into the depths of it.
	The judge said it's not about burning the Koran.
	It's about what else he did around the burning of the Quran.
	It's just a coincidence that it's happened after he burned a Quran.
	And so this is about Hamakaran, who is an individual.
	He spent 10 years in Egyptian prison as a political refugee in many ways because he challenged the Egyptians.
	Is he not Turkish?
	Is it Turkish?
	I think he's Turkish.
	Turkish but I think he was imprisoned in one of them either Turkey or Egypt for his political views.
	So he is a man that So what I've got here is that's what he was convicted of.
	Now here we're going to move on to a little bit of what else he said.
	So he burnt the Quran and shouted, fuck Islam, and Islam is a religion of terrorism.
	So he was convicted of an aggravated public order fence and must pay a fine.
	And he argued that this was effectively a blasphemy law and also against his human rights.
	It's worse than a blasphemy law because he's not going to get arrested if he says Christianity is a religion of terrorism.
	No.
	You won't receive anything.
	So what this is, is a religion, is a law that specifically protects Islam in particular.
	Yep, and that's what we're going to see, and that's what lots of people say.
	But I want you to look at those two words, fuck Islam, and Islam is a religion of terrorism.
	Bear them in mind as we're going through this show, and how we're going through the evidence, before it gets to you, and you're going to sit yourself on the court as a judge at this particular time.
	So the reactions have been obvious.
	The spectator, David Shipley, is now saying, England now has a blasphemy law.
	I cannot disagree with that.
	James Price, Britain now has a blasphemy law, but only for the religion of Islam, which is exactly what we're saying.
	Honestly, I think that's worse than actually having a blasphemy law.
	If it was like, okay, you can't insult any religion, okay, I don't like it, but at least it is a universal law.
	No, this is the kind of law that we would have in an Islamic state.
	If you go to Pakistan, you can do whatever you want to the Bible, but you'll get lynched.
	Absolutely.
	And then prosecuted probably after your lynching if you burn a crown.
	I do wonder if someone has actually managed to escape Pakistan for their lynching and managed to argue that they should be an asylum seeker, whether they'd be sent back or not.
	And I think that probably would be one of the only occasions that they do send them back.
	That's Christians.
	But interestingly on this, what James Post follows on to the next one, is that why do you think that the population of Britain won't be aggrieved?
	Why banning criticism of Islam will definitely not have any negative consequences.
	If you want to cause division in society, is this not an example of a particular case that will elevate that division, elevate the anger, and elevate the fact that we have a two-tier system of justice in this country?
	It's hard to say it's not a two-tier system.
	Yeah.
	So I think he's right on there.
	Robert Gemma is interesting.
	He points out that for Christianity, blasphemy was abolished in 2008, 17 years ago, and that Starmer defended a woman who trampled on the American flag.
	Of course he did.
	Of course he did.
	But today, where was Starmer on this issue?
	Where do we think he was?
	Well, I assume he was like, well, we don't insult Islam, Jabs.
	No, no, no.
	He was probably trying to find a way of saying, look, I've just done a deal with Kazakhstan.
	Or maybe I'm just going to fly out to see Zelensky again, my mate, one more time on The International, rather than deal with this particular issue.
	I think General Keir is standing once more quite strongly on this.
	He said the fate is grotesque.
	It's true.
	Now, here is where you've got to get this point.
	This is where it starts to bring in a little bit.
	Remember those words, fuck his land.
	He was allegedly stabbed in broad daylight.
	It's not even allegedly.
	You can see the video.
	I see the video.
	I haven't seen that one.
	Oh, yeah, the video is...
	Yeah, so he runs out of the embassy or something like that.
	And stabs him for burning the book.
	Ah, there he is.
	And a Kurdish Armenian atheist, that's what he is, protesting Erdogan.
	Not only that, someone on a Deliveroo jumped off.
	His delivery bike and kicked him in the head.
	So that's one way of delivering your pizza, I suppose.
	Just be aware.
	These people are all around us in our country.
	They're just getting on with their lives, except they believe that you should die if you burn the Koran.
	Now, to be fair...
	That might get you in some trouble.
	But if you burn a Bible, you'll get a discount.
	Probably.
	That's right.
	And so what we've got now, as you can see, is building up.
	He's been stabbed in broad daylight by someone who said he shouldn't be burning it, and he was kicked in the head.
	Now, to be fair, both of these individuals were charged with assault, although their cases have been pushed back until after summer.
	Not as important as his, the victim of this particular issue.
	I'm sure if anything were to happen to them, the ECHR would step in to make sure that nothing bad actually happens anyway.
	So I'm going to examine a little bit, very quickly running through for people here.
	This is one of the acts that he was charged with.
	He was charged with two particular offences.
	The first is the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and we're looking down here.
	It's Section 3, and in there, racially or religiously aggravated public order offences.
	I've never been comfortable with public order offences ever since I started looking at them and learning about them in university under law and when I was doing the bar, because it always struck me that the way that they were open for interpretation was a simple way of the government's being able to stop people from being able to protest lawfully, whether I like that protest or not.
	But here was an extension.
	The extension here is racially and religiously aggravated.
	And in order for that to be guilty, a person, and I look at section C of this, harassment, alarm, or distress?
	Well, I mean, I feel I've been racially aggravated against when someone tries to stab someone for burning a Quran.
	Yeah, I'm in alarm.
	That stresses me.
	Yes, and I'm alarmed by it.
	And I'm alarmed if I see someone of a racially different background or religion stabbing somebody else of a different religion or background.
	So why that person who stabbed him isn't also charged with this particular offence is concerning for me.
	But I want to look at those words.
	Harassment, alarm, or distress.
	You'll notice that the racial laws are only ever used against the native white majority.
	The grooming gangs would have been a really solid example of racial hate crimes, and yet none of them, as far as I'm aware, were charged with anything like that.
	I mean, in this case, that's not entirely true, given that the person who's being charged under them is Kurdish-Armenian.
	But in this case, all it means is that this is a particular situation where we have imported both sides of this conflict.
	Which is always the most fun.
	It's like Leicester.
	I like the way we've identified the white side of the conflict as well.
	Oh yeah, I suppose so.
	The one who's against Islam, that's the white one.
	Well, I'm going to say that we've got to be concerned about this particular one because it's a summary conviction.
	Of six months, or a fine not exceeding the maximum.
	I didn't check out what the maximum is, but it's normally more than £2,500.
	But I am deeply concerned about the fact that a person is guilty of harassment, alarm or distress.
	When we look into how the judges interpreted this, and how that will impact us on this show, or when you do any interviews, or when you write any articles, or indeed when you talk about it at work, or anywhere.
	To be quite frankly.
	So this is the judgment of the case, including the sentence remarks.
	So who brought the charges against Hammett Koskinen?
	The Crown Prosecution.
	So the state has decided?
	The state has decided.
	And initially they did charge it about a religiously related to the Quran as almost blasphemy, and then they were forced out to doing that by generic.
	So they changed it into a public order offence, which, as some people will come to and say, it's basically blasphemy through the back door.
	Couldn't do it from the front door.
	By Allah, they're going to defend Islam.
	And here's the interesting point here.
	He held it aloft whilst he shouted, fuck Islam, and Islam is a religion of terrorism, and Quran is burning.
	at the time he's doing so, and in doing so, he's motivated by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam, based on their membership of that group.
	So if you criticise somebody who's a member of a religious group, namely Islam, and you do so that causes them alarm or distress or harassment, you are now guilty of this public order offence if you do it outside in the public.
	I like the way that's not legal, that's just a different offence.
	Yeah, that's just a different offence.
	There is where he says it.
	Very clearly, this is about hostility towards members of a religious group.
	Let's work on the number of impacts of this.
	And so he further comes down.
	He says it's disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by holding aloft and saying, fuck Islam, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
	Sorry, just a quick thing here.
	As if...
	I must exist in a state of tranquility at all times.
	Never experience anything that might cause me to be slightly alarmed or distressed, or else the Crown prosecution will come down on you assuming you're not a Muslim.
	It's just wild.
	And I find it utterly, utterly in a world of very strange communistic determination.
	Of what is people's opinions, views, values, and we're now going to suppress them within this ideology of threatening.
	Not even threatening, it's just harassment and abuse.
	But if you have a large number of Muslims praying in public, there's no way that could be considered to be alarming or distressing, even though I might find that alarming or distressing.
	Well, I would agree that within this definition, someone would legitimately be able to call that alarming and distressing.
	Is it threatening behaviour?
	No, which is what, or abusive?
	I don't think he was threatening anyone.
	No, no, no.
	This is the incredible element about it, is when you run through here...
	And a man came out and said, you're a fucking idiot.
	the defendant responded, fuck you, repeatedly.
	So what we've got...
	I think I've seen a video of these incidents.
	You're a fucking idiot, fuck you.
	And then, unfortunately, we're probably not be allowed on YouTube because of this now with that swearing.
	But the point is that when he says...
	It's after he'd been stabbed.
	He said those words after he was stabbed.
	Might be some mitigating circumstance.
	Well, the point was the judge actually said he is convicting him not because of the burning of the book, but because where he was, the position he was in, and the words that he used.
	Fuck Islam, and Islam is terrorism.
	But he didn't do that to cause harassment.
	He was doing that after he'd been stabbed.
	So he stood there initially silently burning the book.
	So how could that cause harassment alarm?
	And secondly, the judge goes on to say it was obviously harassment and alarm because a man came out and stabbed you.
	So you obviously caused someone harassment and alarm.
	So you're victim.
	Blame it.
	He's somebody who silently burnt a book, didn't swear until after he'd been stabbed, which obviously after you've been stabbed you might say, I'm deeply sorry, young man, that hurts.
	I wouldn't be holding back.
	No.
	Might be difficult.
	And so what we have then is clearly this part of the judgment is particularly absurd because the process was read because he used the word fuck.
	That was ludicrous enough.
	The defendant had raised evidence that his actions were a protest.
	Fine.
	He was exercising his rights under the ECHO.
	Allegedly, fine.
	Prosecution must make sure he's not acting reasonably.
	The defence of the action of burning the crown...
	Oh, right.
	It's his actions accompanied by bad language, in some cases directed towards the religion, that was motivated by at least hatred of the followers of that religion.
	And that's why his conduct is not reasonable.
	He'd just been stabbed.
	Yeah, it's not, is that?
	Yeah.
	A man said he was going to kill the defendant.
	He went back inside and came out shortly and launched a savage attack on the defendant with a knife, kicked, spat the defendant, The implication is that this is perfectly reasonable.
	Yes.
	He's being unreasonable by swearing and insulting Islam, but it's perfectly reasonable for the Muslims to come out with a knife and say, I'm going to kill you.
	Yeah, so I've got this situation.
	You're burning a book, and the judge is saying burning the book on its own is not an issue.
	Yeah.
	It becomes an issue when you burn the book in public in a certain place, and that place is outside the Turkish embassy.
	You caused harassment and alarm because somebody stabbed you.
	Yeah.
	So rather than them being the person who is definitely It's a level of it.
	And the fact that you swore after you were stabbed is also indicative of your insulting somebody.
	I honestly...
	This is a reasonable response to him burning the Quran.
	This is wild.
	And I get Baroness Fox, not only because her name is Fox and therefore I'm Wolf and I kind of like the whole kind of Fox Wolf scenario, to be honest.
	But, you know, she is a former communist in many ways, and she was a big Brexiteer, still I think holds some communist views, I've got to say.
	But I wanted to listen to this and, you know, what she says on this, because this is actually highly instructive about how she understands the left very well, because she was part of it for a long time.
	should be able to ridicule mock make fun of any really not being Oh, it's not loud enough.
	Can't hear it, I'm afraid.
	Just...
	Samson, can we...
	Can you just summarise it?
	Yeah.
	She talks about exactly what we've mentioned.
	First of all, you've got an individual holding the book and the judge is saying, that in itself is fine.
	You can burn it, but actually indicating you're not really allowed to burn it if someone is harassed.
	So that clearly is blasphemy through the back door.
	And secondly, you're victim-shaming.
	You know, here you have a man who's been stabbed, and yet he's the one who's now the perpetrator of a particular offence, when he's doing nothing, but you're actually allowing people off.
	And this chap on the right, who is a human rights lawyer, says, no, it's not about burning the book or blasphemy, it's all about a public order offence, deliberately ignoring the fact.
	That the racially aggravated elements of the offence clearly make it.
	There's a bleeding man who's stabbed on the floor, and he's yelling about the person who stabbed him, and some bystander Muslim might feel alarmed or distressed because of the language he used, and that's the Public Order offence, right?
	Just so I've got this completely clear.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	It's just mental.
	Christopher Hitchens, briefly, I'm going to just play a little bit about him, in 2009.
	This is very urgent business, ladies and gentlemen, I beseech you.
	Resist it while you still can, and before the right to complain is taken away from you, which will be the next thing.
	You will be told you can't complain because you're Islamophobic.
	The term is already being introduced into the culture, as if it was an accusation of race hatred.
	For example, or bigotry, whereas it's only the objection to the preachings of a very extreme and absolutist religion.
	Watch out for these symptoms.
	They are not just symptoms of surrender, very often ecumenically offered to you by men of God in other robes, Christian and Jewish and smarmy ecumenical.
	There we go.
	So that was 2009.
	He said, let's be careful.
	I'm giving you a warning about the use of the word Islamophobia.
	And now here we have it.
	It's going through Parliament with the kind of amendments to various pieces of legislation by the Labour Party.
	Here you have it in Public Order Acts and particular offences that someone who criticises Islam is now regarded as being a criminal for doing that and has to, at the moment, pay a fine.
	How long before just even discussing the concepts of criticizing Sharia law in this country?
	Because I think a lot of people are saying this is blasphemy by the back door.
	I actually in some ways think it's almost akin to Sharia law, being accepted as part of our common law, because that's exactly what they do.
	We've been warned.
	Quick aside as well.
	Interesting.
	Your point is, uh, the, uh, Whereas if it had been a white guy who had been doing it, it probably would have been a race-hatred charge.
	That would have been probably dropped on top of it as well.
	Yeah, so it would have been worse.
	Yeah, I think other charges on that would have been there.
	And I think this is what Andrew Tetborn has said.
	Two good articles in the Spectacle.
	Brace yourself for more Koran-burning trials in Britain.
	I think when you're looking through that, it's not just about the burning of the Koran.
	Quite frankly, there will be people who watch this on X or wherever social media, and they're going to go, OK, I'm going to test it now.
	You know, the judge has said burning the Quran on its own is not bad.
	So you've just seen Lawrence Fox burning it.
	Please don't do that.
	No, no, I'm just saying.
	No, we don't recommend any criminality.
	I just don't think you should do this.
	This article is suggesting that's what people will do.
	You saw Lawrence Fox burning the LGT...
	And I think people are going to test it.
	You know, as this article is suggesting, people might go out and just say, I'm going to stand here and burn it in my garden.
	or someone might burn it outside of school.
	And at what point And what they're saying is brace yourself for this because people are going to rebel on this and like all people in this country in the past they test the laws to the limit to find out where they are and then they can challenge it.
	But it also means that he's saying on the other side of it we're going to see more negativity towards those people who oppose Islam.
	Or regard it differently.
	And the courts are going to be caught in a place where they make the decision.
	And it won't fall on the side of those who are burning the Quran.
	No.
	Protect Islam.
	Now what I'm saying is we've got a few things that they can do.
	Obviously here I hope that he appeals.
	And there's a fundraiser being done by the Free Speech Union and the Christian Concern, I think, with the other organisation work with him.
	But only by him allowed to challenge this.
	Only by him being able to take this up because he's the only one convicted of it so far.
	There you are, it was 10 years in prison in Turkey, not Egypt.
	So I was wrong for political activism.
	And I think that should have had some impact on the way that he was addressed, his assessment of it.
	Why?
	Have we not just had the Labour Party saying that we wanted to change the sentencing practices through the Sentencing Council, which would have said that you look back on what happened to you in the past?
	In your countries.
	Ten years in prison for Turkey for political activism.
	Isn't that falling within that scope?
	Wrong kind of political activism.
	Exactly.
	So it's going there.
	He has to do that.
	I think we've also seen Nick Timothy actually has turned out to be quite good in legal issues.
	He brings this out in Parliament.
	He talks about supporting stopping this bill.
	He does it very quickly.
	Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	Yesterday a man was convicted of a public order offence after burning a Koran outside the Turkish embassy.
	The judge said the fact that the man was attacked is proof that he was guilty of disorderly behaviour.
	This is grotesque and means, in effect, we have a blasphemy law.
	Does the Justice Secretary believe that this should hold?
	Or will the government back my bill to put an end to all of this madness next week?
	We do not have a blasphemy law.
	We are not going to have a blasphemy law in this country.
	He will be aware that in that specific case, I believe it's going to be subject to an appeal.
	so it would be inappropriate for me or any other minister to comment on the details of that matter.
	But I'm sure once all of us...
	Right, so...
	De facto blasphemy law, got it.
	De facto blasphemy law, through the back door.
	Everybody who understands law knows that it is.
	Politicians know that it is.
	Labour say it's not and hiding behind the fact that they won't support Nick Timothy in this next week.
	Cooper does exactly the same.
	And I thought I had one by Rupert Lowe.
	But the really concerning element for me about that is that shows like this.
	Now become actively capable, just if we criticise, and somebody sat there saying, I have harassment, I am concerned about this, I'm distressed, that they actually can now put Public Order Act on almost any type of political activity.
	The only thing that the judge would have to assess is where we are in this building, who has seen it, and that will be our limited defence.
	And also, if you're attacked by somebody, you now have proof of you.
	Committing that offence because someone attacks you.
	And that is nonsense.
	It's obscene and grotesque.
	That's wild.
	Ragequit says, Islamic State of Britain?
	Again, informally, yes.
	Scott Sargai says, if the CPS are bringing public order offence and only a member of the public can be the complainant, are CPS claiming not to be acting in their official capacity?
	Well, I assume it's not that Yeah, it's others.
	That's the point.
	It's broader.
	He said if someone came out of the building, it was obviously evidence of harassment, but someone can sit in front of TV, be passing by as a neighbour, as that person on delivery was, and they say, I was harassed.
	That's why I was so harassed I had to jump off my fence and kick him in the head.
	That's a Random Name says, "It is the law's job to make sure you never feel alarmed, upset, etc.
	Because we live in a feminized society ruled by weak men and neurotic women." And Bobabad says, "Does this mean if a Christian pray silently for a Muslim burning the Bible, the Christian would be arrested for offending a Muslim?" It's something to test out, I guess, isn't it?
	Don't obviously do these things.
	It's not for us to say.
	There are interesting test cases for various different scenarios like I would be interested to see if say an African was burning a Perhaps if an Arab was burning a Bible in a Christian African neighbourhood and the African came out and attacked them, what the case would be on that one if it would be reflective of this?
	Yeah, what would the argument be?
	Yeah, because Keir Starmore was very...
	He did.
	It seems to be part of that.
	On that, on to some more bad news.
	We always have fun on this, which is that in soon enough time, Britain will no longer be Britain.
	It will be an amorphous landmass filled with citizens of the Earth.
	Globalised Britain, as Boris Johnson wanted it.
	Thank you very much for that.
	But first, I've seen some of you in the comments.
	I've seen your writing, and frankly, you need an English lesson.
	So buy the Trivium, which will allow you to learn about grammar, Logic and rhetoric.
	Sadly, not graphic design, which is our passion, as you can see here, from this man pulling a chess piece out of his own head.
	Very impressive.
	You won't get the skills to do that, but you will be able to write in basic sentences, finally, after buying this.
	So buy it now.
	I've seen you all practicing it back doors, you know, get it out.
	I don't practice anything around anyone's back door, thank you very much.
	So you can buy that for $375.
	as a bundle for all three, or you can buy them individually as foundations of writing, logic, or rhetoric for £150 each if you are financially incontinent.
	Anyway, so please...
	And now on to the news.
	So this is what has been reported recently.
	Recently it came out in a Telegraph article which is what everybody has been focusing on here which is new research produced by Professor Matt Goodwin who has appeared on the website in the past, interviewed I think by Connor a few years ago now, who has suggested that judging by projections that he has calculated
	Between 2060 and 2070, Britain will suddenly become a majority non-white country.
	So it will have a majority foreign population, people who are not ancestrally of the British Isles.
	And this has gotten quite a few different reactions.
	Personally, not a fan of it.
	Personally.
	Being English, being somebody with English children.
	And I don't want it to appear like South Africa or Zimbabwe do today.
	So I would rather England remain England, Wales remain Wales, Scotland remain Scotland, etc, etc.
	I might get arrested for saying that.
	We'll find out, I suppose.
	You could just call someone harm and arrest.
	Probably.
	Probably if somebody attacks me for saying that, then I am in the wrong.
	Just a quick thing as well.
	We were never asked whether we want to give up our ancestral claim to our own land, either.
	The collective claim that the English have to England.
	This was never on the table.
	No, this was just swept up and forced on us.
	So at the moment you can see that the current figures are that the population is still 73% white British.
	But again, that's 40 years from now.
	That's a ridiculously...
	Some people are suggesting that it's already worse than what we're seeing on these graphs because of the fact that there are people who aren't in the system.
	This is taken from ONS figures, so there are people who will have overstayed their visas and lots of illegals who are not counted in the system.
	And this could be reflected in your on-the-ground When you go to local towns and cities, you'll probably see a greater proportion than you would expect.
	Well, this isn't evenly distributed.
	So in England, by the official statistics, it's 25% not English in England.
	But that's the official statistics.
	There's going to be somewhere between 1 and probably 5 million illegals.
	And of course, there's going to be age disparities as well, which is a lot of the white population, the white British population are going to be older, perhaps going out less.
	So when you go out into the street, you might encounter a greater proportion of foreigners.
	But anyway, so he says in this article, projects a big rise in the proportion of UK population comprising foreign-born and second-generation immigrants from below 20% to 33.5% within the next 25 years.
	2100.
	It protects 6 in 10 people in the UK will either have not been born in the UK or will have at least one immigrant parent and the
	Which also, of course, means that within 25 years, if it's going to be 33.5% total, that still leaves about 22-23% made up of people, probably mainly coming from North.
	Sub-Saharan Africa and the subcontinent everywhere else as well.
	It's interesting because the research I was looking at showed about 2050 we got about 25% is Islam.
	This is by Goodwin's own projection.
	He's running lower than that.
	He's running a bit lower.
	I don't know.
	There is an explanation.
	Maybe he's scaling Indian immigration or Chinese.
	I don't know.
	I haven't had a chance to look at his research or get it off his...
	I think he's put it on his blog, so...
	The point being, it's bad news either way.
	Either way, it's showing a general trend that anybody on the ground can see and has been able to see for a few decades.
	At this point, at least.
	Because, again, as far as I'm concerned, the second, that Britain is no longer majority British, that defined as the people who can trace their ancestry back to the English, Welsh, Scottish, etc.
	It's no longer Britain, it's no longer England, no longer Scotland.
	We've seen the experiment been played.
	Yes.
	They are voids.
	they are nowhere places, they are Yes, or all they're just colonies of foreign populations.
	What I would suggest would be the most likely result of something like this is, as you see in those examples, you would get more and more factionalism where the people just break off into their own ethnic conclaves.
	So by the end of the century, that 33.7% white British population And the same with everybody else.
	There would still be some holdouts, I'm sure, of Lib Dems going on about how not racist they are, but they would still be living in those majority Lib Dem enclaves.
	I expect in 40 years the Lib Dems will either died off or become rabid racists.
	Pushing by Ed Davies'most recent piece about the...
	They're leaning into the racism.
	Perhaps, perhaps.
	But it goes on to say in his reports, he says the findings were to certain to spark a considerable degree of anxiety, concern and political opposition among many voters who favoured lowering immigration and slowing the pace of change in order to maintain symbols, traditions, cultures and way of life of the traditional majority group.
	He also said that their concerns need to be recognised, respected and addressed if the UK is to avoid considerable political turbulence and polarisation.
	Now, that's a very polite way of saying what needs to happen, which is that this needs to be stopped and reversed immediately.
	As has been pointed out, even if we were to leave figures as they are right now and close all of the borders, the birth rates alone would mean that this would happen slower, but it would still happen within 100 years.
	This is the point that David Betts has been making as he's been going around the podcast circuit.
	When a majority group loses their status as the majority group, that's the most likely trigger point for a civil war, because it's just not a desirable thing to lose the collective influence and power that the majority group has over their own country.
	I think you've got to look at the demographics to say that it's very clear that in many areas already we're seeing that loosening of power and the losing of power.
	And interestingly enough on this, because I did do some research on population about six months ago, I was considering this impact of Islam on places like that.
	His numbers will, he's talking about Britain.
	And so if you talk about England, that demographic change is happening much more quickly because in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it's still larger majorities of white people who strip that out.
	And I suspect you will look at England as being a much quicker timescale.
	It is broken down further as pulled up by Juice on Twitter, where it shows...
	Yeah, already England.
	Yeah, England will be hit the hardest, the quickest by it.
	But even then, you're talking in Wales and Scotland, you're still talking at most a third of the population, whereas England would be just below.
	Now, Northern Ireland seems to fare a lot better in this.
	it's still worse.
	I don't know if his projections are taking into account Potentially.
	I don't know if it's also going to take into account any trickle that would come up.
	From the Republic of Ireland, which are also facing their own problems as well.
	that will happen to them.
	And speaking of which, there is always the narratives that come with this because people typically don't like to be displaced in their own ancestral homelands, just look at the Irish for an example, even when the people who are displacing them Genetically speaking, at least.
	There's still a different ethnic group.
	Yes, obviously.
	obviously people don't like being displaced so you have to You need to feed them narratives, and Ireland has been seeing this because, of course, the Republic of Ireland has also been experiencing a lot of problems with mass migration recently, and all of a sudden what happens is that you start to get news programs.
	As narrated by Colin Farrell.
	Traitor.
	Of all people.
	Yeah, he's named here as saying, like Bono, he's lost his Irish card.
	Just call him a traitor.
	He's a traitor.
	Call him a blood traitor, for all I care, because that is what he is.
	Colin Farrell telling everybody that we Irish were never homogenous.
	Always hybrids.
	Always mongrels.
	Are we going back to the mythical invasions of Ireland that happened in prehistory or something?
	Yeah, I just imagine all those Vikings that they're saying were Islamic and black.
	It's almost as if Cromwell himself had written this.
	But this is coming from, you know, The state broadcaster!
	Of course it is.
	Because of course it has to be, because part of the process is always to break down your conception of yourself and your own history, despite the fact that Ireland, more so than anywhere else in the British Isles, has had an incredibly strong conception of itself.
	I mean, historically we all have.
	Yeah, historically, but they've held on to theirs a lot longer than everywhere else.
	Absolutely.
	But that's why you have to begin breaking that down, to allow people to accept this more and more.
	Exactly.
	What is the sole purpose of this?
	There's only one reason to do this, and that is to disinherit the Irish from Ireland.
	In the same way that the attacks on British identity and English identity are to disinherit the English from England.
	There's just no other way of looking at it.
	One of the things that always comes up as well is this idea that, oh, well, European tribes invaded each other, so you have to accept infinity immigration from the rest of the world, despite the fact that within our little circle of Earth, this is where...
	And there's other people commenting this.
	I didn't get the tweets up before we came on here, but I got them up on my own computer to refer to them.
	Because apparently that disqualifies King Charles III, people like Ed Miliband, Boris Johnson.
	To be fair, I would be happy to say Boris Johnson is not English.
	Personally, that's my new thing.
	Also, David Aronovich.
	Having one immigrant parent is not a very high bar.
	Most people don't have one immigrant parent.
	David Arinovich also said that the saying "the foreign born and their descendants" covers just about everybody in the country.
	Of course- But it's not their descendants, it's in infinitum.
	Yeah, exactly.
	What he's doing is he's extending the timeline back like 30,000 years before anybody was even here.
	Go back a trillion seconds.
	Then when he was called up on it by Eric Kaufman, who's been in the office as well, he's on the website, you should check that interview out, saying that, I mean, it's based on more recent provenance than what you're talking about.
	Aronovich was starting to ask, do the classic thing.
	Are Britain's Anglo-Saxons?
	English people are Anglo-Saxons, yeah, and next question.
	Welsh people are Welsh, next question.
	I think people who've been on these aisles longer than most countries have had an idea of what the word nation even is, is perfectly reasonable.
	I think that's perfectly reasonable.
	If the Maori are indigenous to New Zealand, when Oxford has been around longer than...
	Yeah, then I think we can say that we're indigenous.
	So you get the typical people like that trying to break all of this down, when really all they're trying to do is run cover.
	for the fact that this is not something that anybody wants and it's increasingly becoming a very popular position that nobody wants this to happen.
	An interesting reaction as well, and this isn't to criticize him at all, was Lewis Brackpool thinking that this was part of the Overton shift for the Telegraph to be reporting this so openly and that's That's a fair view, but I don't think that this is part of an Overton shift, an Overton window shift, because this is the sort of thing that has been reported on numerous times in the past.
	It's just becoming more and more visible to most people, whereas most people would have dismissed it or tried to go on anti-racist priors.
	In the sort of mid-2000s, there was reporting on this sort of thing.
	Do you remember?
	I do.
	And then everyone said, well, that's something for a long time away.
	That's like getting closer and closer.
	Here's some more recent stuff with regards to, for instance, America.
	So this was back in 2014 and 2015.
	Joe Biden at a White House summit praised the constant and unrelenting stream of immigration into the US.
	He said, "Folks like me who are Caucasian of European descent for the first time in 2017, unsurprisingly, We'll be in an absolute minority in the United States of America.
	Absolute minority, yes.
	No, I remember the clip.
	And that's not a bad thing, that's a source of our strength.
	Diversity is our strength, Joe Biden, the eternal...
	What can we say?
	Put a Catholic in charge.
	There was the Guardian reporting a few years ago saying Gen Z will be the last generation with white majority in the US.
	This was also reported on as far back as 2018 by the Brookings Institute saying all of this.
	And there are people who are part of large NGOs, anti-hate group NGOs, who for a very, very long time have seemingly had a vested interest in Making sure that this happens to the point that, quite notoriously, the editor-in-chief of the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a notorious anti-hate group, Mark Potok, was caught on a video that was uploaded onto YouTube, which I don't know if it's still available.
	You can try and follow this link if you want to double-check that.
	For some reason, has just been tracking non-Hispanic whites, proportion of the US population, going down.
	Of course he is the sort of person, SPLC, or the sort of organisation that would say, if you think that's a bad thing, then you're committing a hate crime.
	Absolutely.
	trying to make sure that it's illegal.
	So it's interesting to me that there are certain One of the things that they would say is, why are you worried about this?
	What's the concern for the white population, as Biden has just done?
	But then you can just flip over to Zimbabwe.
	In fact, they're already second-class cities.
	Yeah, you flip over to Zimbabwe and South Africa and say, that's the extreme, they'll just kill you.
	They will when they get into power and they want to steal things from you.
	You think you have Ed Davey and your friends who have a nice house in Surrey?
	They won't come for that?
	Of course they will once they're in power for it because that's...
	If you're the guy with the nice house where things still kind of work, they're coming for you.
	Just the same as what happens to the farmers in South Wales.
	Because to be fair, if we were a podcast at the time of the Britons and the Celts, as the Romans had left...
	We'd be sitting here going, our population of Anglo-Saxon Romans were 100%.
	Now, 10 years later, we're down to 50. Why?
	Because they've chopped us all up.
	They're going to push us into the Welsh Valleys.
	That's right.
	We're going to go to Ireland.
	The thing that underpins this, though, is the unspoken question is, why should we give up a collective claim to the land?
	We shouldn't have to.
	Exactly.
	We shouldn't.
	And so everything they do is to attempt to erase the collective claim.
	But the group of people, as in the English, have the collective claim to England.
	The Irish have a collective claim to Ireland.
	And the entire point of all of this is to say, no, you don't deserve this collective claim.
	And in America, this wasn't, like in England, this wasn't put up to a popular vote.
	This was a decision made through the passing of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, which was...
	explicitly argued on the basis that it would not fundamentally change the demographics of the US as they existed in 1965 by that point.
	This is just like Jonathan Miller debating with Enid Powell going, "Well, I just don't think that it will become two-fifths non- It's always important to keep in mind that people promoting these kinds of things lie.
	They are lying to you, and they were always lying to you.
	Think of all the benefits we were sold on the diversity as our strength argument.
	Have any of them come to pass?
	No.
	No.
	Everywhere is a shithole now.
	Frankly.
	But there are some people who want to fight back against it.
	The only person I could find even remotely gesturing in this direction was Rupert Lowe.
	Robert Jenrick hadn't posted about this.
	Nigel Farage hadn't.
	Keir Starmer might do.
	You never know.
	But Rupert Lowe is at least getting people on board with his...
	At which point, who knows what is going to happen?
	I know, for one, I do not want my children, my grandchildren, to be growing up in a country where there's potentially going to be political parties screaming, kill the farmer, as is happening in South Africa.
	So there are peaceful solutions to it.
	We just don't want to reach the event horizon where it can't be done now.
	Yes.
	The David Betts warning.
	Well, we're over that curve.
	That's the problem with it.
	And it's not just if we look about the fact that white communities aren't having children.
	It's because of two other areas.
	I think, first of all, is the cost of living in Britain is making it incredibly difficult for young white families who want to have children to be able to decide that they've got to do so now because they've got to stay where their parents are longer.
	They're living in rented accommodation, which is not conducive to having a family.
	So, therefore, pushing them further down the line to age.
	I mean, I'd love to have had two, but in the end, I've had one because I was too old to be able to do it.
	And that also goes towards women.
	You know, the families are still having children who are families having children are still having more than 2.1.
	It's the fact that we've got so many.
	There are studies that show that diversity inhibits people's desire to have children.
	And this is all on top of the changes in culture which have made the dating market completely toxic.
	Very, very difficult for any young man in particular to try to navigate to find somebody suitable to have a family with.
	It's probably just as bad for young women to be honest.
	The sort of young men who are being produced aren't exactly the kind of guys they're looking for.
	No, no.
	I mean, part of our job is to be able to persuade them that, you know, get off your bike, work, look after yourself, keep healthy, keep fit, keep your mind sensible, ignore what they're telling you in school, get a way of looking.
	Build yourself up.
	Build yourself as a great character and not be the one that slopes off, as I saw coming in on today.
	It's the kind of guys creeping over the shoulders and hiding outside vapes.
	Like they're embarrassed of their own existence.
	Yeah, don't be a hoodie.
	Don't start playing music that belongs to New York rather than your own.
	I liked it.
	I'm a big rapper.
	But I'm still a British person.
	English at heart.
	It's not your culture to listen to it all the time.
	I've always said that It's very silly, it's very goofy, but this weekend a local parish near me is holding a competition where they're going to be doing a rolling the pie down the hill race.
	Oh, did you see the cheese wheel rolling the other day?
	Yes.
	I look brutal.
	I'm probably gonna go and attend that.
	Yeah?
	Because it's just charming and it's nice.
	And it's something, because I was in France last week, and this is something that I've experienced when I've been to Spain as well.
	One time actually I was in Spain on holiday, and there was some local festival going on in the town that I was staying in, where they were all out and they were all celebrating and they were shooting off, it was very dangerous, they were shooting off little children shooting off fireworks in the middle of the street, not up, horizontally shooting at each other.
	It was very entertaining and very Spanish.
	they're European, they're quite near.
	Well, they are foreign in comparison to some places.
	They're pretty damn foreign.
	But they're all really nice.
	They were very friendly.
	And looking at it, I could only observe it as an alien.
	As a stranger, I was looking at it going, this is charming.
	This is wonderful.
	Everybody's enjoying themselves.
	I'm going to take a step back so I don't get blown up.
	But, you know, feel free to fire those fireworks.
	But I can't appreciate those in the same way that I can go to this parish on the weekend.
	Or a few weeks ago when I was in Hastings for the...
	Because it is.
	Because it's an English holiday.
	And so even European cultures, you can only observe their traditions as a foreigner.
	So you should get involved in that sort of stuff just so you can feel a bit closer.
	When you're looking at that, you raise a very important point.
	You feel like you're a foreigner, but it's quaint, and you're loving the culture of somebody else.
	I don't understand.
	I can't get into the head of all these liberal elites who turn around and say, I love going off to France and Spain and Italy and enjoying exactly what you have seen.
	But when they come back here, they don't enjoy our own culture.
	I saw a bit of that at the Man on the Green festival, actually.
	It's charming.
	Yeah, it's very charming.
	What about our culture?
	Why are they so...
	hatred of that culture and obviously George Orwell identified it but they hate the English culture but they think it's quaint when they go elsewhere.
	Well there's a certain cosmopolitan They think if they can appreciate the alien and the foreign that they're not attached to, that that makes them tasteful.
	That's a very good point.
	I thought the video I thought the video of the cheese wheel race thing was amazing as well.
	Because you saw the one guy just bouncing down.
	It's like, is that guy alright?
	And then he got straight back up as well.
	That looked bloody painful.
	That's the kind of British spirit that won so many awards.
	Gnomes.
	Putting gnomes in your garden.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	We don't talk about the gnomes.
	Arizona Desert Rat also says, Well, aren't you all just a ray of sunshine on this lovely morning?
	Well, yeah, everything's going brilliantly.
	Yeah!
	It's not the morning where we are.
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	Gotcha.
	The mention of nuclear bombers yesterday reminded me of GE's beetle.
	A real-life mech commissioned by the U.S. Air Force.
	You see it was intended to work on nuclear bombers while keeping the operators safe.
	However, it was very finicky with over 400 miles of wire inside.
	Sadly, there's no video of it in action.
	And before it could be perfected, intercontinental ballistic missiles made it obsolete.
	Too bad they didn't have me back then, huh?
	Check out my stuff on YouTube at Nye Mechworks.
	I didn't realise that Metal Gear Solid was based on actual historical events in that case.
	No, I'd never even heard of that.
	We need to build a mech robot that fires and nukes.
	Don't give Zelensky any ideas.
	That'll be a great way to spend my tax money, yeah.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey guys, can you put out a list of where we can get the proper original fairy tales, like the versions of the fairy tales that we used in the segment?
	That'd be really good.
	Also, Carl, if you're going to read Harry Potter, just remember it's not a fantasy series, it's a mystery series.
	It's garbage as a fantasy series.
	Also, here's why I wasn't at the Gold Tier Zoom call last week.
	If you want to get me a wedding present, I'd love a few sales of my books.
	So you know where to go.
	Well, congratulations.
	Promo code NOTTIED for a 15% discount.
	For all of those listening right now, that's K-N-O-T-T-I-E-D.
	Well done.
	That's very good.
	The next one.
	We wanted to do a wrestling event between me and my staff and Sargon and his staff.
	You lose, mate.
	And by the way, none of this is planned before everyone panics and freaks out and everything.
	None of this is planned.
	It is an idea that got floated.
	That was it.
	And we went, that would be fun.
	We could do this.
	He could do that.
	And then just for an absolute...
	Like the full packet.
	He just wants to get oiled up and grease around him.
	I'm well up for this.
	I'm well up for this.
	I already have gimmick ideas for myself lined up.
	Look at Cal's face.
	I've even got a gimmick idea for you, Carl.
	That's good.
	Next one.
	You could be the philosopher.
	Oh, that's good.
	Your finishing move could be the bloviate.
	The next one?
	Absolutely no way I would join a force now for 27 grand and do what we're doing.
	Not a chance.
	If I could do my time, if I was starting now, I wouldn't join, basically.
	I end up thinking every single day I'm going to get sacked.
	Everything is bum covering now.
	We're not policing anymore.
	We're arse covering constantly.
	I'm glad you're saying it.
	It just means that we don't do police work.
	All we do is basically we go to a job, we spend an hour doing paperwork afterwards, and then we go to the next job and do it.
	We don't police.
	I believe it.
	I believe it and I don't blame her.
	Bless her.
	It must be incredibly frustrating.
	Like we've said many, many times, there are brilliant police officers just like her who want to do the job and get it done, but they're being held back by a class of individuals who don't care.
	And their entire job is to regulate the police, to patrol them, so they can't do whatever they want.
	Oh, Craig, by the way, I forgot to answer the question.
	Basically, you can't really get the original prints of the fairy tales anymore.
	You'd have to get modern prints from modern audiences, or go on eBay and get second-hand ones like I did.
	So, anyway, let's go to the next one.
	Paris.
	I love Paris or at least I did anyway.
	You see the streets filled with flowers, the old classic cars and Stephen, your reminiscing of what Paris used to be was charming, but for me there is only one definitive view of Paris, as captured in the film C 'était un rendezvous.
	In the early hours of the morning, a car is driven at full chat through the streets for the driver to attend a little assignation.
	It's utterly irresponsible and yet filled with the joie de vivre that we'd expect of France in the 1970s.
	Well, I was doing the 80s, but that is actually brilliant.
	I have seen that little clip, and it's lovely.
	You kind of think to yourself, I wish I could have done that in London in an open-top Jaguar E-type or something like that.
	It would have been brilliant.
	The assignation, though, I would love to have had someone at the end of that.
	Thanks for that.
	That is a good reminiscence of bringing that one up.
	Henry says, the debt spending is insane.
	But I do have sympathy for the idea that the US may need to spend some money to make some more.
	The headline figures seem to be about encouraging and rewarding behaviours they want and to get the more hard-up families working and contributing rather than being a drain.
	To be fair, this is actually a good perspective on it.
	He says, Sure, that is more than the Doge savings, but it's dollars spent on making American lives better, which is true.
	And, like, you know, I couldn't criticise where Trump was actually cutting.
	That was fair.
	Not the global money laundering scheme of USA designed to undermine the country.
	They should ideally get to a big financial reset around how the US fundamentally works, but they have to keep the lights on at the same time and stop spending money angle feels as naive as just stop oil.
	I'm not saying stop spending money, I'm just saying I think...
	Henry says, the USA approach around one bill to rule them all, which rivals the entire Lord of the Rings novels in length, really needs to be put to an end.
	It is just because getting a bill into law is so chaotic and a pain that they shovel everything they want to get done over the next four years into a single bill.
	Yeah, that sounds about right.
	It's definitely a problem with the system.
	Lancelot says, if you just set fire to your money, at least you'd get something out of it, you'd stay warm.
	This message coming to you from Weimar, Germany.
	Again, just the amount of money.
	It's just words on a page when you're talking about it.
	Bleach Demon says, So physical assault is now legal grounds to prove that you have been grossly offensive.
	Well, this is opening doors that will not restrain evil.
	Imagine women getting attacked with acid.
	Now the courts could proclaim she was agitating the attacker.
	The idea that the attack is proof of the conviction is just crazy.
	It'll be interesting to see how this goes through the appeals.
	And again, not that I'm eager to see violence on the streets of the UK or anything, but it would be interesting to see other test cases where some of the different variables were switched around, like the religion and the race of the attackers and the race of the people who were burning whatever religious document it is.
	That would be very interesting.
	Daniel says, same as when Tommy was kicked out of the city centre on a public order.
	He was watching the football with his kids at a pub, and the excuse the police used was that others might attack him.
	Yeah, I think he was back from Leicester or something, where he was just in a pub with his kids, watching football.
	It's the same principle, suddenly, now, that you're minding your own business, you're doing everything within the law, but because someone else doesn't want to do anything within the law and dislikes you, the police will support them.
	Yeah.
	And that's anathema.
	That's anathema to the kind of law that I grew up with.
	And it shouldn't be there.
	And I hope they appeal.
	I do hope they go for an appeal and get someone sensible to look at this.
	I mean, it's crazy.
	This is the way that we're doing things.
	I can't recreate my favourite scene from Die Hard 3 anymore, is what you're telling me.
	I haven't seen Die Hard 3. Oh, never mind.
	I don't know if I'm telling you that.
	There's a scene where Bruce Willis goes to Harlem and is forced to wear a billboard over himself.
	Oh, I have seen that.
	A billboard over himself, yes.
	I'm going to have to watch it just for that.
	It's a really good film.
	It's up there with the first one.
	Okay, okay.
	Jimbo says, can you imagine going back in time and telling Richard the Lionheart that the realm is being openly conquered by Islam and the current king supports it?
	Well, I can't speak French, so no.
	James says, I'm not really bothered about the guy who got arrested for burning the Quran.
	I think it says more about us Christians that we just stand there and do nothing if someone burns a Bible in front of us.
	Yeah, but I mean...
	We've had this perspective for a long time, even if on the books until 2008 we technically had blasphemy laws.
	You've got this ramification.
	Remember the woman Labour MP, who's now a minister, who turned around and said, And an England flag in Rochester during the election.
	Look at that.
	Isn't that kind of disgusting?
	And that's an England flag.
	Then you've seen people burning the England flag and stamping on the England flag.
	Now if someone like Tommy Robinson goes and stabs them in the chest for standing on the England flag, this is the same sort of analogy.
	Call back on that as a precedent.
	Absolutely.
	You can come back on that because there's someone who's doing something that's offensive, harassment, causing distress.
	And the very fact that we stabbed them in the chest for standing on an angle flag is exactly the same sort of thing.
	Or what happens outside a synagogue, for example, with people supporting Hamas.
	And the reaction of those in the synagogue is to go out and attack them.
	Is that them proving it?
	The attack is proof that it was provocative.
	That's right.
	So you've now got some really weird ramifications that can come from this.
	That's crazy.
	Charlie says, Stephen, there is a case of a Pakistani Christian having an asylum claim denied.
	Quote, A Pakistani Christian woman's appeal to Britain for asylum has been denied because her arrival in the country may stir a civil unrest, the Huffington Post reported.
	Ah, okay.
	Well, I've missed that one.
	I haven't seen that one.
	Asia Bibi, a Christian farm labourer, was released from prison in Pakistan on Wednesday after being acquitted of blasphemy.
	She had spent eight years on death row after an argument with a group of Muslim women in June 2009.
	I think I have heard of this one, actually.
	Basically, in Pakistan, it's not actually very unusual for people to be accused of burning a Quran or desecrating a Quran after some kind of incident.
	But yeah, maester civil unrest.
	The Muslims here might be upset with it.
	So, okay.
	Ferious Dan says, possibly the highest F-bomb density of any load-seekers segment.
	Yeah, we shouldn't have been doing that.
	I was repeating the court case.
	Yeah, I know, this is something that anyone from Lebanon can tell you, in fact.
	Actually, it's not something you're going to be able to control.
	Roman Observer says, any functioning liberal system would need, by necessity, to fully reject the whole of Islam, it can't coexist.
	Well, that's another point that is never one they want to raise.
	Islam is probably the least liberal religion.
	How do you square anything they do with liberalism?
	Anyway, Theodore points out that Mahmoud, what was her name?
	What's the first name?
	Shibana?
	Shibana Mahmood, yeah.
	Sounded genuinely angry that an MP death suggested it was a blasphemy law.
	Like a personal insult that even voiced the thought.
	Yeah, I noticed that as well.
	She was furious.
	He had said that and said, yeah, but this is de facto what is happening.
	Why are you getting so upset by it?
	And I think that actually this is one of those positions on which they feel personally vulnerable.
	If they feel like they're going to be tarred with you created a blasphemy law, then evidently they are what they react to.
	David says, any MP under Starmer will be used to having to push them through the back door.
	Listen, man, we don't know.
	That's kind of more the Tory party, really.
	I think that is, but it's not the leader of the Tory party who's getting heard.
	Probably attacked by Ukrainian Renboys.
	By beautiful young men, as the great title went.
	Yeah, so, you know, just saying.
	I don't think that's true.
	I think he is in favour of deporting all the illegals.
	I know Matt, and I've spoken to him a bunch of times, and he is very concerned about the demographic trend in the country, which is why he did that research, in fact.
	I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago, and one of the first things he just started going on about was, we're going to become a minority in this country.
	That's a problem.
	Because he's a dad, like the rest of us.
	And we're worried about the future that we're giving to our kids.
	I would be interested to...
	Anti-extremist literature for Chatham House.
	I think the argument is that things just got a lot worse.
	Okay.
	That's actually quite a strong argument, isn't it?
	Was it his come-to-Jesus-am-I-the-bad-guy moment?
	That's what I've heard, yes.
	Oh, okay.
	I mean, he is the one, in fact, in the Telegraph, in your segment, banging the drum about, we're going to become a minority and we don't want that to happen.
	So, I mean, if this is containment and this is deep cover...
	Well, he does do good research.
	I don't know.
	I'm not doubting.
	It's very helpful in terms of the argument.
	And I get it.
	Is he a generic?
	Is he a Liz Truss?
	Is he a Vance?
	Has he really changed?
	I mean, one could argue the same with me.
	It was a long time ago.
	I started off with arguments of socialism and being a socialist.
	I've moved my life through to the opposite now.
	Where is there to the right of the white British who are going to become a minority in their own homeland?
	That's the farthest right position, isn't it?
	Yeah, no, no, it is.
	Like, reasonably speaking.
	Obviously.
	In reasonable discourse.
	Carl, you're going to get me in trouble here, buddy.
	You know what I mean?
	That's the sort of thing Nick Griffin was saying like 20 years ago.
	That's the thing, is that people criticise him for having been one of the people who tried to shut down that kind of discussion 20 years ago, and I think it's fair for people to be critical of him.
	Yeah, yeah, it is fair.
	Although, of course, Nick Griffin these days is the sort of person who'll go on podcasts with Islamists.
	Yeah, and be like, yeah, I accept our new Islamic overlords.
	What are you doing?
	Really?
	Yeah, he did.
	Yeah, he went on some Five Pillars podcast.
	Was it that?
	He wasn't dressed up.
	What was his name?
	Adi Hussein?
	Yeah, something like that.
	It was just like Nick Griffin basically paying the G's yet.
	It was so weird.
	It's mad.
	So strange.
	But the point is, reasonably speaking, within the bounds of normalcy, there's really nowhere else for Matt Goodwin to go.
	As long as positive change can be enacted.
	Yeah, but to be like, look, we're going to become a minority.
	That's literally Nick Griffin's referee.
	That's what I mean.
	You know, if this getting out...
	I think Matt is angling for the Home Office.
	Anyway, on that bombshell, thanks for joining us, folks.

▲