All Episodes
Previous Next
June 12, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:20
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1185
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, and welcome to the podcast of the Load Seaters for June 12th, 2025.
I'm your host, Luca, joined today by Harry and Stephen.
Hello.
Hi there.
I was punished, Harry.
Actually, I thought we'd establish this.
I got caught in a terrible swind and downpour before this, so my hair is still wet.
So you lovely folks at home get to have the pleasure of seeing my hair dry in real time.
Sultry, damp-haired Harry.
Yes.
Going on the calendar.
Yes.
Well, so I've been informed by tech that...
I'm just not saying anything about that at all.
The calendar with the wet hair and the flick back.
I've been informed by tech that apparently the live chat is down on the website, so if you want to take part in that, you'll have to go over to Rumble.
But today we're going to be discussing Orban's defence of Europe.
The failed, or the stopping the Mexican reconquista.
The ongoing attempt for the Mexican reconquista, which will fail because Mexicans, it turns out, are So, with that all said, Stephen, tell us about Orban.
Well, thanks so much.
Before we get to Orban, I've got to talk about the death of man.
No, this is not a new show headed by Kamala Harris, or indeed the Democrats in there.
Pro-feminist, anti-man world.
No, this is actually, Carl, going through the whole philosophy and ideas of the concept of the death of man.
And if we don't stand up for ourselves and what we do, then we will find ourselves having some real serious problems down the line.
I believe it's talking about the history of the Enlightenment and the decoupling of transcendent values from pre-Enlightenment thinkers to the more rationalist.
Ideas.
It's kind of an elaboration on Karl's ideas of rationalism, which he picked up from Michael Oakeshott, as far as I'm aware.
Which I think is really good in the way that you explain it in terms of a philosophical sense, but I like to put it in that there was a good time, now there's a bad time, and men are trying to be killed off, and this is a way of doing it philosophically, and explaining it goes in a nice way.
For those who are not as bright and...
I don't really read much philosophy.
Only fans.
That's it, the only fans.
He's only just hearing about philosophy now.
Most of it is dreadfully boring.
Okay.
Well, I would recommend it.
Nearly 5,000 people have seen it.
I think it's going really, really well, and I would certainly think that you should if you want to look at it and get onto the premium and join us and have a view.
And then you can come back and tell us whether we're talking, you know, out of our backsides, to be honest, or whether we're actually just geniuses in our own way of describing how this goes.
So, getting on to Orban, who I genuinely think is a genius at the moment, and long may he continue.
He's just done a series, I don't know if you've been watching over the last few weeks, a series of big speeches, both in France and his own country.
And in a way, he has just really upped the ante towards how Hungary is positioning itself alongside Trump and the kind of concept of a free Hungary in the European Union.
Clearly we know that J.D. Vance has come out and said that Europe's anti-freedom of speech, he's attacking the liberties of the individual.
And in one of the recent events by Orban, I just got three or four little clips I'm going to play to people, just to ask you to look at the language that he's using now.
This is almost wartime language.
It's almost Churchillian.
Okay, so you might need to reduce the volume.
Oh, you're going to need to stay on the video.
Yep, go.
If you can play that, Samson.
That would be great.
So I think this, if you look at the beginning of this, this is a very good division between the sides.
The left now, the EU are communists, and we're trying to destroy our nation from within.
He's linking himself very strongly with the allies that he believes are actually the defenders of our freedom of speech, the AFD, Salvini.
He's indicating how they're breaking up freedom of speech by attacking democratically elected parties and individuals and saying we've only got one saviour, and that is the United States.
And he's also indicating changes needed, this cannot go on.
And just the way it's his stance, but obviously we know where this is going to go on the left.
The way that he talks, the strength in his language.
They're going to say he's not Churchillian.
He's more that of a far-right leader of an age past, which I don't disagree on.
I don't know what your first thoughts are seeing this.
Well, if you're a, perhaps if you're a far right leader of ages past, you know, we used to just call that We used to just call that belief in the nation-state.
You might want to be close to the mic.
Sure, yeah, I just realised.
You gave me the look, as if to say, move your face.
You know, belief in the nation-state, belief in borders, belief in national identity, some level of ethnic consciousness, just sensible, normal human behaviour.
Yeah, and I'm liking this kind of new strength that he's come through.
He continues, so that's about freedom of speech.
He then, in France, comes along and he talks about the population replacement.
The language here again, incredibly productive, and Samsung, you may want to take the volume down on this too for people.
The language here is the language.
A vonata szakadék felé rodó.
Fellázadtunk.
Megszerveztük a hazafias jobboldalt.
Elsöpörtük a baloldalt.
Új alkotmányt csináltunk.
Aztán kerítést építettünk.
Migránsokat kiszorítottuk.
Only one who can get the help of Hungary.
Nulla.
Nincsenek utcai hordák.
Nincsen antiszemitizmus.
Nincs erőszak.
És nincs zavargás.
Magyarország, a magyar oké!
Brüsszel, Wertheim!
Fenyegetőzik és zsarol!
Pénzügyi szankciók alatt állunk!
Napi 1 millió eurót kell fizetnünk Brüsszelnek, mert nem engedjük be a migrációt!
De mi kitartunk, nem engedjük, hogy tönkretegyék a városaink és az utcáink biztonságát!
Barátaim, ez nem migráció, hanem szervezett népesség csere, amelyel kicserélik Európa kulturális alapját!
We, Germans, will not be able to express the British government.
We are the people's lives and the people's lives.
We will be able to express the whole brussels'bureaucracy, except the military.
Now I'm looking at that, and again, he's indicating that he took the fight on, and it's a message that I think is being pushed on from America to himself.
He said, look, you stood firm, you got out there, you pushed against the left.
The mass walk through the institutions that were occurring in Hungary, you stopped it, you forced it back, and you took the ground on one of their big fronts, which is immigration and population replacement.
And he's done so in such a way, and he's set out very clearly why he's doing this.
It's about culture, it's about protecting people, it's about Hungary being for Hungarians.
And I think this is a message he's saying then, look who is stopping us.
They're even making us pay 1 million euros.
So, they're attacking us on freedom of speech and political parties.
This is the reason why we're standing up for them.
But we're going to stand for them even though we're going to pay them a million euros a day, which goes on in a later video which shows how actually quite expensive that is for a nation like Hungary.
But it sets out in this another message of turning around and saying there are things that you can do against the Goliath.
Take the beatings if you want.
Take the money.
They can have the money, but I'm not having anyone into this country that you're forcing into us.
So that's a lesson that we should be taking in this country.
Any leadership should be able to say, if you're not going to stop the boats, we'll take some other form of punishment from you.
Maybe you'll close down Dover and we can't have it, but we'll do the same.
We'll stop the trains.
So there needs to be that kind of firm action, and it's indicating where that firm action is.
Because of the history of Hungary, you know, conquered by the Ottomans, conquered by the Germans, conquered by the Soviets, it speaks to the Eastern European, you know, Hungarian experience of treating politics seriously, treating statesmanship seriously because you've finally got a nation of your own again and they don't want to ruin it.
Yeah, and I like that and I can't, you know, I personally can't understand.
What's wrong with what he's saying in terms of the actions that he's got?
I know that I've got a couple more and I'm conscious of the time as well.
But he moves on to a third one and he says, you can watch this one.
Again, a similar sort of speech in Hungary.
There are zero illegal immigrants crossing the border without permission.
It's not a human right.
It is a crime.
And if you want to come to Hungary, you must ask for permission.
Now, I say to people, I won't play this particular one because it's at the Edmund Burke Foundation.
It's very good where he actually just turns around and says it's a crime, and I'm treating it like a crime.
It's organised by criminals, and it's supported, in his words, by the criminals in the European Union.
And then we've got the fourth one, which is, again, this is moving on to another area that he's got.
He's created three levels of attack.
Now, we know he's been attacked over immigration, and we know that he's been attacked about the kind of rule of law issues by the European Union.
But as I'll show in a moment, he's never been attacked more than on this particular point.
"Francia Patrioták!
Olyan országból jövök, amely határos Ukrajnával.
A háborúpársli politikusok el akarják hitetni velünk, hogy folytatni kell a háborút.
De figyelmeztetlek benneteket, ez a háború megnyerhetetlen.
A harctéren nincs megoldás.
Tűzszünet kell, béke kell, tárgyalások kell lenni.
A diplomatáknak vissza kell venni az irányítást a tábornokoktól.
Mi nem akarunk meghalni Ukrajnájára.
Nem akarjuk, hogy a fiaink koporsóba jöjjenek vissza.
Nem akarunk egy Afganisztánt a Somfébúba.
Nem akarjuk, hogy a háborúra hivatkozva Brüsszel hadigazdaságot vezessenek.
Nem akarjuk, hogy gigahiteleket vegyenek fel.
Nem akarjuk, hogy föderalizálják a tagállamok pénzét.
Nem akarjuk, hogy belekergessék az országainkat egy fegyverkezési versenybe.
Kérem önöket, állítsunk meg ��ket." Right, and I think that is incredibly powerful because he's not just talking about the But there's a rationale for this, and it's not just about the bodies.
He's very primarily concerned about the individuals in his country not being dragged on, but he's also indicating two other things.
He doesn't want this continuous war like in Afghanistan on his right.
But more than anything else, he recognises why the European Union not only want this war, it's because they want to maintain and usurp more power from the state.
They want to be able to bring all the fiscal elements of European countries under one bond issuance, under one control, that there is no way whatsoever by European countries to be able to control their economies.
They're going to use the excuse of a war to solidify the European Union into one country once and forever.
And that means he loses exactly the point you talked about.
The freedoms they got.
From a post-communist world, of being outside of the USSR, means that they are now within the EU-SSR.
So he has no control.
But it's the smart thinking, it's the understanding of the long-term aims of what the European Union is about in relation to control of power.
And he's stepping up and standing up and saying, no, there's a little bit further coming on.
Now, of course, what do you expect?
This is where they're going to come back.
You know, he's talking around real big Ukraine policy.
To them, Ukraine is a massive issue.
Not only means that they can actually reinforce rearmament across Europe with the ideas that we took 5% of GDP in the UK, that NATO is going to be weakened, they say, so we have to have a European military armed force to be able to take on those 197 million Russians against our billions of people in Europe.
You know, because obviously that small number with a GDP much less than what the rest of Europe is, much less in terms of spending on the military.
But they are a massive enemy, so therefore we need to take control of all banking, all financials, create the full country at last, bring Britain back in, and then we can launch a war on them.
And he's saying no, but the pushback now, because he's stepping up against that last final element, the only way that they can see the European Union of bringing the country together as to one as they won is through war.
That's how they see it, because it's crumbling.
Economically, it's crumbling.
Mass migration is crumbling.
Well, it's a tale as old as time, isn't it?
You create an existential enemy in order to create unity out of it.
And looking at this, he wrote a letter, which I think is quite brave of him in any way, but he must have done so if he felt that he had support from other areas.
And he's threatening to block funding for Ukraine using his vote.
And that's led to calls, and I think I'll talk about it later on, it probably should have been talking about it now, is actually the EU are now talking about removing Hungary's votes, the right to vote at all, in anything, in the Commission, in the Council, in the Parliament.
They want to effectively say, you're in the club, we're fining you, you do as you're told, until...
Until then, you can't even get a membership vote.
You pay your fee, but you're getting nothing.
And I think that also shows to the anti-democratic element that's occurring within the minds of some people in the European Union.
But when we ask ourselves, he's done all his policies, and this is a bit grey here, people say, what's wrong with, you know, he's obviously an evil man.
He's like Hitler.
You know, but because he's stopping the rule of law, he's putting fences up, he's not wanting to go to war, he's stopping immigrants coming in.
But then you look at this, incidents of terrorism in Hungary from 1989 to 2016.
Actually, that big spike they talk about is really one.
That's one.
And this is on from Statistita.
You know, he's got no terrorist actions from Islam in his country.
And what is clear, because he's not allowing foreign invaders in, and he's controlling them at the borders, and yet look at Germany.
Did exactly the opposite and almost seems to have one a month on there.
So what is wrong with that?
Then we look, just pulling out some numbers, numbers of registered crime cases in Hungary from 2010 to 23. Crime is declining on serious levels since he's come into power.
What did the left want?
Remove him, bring out the rights and bring crime back up again so that we can have another Ballymena, another Paris, you know, more riots everywhere.
That we can have more rape gangs coming up in the equivalents of Rotherham all over the place.
And so, actually his actions of closing borders, being defence, looking at the nation-state of Hungary and its people, is creating a safer, more robust and a more pleasant place to live in.
And I find it completely weird that people oppose it.
And then we've got this.
Mikos I think is one of his assistants if I'm right, I think he might be his chief of staff or head of or as a lawyer within the Yes, Mikos.
Good guy, actually.
And he talks about this.
No street gangs, no anti-Semitism, no violence, no riots.
And he makes this very clear in this recent French speech, the French Victoire conference that he was in.
And I think, you know, I find it utterly bizarre that all these countries where you have all of this are actually looking at the one country that doesn't have it with a leader that's standing up for the rights of his people and actually protecting them and saying he's weird and he's wrong.
And this now is the former Lithuanian foreign minister.
It's intriguing what he talks about here, the challenge.
On the writing there it says, we call it what you want, but this is the common denominator.
We won't be stronger than Hungary allows us.
And we haven't challenged that.
I just say, always when you're looking at these, look at the features and the facial expressions of the same.
So we've been placed in a position where Orban is our ceiling.
Europe cannot outgrow Viktor Orban.
He tells us how far can we go.
This is our glass ceiling, whatever, call it what you want, but this is the common denominator of Europe.
We won't be stronger than Hungary allows us to, and we haven't challenged that.
I find that fascinating on a number of fronts.
I don't know what you think.
Was his reasoning that a single country and a single leader would be such a stopper to how powerful Europe could be?
Exactly.
And that's exactly the point.
How is he suggesting for a minute that this one man from the smaller part of Europe who doesn't have the economic power of Germany, doesn't have the kind of military and economic influence of the French, doesn't have the voting connections of Spain and Italy when they look together, how is he more powerful than all of them?
And he alone is stopping Europe from going.
And what it means is that he has a vote.
He has a veto.
Under the rights and democratic principles of the European Union, every country that joins has a veto over certain parts which are defined as being totally about their own country, the economy, the currency, elements of military.
And so Europe can only be more powerful.
That ceiling can only be broken.
If none of those countries have that power to be able to have those influences on there.
So once again we have an individual like this, a former foreign minister, in his case, he is advocating more for war, without a doubt.
He wants more war.
Against Russia, Lithuania is in danger, tomorrow obviously they're going to be invaded, and the next day it's probably Estonia, and then obviously Russia will take on Germany as a retaliation for them coming at them in World War I or II or wherever it is.
But the idea of that is all about them having a power grab.
And this one man is using democratically principled, set out in their original documents, he's using the power of democracy.
So, of course, what we do see in Europe is that's the leadership.
And, of course, the Hungarians protesting outside the Orban regime in front of the Parliament.
They're saying this is right now, over the last couple of days.
Obviously, like most cities, the Hungarian capital does have more students, but it also has an awful lot of funding from the European Union being pumped into rights organisations.
I was about to ask how they were able to raise all of the money for a stage, multiple screens, scaffolding, speaker systems, all of that.
Yes, and of course there were some laws brought in to try and prevent some of the NGOs, but of course a lot of the NGOs that are connected with the EU can't be attacked.
They have to be funded.
So what we talked about only the other day was about how the Mexicans are acting within What you have here is funding from the EU, agitating people to support the EU against their own nation-state.
And that's one of the modus operandi, you know, of kind of the same arguments that they say that China is doing at the moment across Europe or that Russia is doing in the same way.
So whenever people point to me and say, well, that's what Russia does, that's what China do, and I say, well, actually, that's what we do too.
But ours is okay.
No, what it means is it's okay because it supports your argument, and if someone else has a different argument and they're doing the same, that kind of hypocrisy, the two-tier element, comes into place.
But actually, unfortunately, I did see the drone footage of that pulling away, and I couldn't capture it.
I couldn't see where it was, but it seemed to disappear from the feeds that I was looking at when I was doing the initial research.
But actually, it wasn't that many.
It wasn't that many.
You know, it's a crowd there, but you could say it was like a couple of thousand people, two, three thousand people, when the drone footage comes back.
Nonetheless, it's where they're going to start again, because obviously we had some Hungarian politicians who were campaigning for the mayors of the cities, who were gaining ground on what they call the young people.
And we have people like this, they call themselves supporting Israel, and yet...
And this is what they're actually saying.
The jokes are over.
The European Union is going to cut out the tongue of Orban, and they're linking him to Putin's tools inside Hungary.
So the modern day Hitler is Putin.
Anybody that stands against us on any particular issue...
We know that.
We've been called that.
Some of us have.
I know I have, particularly as I fly in my helicopter from here to my large Surrey estate before I capture my boat to get down to my Marbella house.
Of course, all funded by the funding I get from Russia for arguing both sides.
I've seen you leave this podcast and immediately revert to speaking Russian.
Yeah, that's right.
I've seen you do it.
Is there any evidence, like legitimate actual evidence, connecting Orban to Russia in any way?
No, but there is this recent case that one of his PR people is now alleged to have, to be fair on their arguments, allegedly receiving funding, and Orbán is very quiet at their saying.
And then we've got...
And that's how we see it.
Or certainly that's how I see it.
That he is the last bastion of Christians, alongside what they're doing in Poland, providing they don't have former EU commissioners, parliamentarians in charge of their government.
And thank God that they actually did get a president who is of the right.
And I come down to the conclusion, this is how we're seeing it.
AFD's Alice Weiss are on good relationships with Victor Morgan as a counter-model to Angela Merkel who pursued politics against her own people.
And I think a lot of people would argue that's where the European Union seems to be.
They love this kind of model of we are the only ones who can make the decisions.
Power should be at the top.
The people should just listen and get on with it.
And anyone who fawns to us will give you some of the trinkets of cash down the line through our NGOs and our funding to ensure.
And those of you who stand up for you, like Orban or like Alice Vidal, we're either going to imprison you, remove you, ban you, silence you in some way.
But I just say that over the last few days, looking at the speech he's been doing in France, what he's been doing in his own country, Orban's stepping up.
And he's now hitting them in both a financial and military-based argument that they're really going to come for him.
And I think we're going to see some fireworks in Europe over the next few weeks as I go for Slovenia.
I believe they'll go for Poland and the leader there.
And the European Union won't stop until they've been able to, A, get the money and funding towards taking on a greater military capability against Ukraine, and B, then use that as the excuses you've identified to join a more unified European country.
Long may he stand strong, but we don't have a government to back him at the moment on our side.
Well, the continuous pattern is just to, you know, import crisis, you know.
Policy decisions that bring about more crisis and then accumulate more power in the hands of people who made those crises possible in the first place.
This is the continuous pattern of how things are.
Shall I go through the comments?
Yes, we've got three rumble rants here.
Okay, sure.
So, RagequitNinja says, didn't Hitler try the same thing with Europe as the EU now?
We may have won the war, but the battle is lost.
Battle is never lost, Ninja.
OrbanLogan17Pine says, This is a bit of a historical mangling that I get quite annoyed with right now.
Yes, during the Second World War, there was an attempt by Germany to consolidate its own power on the continent under a German-dominated imperium, but the idea of...
As far as I can tell, the EU, beyond wanting to have some form of war with Russia and protect its own territory, wouldn't be looking to expand its territory further east to the Ural Mountains or beyond back.
There'd be no attempt by the European Union, as we know it right now, to engage in any kind of classical 19th century colonialism, which I would have expected under some kind of European imperium if the war had gone the other way.
So I just wanted to correct that.
That's always something that really, as somebody who reads a lot of history, it's a bit of a mangling that always gets on my nerves.
I appreciate the clarity.
Logan17pand says, Auburn is acting as the one voice of reason in a room full of Marxists.
It's not even, I feel like, it's not necessarily even Marxism, is it?
You should be just grateful.
I don't want to sound like a Marxist saying this.
I would say the ideology that prevails among most of these people opposing Orban is more of a globalist neoliberalism rather than Marxism, although both of them can broadly be described as being on the left politically.
And the Habsification says, Harry looking like an anime villain with wet hair looks like...
I don't know what that is.
I looked up that character as that came in and I can see a bit of the resemblance.
I'll take it.
I'll take it as a compliment.
Samson, I can see behind the screen nodding, giving me thumbs up, saying this is a good thing, Harry.
He's going to put that up there in a minute, isn't he?
Could I have the mouse?
Oh wait, no, there's a mouse here.
Sorry.
It's blocked from my vision.
Okay, let's get the next screen up.
Alright then, so I wanted to talk a little bit about the LA riots and disturbances that have been going on over the past few days.
I know it was covered a little bit, well, I mean there was a full segment dedicated to it yesterday that Carl did, but I wanted to talk more broadly about the idea of Reconquista, which seems to be driving a lot of the illegal Mexicans who are in California and broadly along the west coast of America.
That seems to be a driving, motivating factor for why it is that they're behaving.
And I'd like to add a little preamble to this by saying that in my understanding of how a nation is built and who a nation belongs to, it is the people who really built it.
It really...
You could call me a bit of a Lockean in the sense that I believe that ownership of the land first of all is a contractual sort of thing.
given that the Americans purchased California from the Mexicans in 1848.
But I'd also say it also has a lot to do with the idea of if you have mixed your labour with that land, if you've actually done something with it, if you've developed it, if you've...
So I use the same thing with the idea of the Indian Americans, the Native Americans, and the Europeans, mainly British, who got here.
Yes, America as a landmass existed, and it had a load of tribes all murdering each other and doing scalpings and all sorts of horrible things to one another.
But they weren't actually really...
America as a nation, the United States of America, did not exist until the American people, that being the British who settled there, made the nation.
And it's the same with California.
Just because your ancestors kind of sat around on California for a little bit in the early 19th century, they didn't build California.
Americans built California.
So that's my little preamble.
my standards for who owns or who the land belongs to, personally.
But if you'd like more philosophical digressions that hopefully have a point, you should watch Carl's latest documentary, our first proper documentary that we've ever done, called The Death of Man, where he looks into the philosophical underpinnings of the Enlightenment and how he believes it separated us from a sort of transcendent consciousness that was more
That is a premium video, so if you would like to watch that, please subscribe to the website, a bronze tier membership.
Or higher, we'll get you access to that, along with an enormous back catalogue of material, which I think you'll really, really enjoy.
So, first of all, regarding all of this stuff to do with Mexico, one of the funny things that I like to look into is the New York Times are a particularly bad one for this.
What is the propaganda being pushed by left-wing media, and broader media in general, to be honest, on the deportations that are going on?
What's it being pushed at?
Cases are being used to make sure that everybody knows that you should feel bad about it and have some tear for these poor illegal immigrants who shouldn't have been here in the first place being sent back to the country that they came from, that they love dearly, but would never, ever, ever, ever want to live there.
So this one is a Venezuelan man whose criminal past made him a target of immigration agents, as you would hope so.
So I thought I'd look through a little bit of this.
So this man is part of a family called the Etrusc.
Who are, like many recent immigrant families, they say, extremely close with one another.
A walking path of turf patches connects their two family homes.
One was shared by Carlos, Emily, and their son, the other by his parents, two brothers, sister-in-law and niece.
And this article mainly looks over the subject of Carlos, who was picked up by ICE in Florida when he went out without his phone, so they were all confused about how they managed to get hold of him.
Most of them had overstayed their visas.
These are always the most sympathetic cases the media will find, but they overstayed their visas, i.e.
illegally in the country, and later sought protection from deportation into the Biden administration, who were more than happy to allow them to stay in the country despite not supposed to be being there.
Carlos first came to the United States in 2016 when he was 25, leaving behind Emily and their son, who was barely 10 months old.
Venezuela was on the brink of economic collapse, and Carlos said he needed to find work.
Boo-hoo.
He got a tourist visa and planned to stay for just a few months.
It didn't let him work legally, that visa, but, you know...
Legality doesn't really matter.
It doesn't come into the conversation.
So he got a job at a dishwasher, and then he met some crazy people in April of 2017, i.e.
fell in with criminals, and then he ended up getting arrested in Jacksonville with a group of people accused of using ATM skimming devices to collect credit and debit card numbers to make fraudulent purchases.
He knew it was wrong.
I knew it was wrong.
Ay caramba, please, no me gusta, don't send me back to my country, eh?
But he said he had to use some of the stolen money to send food and other items back home.
He pleaded guilty to three felonies and was sentenced to five years in a Florida prison.
And while he was there, he applied for asylum.
Case was denied, and in December 2021, a judge ordered him removed, which he wasn't.
Which he wasn't.
Which is why ICE came to pick up with.
And then when they eventually pick him up, he goes like, how did this happen?
Why is this happening?
And the New York Times looks at the case like this and goes, poor baby.
Poor Carlos.
He didn't know any better.
He's only a poor, retarded Venezuelan.
They can't follow laws and rules down there.
Look at how terrible their country is.
Of course they can't.
Which is why they need to move here, where they will improve.
America.
They will improve it by getting cards that can steal from you and working gangs together that they will call just friends.
And I fell into that gang and, you know, I just didn't know what to do as I stab a knife into the back of your neck and just turn around and rob your wallet.
Expect to see articles like this talking about the people that we've seen from the photo shoots that they've been doing, frankly, at the LA riots recently.
Particularly that guy on the motorbike waving around his Mexican flag because, again, he loves Mexico.
so so much but he would never ever want to live there because I assume the Mexican government aren't willing to give him free money or allow him to undercut the wages of his fellow Mexicans whereas America is more than happy to do that particularly states like California but there's been this That I think Carl covered a little bit of, but I wanted to just make it, go over it in a bit more detail.
There's this push from people, including Comrade Sisko, who has his banner, Be Gay, Do Crime, Free Palestine, Overthrow Capitalism, a pretty short ice.
If you can track Comrade Sisko down, he seems like a prime suspect for deportation, if you ask me.
And he says, Americans, when the former Mexican territory got Mexicans in it, seemingly forgetting that the word former has any meaning whatsoever.
And then you get people like this, one of this protester, this hideous, fat, dysgenic protester, stating that this is our city and this was Mexico.
So again, in the similar way that Gen Z I discovered last week can't understand third-person omniscient viewpoints in novels, these people can't seem to understand what present and past tense are and what the difference between them, because was does not mean anything.
is.
And surely as well it's not an ought-is kind of comparison as well, because California shouldn't be Mexico, as far as I'm concerned.
And then the president of the Mexican Senate himself came out and said that they will build a wall and pay for it, but will do it according to the 1830 map of Mexico.
Note that he's having to go almost 200 years ago for this reference point.
Mexicans were settled in these territories before the US.
Yes, yes.
Roughly in the California area about...
7,000.
About 500 ranches were here.
And 500 ranches...
Does not a civilization make.
The Mexicans living there are in what has always been their homeland.
I'll correct that.
And then you get idiots like Katy Perry as well, celebrities, they always love to throw this kind of ill-informed opinion out there.
She was posting about a place that literally began as El Pueblo de Nuestro Señora, la Reña de los Andes.
That's what Americans did.
No, it was the Spanish.
These people!
They don't know anything!
It frustrates me.
All it took for preparing this segment was just like...
And these idiots, these fools with huge platforms don't even do that.
They see some infographic pop-up on their social media and they go, I'd be such a good person if I shared this.
The people need to know.
Katy Perry.
Do you think that accent's so good?
Katy Perry.
You're what?
You're on the wrong side of 40 now, I assume?
You're not relevant.
You're not relevant anymore.
She's trying to be relevant, isn't she?
She's trying to bring herself back in.
Look at me.
But nobody cares.
All you're doing is, in the most accurate way of saying this, you're spreading misinformation.
But the funny thing is that all of this attitude of the, like, well, this has always been our territory, we've always been here, is actually a...
the...
It's the promotion of this idea of reconquista, which is quite popular in Mexico amongst Mexicans and amongst Mexicans in the southwest territories, well, states of the United States.
Known as advocating a greater Mexico, such opinions are often formed on the basis that those territories were, were part of the Spanish Empire for centuries and then of Mexico from 1821 until they were annexed by the United States during the Texas annexation of 1845.
It has been 180 years since then, and 177 years since then, and California itself has been the 31st state of America for 175 years, because it was made the 31st state in 1850.
So we're talking about a long, long, long time ago.
But also the idea of this reconquista is like sounds heroic, right?
It sounds like I'm seeing American movies there with guys and their little guns coming back.
It sounds like the Warriors coming in and taking it back by force through honourable combat instead of...
Yes.
Sneaking in, stealing jobs by undercutting wages, and then begging for handouts is what it actually is.
So, sorry, I hate to break it to you, this...
This is not warrior phenotype.
Not that I've seen before.
Certainly wouldn't even be in the movie Warrior.
Perhaps in Mexico, they just build them differently, you know?
Your voice didn't even sound Mexican when you played it, did it?
Oh, I'll play it.
This is our city!
And this was Mexico!
You can't kick us out of the land that was ours!
Oh, do you get it?
Walls.
Walls.
Let our people free!
Let our people free!
Let our people go.
You've let yourself go, Lord.
Jesus Christ, the delusion.
The delusion of these people.
But it's very strange how popular this idea is and how long it has been going on for.
People for years have called people like...
I don't know, Jared Taylor, horrible, awful, racist white supremacists for bringing up the fact that a significant majority of people of Mexican descent around the southwest coast of America are proponents of the idea of...
of Reconquista turning it back into a Mexican territory, of the idea that if you don't know Spanish in these states, especially amongst some parts of the cities and counties, then you're s-out of luck because you're going to be a minority there.
But then you see that, like, again, the president of the Mexican Senate advocating for it himself.
And on the page here as well, it's got some more information.
Illegal immigration to the southwest is sometimes viewed as a form of reconquista in light of the fact that Texas statehood was preceded by an influx of U.S. settlers into that Mexican province until U.S. citizens outnumbered Mexicans 10 to 1 and took over the area's governance.
The theory is that the reverse will happen when Mexicans eventually become so numerous in the region that they wield substantial influence, including political power.
Even if it's not intended, some analysts say the significant demographic shift in the southwest may result in a de facto reconquista.
Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who is the author of Clash of Civilizations, very interesting book, a proponent of the widespread popularity of reconquista, stated in 2004, demographic...
The Reconquista And they've spoken about the likelihood,
if anything like that were to happen in the future, what would happen is it would become its own independent territory, probably called Northern Mexico or La Norte or something.
It sounded a little bit like the kind of Hamas and Al-Qaeda view that you've just got to out-birth the Jews in Palestine.
So we'll just out-birth the Americans.
Well, everyone, the thing for me about this...
And we'll help that in mass illegal immigration.
The funny thing about the historical information given here is what the Wikipedia page just gave us is an example of...
the better.
So what it sounds to me like is that initially, California and Texas, in particular in this case, experienced a wealth of diversity.
Flooding into it that should have made the state stronger, made the territory stronger, but instead pushed the people out who were already there.
I thought this was supposed to be a good thing or something that can't happen.
Even if the natural conclusion of it is secession or its own independent.
But this is a thing, isn't it?
One demographic, mass demographic change up until very recently was just widely recognised as a system of warfare.
It's what China did to Tibet.
in order to conquer it by moving millions of Hang Chinese into Japan so that the loyalty would obviously go to China.
But also as well, even if this were...
even if this were, if the American government doesn't push back against this, and it is simply allowed to continue, which of course I pray it doesn't, then it means that even if there were some attempted...
Yeah, these are states all across the US where they're showing support.
Again, We know the areas where these people are.
They are showing overt and explicit Loyalty to a foreign state.
One foreign state, by the way.
The president, what was her name?
Scheinbaum.
Is that her name?
Scheinbaum.
has made explicitly war-like statements towards the US at the threat of having taxes on remittances, of which Mexicans send a huge amount of remittances back to Mexico every single year, rather than spending them in the US economy.
All of these people showing...
So, amazing.
Round them up.
Stephen Miller, I know you're watching this right now.
I know you're a huge fan.
Round all of these people up.
If they love Mexico so much, they can go back.
Look at this.
This construction site is evidently so Mexican that they can take the time off, not that I imagine they get that much work done, and certainly none of it very good quality in the first place, not that I imagine they get much work done, but they've taken what little time they spend doing their work off so they can fly their flag.
So send a few ICE agents around so that they can get picked up, and then when you say, you're going back to Mexico, buddy, they go, aye, aye, aye!
The construction site in Connecticut, find out who is the person that's hiring all of these and say, you've just done that.
I'm sorry, you're fired as a company.
Yes.
But to go back to your point, Harry, about the fact that, you know, it wasn't the Mexicans who cultivated California, who grew the civilization.
They didn't build California.
They didn't build California.
And what you'll get, if this is allowed to continue, is they won't, a bit like, you know, with the British in Africa.
Once you leave Rhodesia, once you leave South Africa, the basic infrastructure, the actual standards of civilization will decline.
California and the rest is already becoming essentially closer akin to the standards of Mexico, which are not particularly high.
No, and it'll be controlled by gangsters and criminals within no time at all.
And then what will happen is that those people who are living in northern Mexico will then want to move out to the areas which are nice and safe.
Oh yeah, move to America.
Well, that was going to be my next point.
Imagine if, okay, they actually get what they want and all of a sudden they're in charge of that territory.
All of the people of European and other descent, Asians and African-Americans, etc., they all move out.
And they're left in charge of it for maybe the next 177 years as well.
Are they all still going to want to live there afterwards?
Or is it going to end up just like Mexico and they end up moving into the territory that maybe was purchased during the Louisiana Purchase, for instance, in 1803?
Because, you know, that's where everybody would move back to.
And that's where they'd want to go to.
They'd want to start moving east and east and east, going, give me your free money, give me your jobs so that I can undercut your wages and then send it back to the people in New Northern Texas.
If you look at that, going back to there, they purchased Louisiana from the French.
Yeah.
Isn't that then saying and using their argument that the French now should be able to go and live in Louisiana and just take over Louisiana?
I think plenty of people of French extract do live there, but, you know, they do so legally for the most part.
And that means that we, sitting here today, we can go to, like, Maryland and we can go and take over there because that's ours.
About time.
You know, it's about time we go back there.
I'd love a little chunk of Martha's Vineyard for myself.
Maybe the Dutch can make it New Amsterdam again.
Yeah, absolutely.
And we just go all the way back to that.
And I'll find someone who's Mexican, who lives in a really big house on Martha's Vineyard, and I'll say, Oi, op it.
This is mine.
It's English.
Because we were here first.
Sounds reasonable to me.
If the arguments that they're making are true, the argument that's being implied by Comrade Sisko here is that Mexico sold California to Americans, and then all of the Mexicans who were already there just stayed there forever.
But the fact of the matter is that if that was the case, then there weren't very many there to begin with,
in 1850, it's 99% white, and then by the time you get to 1910, you start to see the separation out of Hispanics.
From the white population.
So white is still 95% in 1910.
Hovers around 95% all the way up until 1950.
Then it slowly begins to go down.
and something happened...
Until...
Between 1960 and 1980, the white population goes down by 16%.
The Hispanic population shoots up over 10% and then it just keeps going and going and going until you reach 2020 and it's 41.2% with 40% Hispanics and I think it has...
So you can see by the time you get to 2020, bloody hell, Wikipedia.
What are you doing?
You're killing me right now.
Jesus Christ.
Apologies, folks.
I really didn't mean for that to happen.
Here we go.
We're back to it, I believe.
No, this is other demographics.
And it's all highlighted as well now.
Thank you very much, Screen, for doing this to me.
Either way, the non-Hispanic white population of California has become a minority of those who are classified as white in the state because it was about 34%, whereas now...
Here we go, here we go...
Yes, it was...
Here we go.
34.7%.
That was 2020 then, so there must have been another census in the last five years.
There's no doubt that the Mexican must have taken over the white.
Yes, they have massively overtaken.
And the question is, why is that?
And well, I would say, like many of the consequences of mass immigration
explaining all of this because it's not just the removal of quotas, it's a lot of the other factors that came into it as well and it's got some interesting graphs that I'll look at in a moment.
I found another article talking about this where it's very interesting because it actually didn't just add in those quotas.
it changed the rules of how national origin was determined.
So it was that you could only have 2% of whatever the total population of any national origin was in America at the time admitted into the country as of the...
So they pushed back the census data that they're going for so that they could again restrict it more to a Northwest European thing.
But they changed the rules of how the national origin was determined to increase the potential quota of British people who were admitted into the country as well.
Because, of course, most Americans, especially at that time, would have been descended from the British settlers.
So they said, OK, if you're descended from a British settler, we can't use a British American, which means that we can increase the proportion of British people that can come into the country.
So not only was it an attempt to keep America northwest European, it was actually an attempt to keep America more specifically British.
I'm just kind of pondering those stats.
It shows that the percentage of Mexicans have risen in terms of the population in California and the percentage of white Brits or white Americans has declined.
It doesn't say the kind of gross numbers.
Is it kind of like the gross numbers of the white British or white Americans that are in California has actually just declined slowly because of childbirth?
The vast number of Mexicans have come in because of mass immigration.
I think there will have been some emigration outflow of the white Americans from California because California is a state that...
We saw a mass exodus after California was revealed.
Everybody realized that it's a complete asshole.
All at once.
So a lot of white liberal Americans moved over to Texas and other red states to the blue cities there, for instance.
but there are multiple factors but one of the interesting things that it mentions here was that the 1965 changes changed up the uh...
quotas for which hadn't existed before, to 120,000 people per year, which should have actually restricted a bit more of the Latin American migration.
But it grew anyway because of people...
bringing their family members over, which was something that was permitted by the 1986 change under Reagan, the immigration laws.
And also, the fact that at the same time, they repealed some law that allowed Mexicans and Latin Americans to get temporary work visas to come into the country.
At which point, all the Mexicans all decided at once...
We'll just do it illegally.
So you can see the temporary migration on this graph shoots down.
It just plummets.
It plummets.
Whereas the illegal immigrants skyrockets while legal immigrants basically stays the same here.
And then, of course, when you've got all the illegals coming in, 1986 comes along, Reagan gives them the amnesty.
And all of a sudden, that's just an even greater encouragement.
Although we don't see the figures go shoot up, we do see them go down, but only to maybe half the level they were at their peak.
But even then, this is only going up to 1995, so we know that under Biden, the figures shot up again.
Although that has been changed.
And the thing is...
newly elected Senator Ted Kennedy, who served as the floor leader for the bill, assured his colleagues before they passed it that our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually and the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.
Contrary to the charges in some quarters, the bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia.
Yeah.
So that's some of the history and context, and given what's going on in America right now in LA, I can only hope that people continue to be deported who shouldn't be in the country.
And again, Stephen Miller, if you're watching this, which I know that you are, these people seem like prime candidates.
They love Mexico.
They won't mind.
I'm sure you love Mexico so much, I'm sure you've got great construction opportunities down there.
Alright, let's go through the rumble rants for that segment.
Okay, so Logan...
Logan Pine says the LA mayor organized a press conference to try to emotionally blackmail us.
That's the only tactic they know.
That's a random name.
Imagine being Mexican.
Couldn't be me, lol.
The engaged few referring to the dumpling that we saw on screen says her phenotype is chocolate milk.
A rare one, but true.
milled around on this land one time, so you need to give me the fruits of your labour that we could never replicate, is what I'm getting from this.
Many, many foreign populations make this argument in America.
And Canada.
Beechain315 says, I'm from Connecticut.
You see people flying flags of foreign nations everywhere.
My hometown is only 40,000 people, but has a huge Haitian and Dominican population.
Can't wait till my town burns down.
Yeah, that sounds like a powder keg if you ask me.
And Logan Pine, again, mass immigration has drained...
In one small town of 40,000 people.
Yeah, that's not great.
They're the favourite football match that they have.
Yeah, but remember, Ted Kennedy told everybody that the changes to the laws wouldn't affect anything to do with the demographic makeup of America, so we can't...
Or an idiot.
Whichever one you think is better for his reputation.
Mass immigration has drained Mexico dry.
The Mexican elites want immigration as it drains the country of the people who would revolt and overthrow them.
Yeah, I remember Razorfist making that argument a long while ago, actually.
I'd be interested to see how that would work out if they tried it.
Not that I would ever advocate revolt for anywhere.
Of course.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is a day of the week, and that means that the British state is betraying us once again.
Obviously, as you've probably heard by now, there's been a recent agreement made between the Labour government and the EU.
And this means that we are, in all but name, handing over the borders and security of Gibraltar to the EU.
To those peoples that...
We were.
I mean, I think there was something called a vote and referendum that said that we actually wanted to be an independent nation outside of the European Union, controlling our own borders.
And one of them was take back control.
Yes.
And one of those would be take back control.
I didn't see that on the ballot paper.
No.
They argue the opposite, but hey.
Could have done with a bit more urbanism.
Yeah, if I was in charge, that's what you would have exactly got, but then...
So, before I go on, I should just alert you all to the fact that we actually have a new documentary for the channel.
This is Carl's brilliant The Death of Man, in which he basically chronicles the history of the Enlightenment and philosophical thought, and looks at how we have been disenchanted of the world that our ancestors once saw as mystical and spiritual,
and something that has broken us down into Very materialistic people who are basically kind of lost of destiny and meaning, and so I'd thoroughly recommend that you give it a watch.
It's very, very compelling, and from there I will continue on with Gibraltar.
So, with some context as to the history of Britain and Gibraltar, there was a time, I know it's not in our lifetime, of course, but there was a time when Britain was actually cool and kicked ass around the world.
Well, one of the wars in which we did it was one called the War of the Spanish Succession, in which we took Gibraltar, it was a joint Anglo-Dutch effort, and we took Gibraltar from the Spanish in that war.
And that was in 1704, and then the Treaty of Ulrich, at the end of that war, in 1713, officially ceded the territory of Gibraltar to us, and we have held on to it ever since, for over three centuries now.
We weren't bad friends with the Dutch at the time.
I remember just before that, in the mid-1600s, we actually stuck around with the Dutch and kicked the French out in Brussels, no, so Bruges, and from that we got gin.
Favourite pastime.
We've had a bit of a rollercoaster relationship.
We have.
Certainly have.
You feel it?
You have Dutch?
But it comes back to what you were saying in your segment, Harry, about who civilised this place?
Who built it?
Who built it?
Because the fact of the matter is that the Spanish obviously had their own reconquista against the Moors in Spain, and so they finally permanently...
And then we have owned Gibraltar, now it's been our sovereign territory, for over three centuries.
And so we've had it a lot longer, and we've managed it very, very well.
And that's not just me being jingoistically nonsensical.
It's the fact that when you came to the 2002 referendum...
98% of them, the Gibraltarians, decided that they wanted to stay as a sovereign part of Britain.
Yeah, but they kind of...
Mm-hmm.
But, you know, they did kick us in the teeth of the Brexit referendum, didn't they?
They did.
So, yes, this was...
I was just about to come to that.
So then you had...
Well, 0.9, if I'm going to be pedantic, in order to remain.
Absolutely, they do.
And I can understand that from their perspective.
They cut off from the mainland.
They have anxieties about, you know, what it would mean for the borders going forward.
Well, they've got it now.
Well, they have got it now.
If you'd voted alongside us, you know, and you'd got it properly, and we'd got a proper Brexit, and people in charge would have done it, this wouldn't be happening.
But, you know, you go all week.
Yes.
Well, I suppose that's the thing, isn't it?
Because David Lammy is a man who exudes weakness.
Oh, I was going to say, if you want weak, David Lammy.
And so, naturally, when it was announced that David Lammy was going to visit Gibraltar for a post-Brexit deal with Spain, you can understand why we all decided to get a bit nervous.
It wasn't exactly unfounded, was it?
No.
And all we could do was wait with bated breath and see what was going to come out of all of this.
And then we found out.
So, Lamy obviously sees this as an absolute win.
Says that Gibraltar's economy and way of life was under threat.
I'll come back to what that threat was a little later in the segment.
But he says, we've secured a practical solution which safeguards sovereignty, jobs and growth.
Working in lockstep with Fabian Picardo, we've ensured Gibraltar's interests as part of the UK family are at the heart of this agreement.
So, what is that agreement?
Well, as it turns out, this agreement, actually, I'll just move on to this one, for the case of time.
The agreement involves certain things that UK will, a political agreement, so we will continue to have autonomy over the military base on Gibraltar.
However, one of the key things is that we have essentially handed over security, all of the border security, to the EU, to foreigners.
So that means that's put us in a position where now someone coming from Britain, from the mainland, if you want to go and visit a British sovereign territory, you're going to have your passport checked.
by people from the EU.
The EU now, in all but name, controls the world.
Yes.
Well, so here's the thing.
The population of Gibraltar is about 40,000, right?
It's just a little bit below that.
And about 38% of the people in Gibraltar, about 15,000, cross that border every day.
That hard border between Gibraltar and Spain in order to get to work, just coming and going as it is.
Now, this has worked perfectly fine for quite a long while, but you see, when David Lammy talks about threats that are going to upset that equilibrium, well, these are threats from our beloved European allies, because the EU has a new border system.
Which is the entry-exit system, the EES, that it's putting forward, which was going to be a digital biometric system in order to, as it says, speed up and assess and track people around Europe.
So that they can tell who's outstaying their welcome, who's in what place at what time, and they'll have all of your information on the database as basically a form of digital ID, a digital passport.
It is.
And so Spain...
Yes, there was this whole...
So there was this exasperation with anxiousness with Spain trying to slam down the Schengen shutters.
Now, it's no secret that Spain has wanted Gibraltar for a long, long time.
So any deal that is beneficial to the EU and thereby beneficial to Spain is naturally...
The Spanish wouldn't agree to anything if they didn't see it as a small step towards using the soft encroachment of taking Gibraltar back for the Spanish army.
I'd give it Morocco.
So you said it.
Okay.
You know, you guys.
You can have it.
Here's yours.
You conquist a two electric boogaloo.
Exactly.
I loved electric boogaloo.
So, yes, this obviously, as I said, means that there'll be a hard border with Europe and the Britons will now have to have their passports checked.
And this all obviously comes off the back of the Chagos deal as well.
And so the fact that...
Obviously brings about the fact that there is no slight, there is no erosion of our status, of our power, what little power we actually have left.
A second top soft power in the world.
Apparently.
And what a comfort it is to all.
I was going to say, if that's so much international influence, if that's soft power, then I'd hate to see what hard power is, to be honest.
I sleep peacefully at night.
Knowing?
Knowing that the British state has made us number two in soft power around the world, it gives me such...
So much so to see that Chagos has gone...
And those of you who are listening all the way down in the Falklands, be prepared that you're going back to Argentina.
But the only good thing I would say is that the moment you're joining an Argentina that is doing a lot more than we are in our country.
One other thing also just to mention with this that is worth bringing up is because of the entry-exit system that the EU are intending to implement come October, November, they keep pushing it back.
Oddly enough, these bureaucrats can't seem to just hit a deadline.
But then I suppose neither can we.
It's the nature of bureaucracy.
But we're the bureaucrats too.
So the system is going to be that there's going to be a short stay, which means that those travelling can go for 90 days out of a 180-day period.
So if a British person wants to visit Gibraltar, then that system is going to be enforced now.
By the EU themselves.
And so the EU will decide how long, theoretically.
It's the fact that this is all obviously up in the air.
nothing's been ratified yet.
You know, this deal This is the point, yes.
And you're trusting the EU to basically just let you come and go as a British citizen.
I wouldn't trust the EU on this point as far as I could throw them.
No, you have some experience on this front.
Absolutely.
To be honest.
So...
It's a phrase you speak with...
We're talking about American Reconquisters.
You speak with Fort Tonk.
So I suppose the question that now ends up on everyone's minds is, well, you've given away Chagos unnecessarily.
Without provocation, without mandate, and you've essentially conceded the borders of Gibraltar as well.
How long before we concede on the Falklands?
You know, that war that we fought to defend it as a British sovereign territory, which is still within living memory.
Yeah, it is.
I mean, I remember it, and certainly I would now get down onto the bookies and see if you can put some good odds on, because the Falklands are going.
There's no doubt about it, they'll have that.
If Labour stays in, they'll find some sort of deal to offload it as well quickly.
Well, the question is, like any of these things, I suppose, when it comes to a question like the British sovereignty of Gibraltar, does the British state care more about holding it than the Spanish state cares about acquiring it?
And I would suggest that the Spanish state cares about taking it more than we...
And I would suggest exactly the same about the locals.
Miele would be more interested in taking it than our parliament really cares about maintaining it.
And what is the importance of Gibraltar to us as a piece of rock?
It's a military base.
And why is it important for a military base?
Because the seaway is getting across into Africa.
We lose that.
We lose global influence with the United States.
And in our four eyes principles, because we've got some listening posts and bases that we can put people in that can get into Africa.
The Spanish would love to have that and say, we're now the key people that can do that.
And the same with the Falklands.
The Falklands are a key point for looking at the resources and research that's down in that area of the world.
And we lose that.
Then we lose a whole chunk of influence on that.
And the Argentinians would gain it.
So it's about losing influence and losing power.
And you lose these things as a chip by chip.
Then you lose influence globally.
So no one's going to look at you more significantly just because you hold the land.
We have a license to go to Chagos.
The Americans are going to say, you're paying for it.
And Mauritians are going, hey, thanks very much for a tax-free life.
But we've just got it there.
We're no longer seen as influence about that.
We're just seen as weak.
Well, we are weak.
That's right.
We're weak.
And we're led by weak people.
Yeah, I mean, obviously this particular article I pulled up is just to do with British Airways calling the Falcons by its Spanish name, but it speaks to...
a poor portent of the future.
And so, yeah, obviously...
Was it on the flight itself?
I think they're having an internal investigation.
one of their flights.
Viva la Malvinas.
Yes.
So, yeah, it was one of the port, it was Port Stanley.
It came up with whatever the Spanish name Port Stanley was.
Oh, my word.
Yes.
I mean, that's not easy.
Puerto Argentino.
Oh, my word.
And that was on the board.
Yeah.
So, yeah, sorry about all this with Gibraltar, another day in the life under labour and just sort of the treasonous...
British establishment.
Obviously nothing's set in stone yet, but between our Parliament and the Gibraltarian one, I don't see this turning back into our favour, but I suppose time will tell.
Well, it's clearly, when you've got Fabio, I mean, I met Fabio Picard, the Gibraltar man, I just...
Not in particular individual in the way that he represented the people of Gibraltar.
I mean, for him, he was just about simply how can I cling on to the European Union with any kind of funding and ideology?
But, oh, I still want to have my cake and eat it by being part of the UK rather than standing strong.
This is not the sort of person that we would have put in charge of there in the 1700s.
In the 1700s, we would have put some sort of naval officer in there who said, this is Britain, we're going to defend it with all our costs.
Not someone who was twiddling around little rooms and ignoring those people who were in the parliament who actually believed in his little island that he was in charge of, being part of the UK and having a very important role.
He'd be much happier, just cosy up with all the others.
Why?
I don't know.
Were there certain levels of funding that they enjoyed on a particular level for organisations that he, friends, family, contacts, people who were influencing might have had?
Goodness knows, one would never have thought that in anything to do with the EU.
No, quite true.
I'll just conscious time, so I'll move on to some of these comments.
Alex Adamson says, time to reactivate HMS Victory and summon the ghost of Nelson.
We're going to war with them.
Yes, yes.
I feel like a good bit of war with the Spanish is a war that I could get behind.
For old time's sake, of course.
Logan, the 17 pines, says, Oh, yeah, yeah, that's the same one, actually.
It just was still highlighted.
That's fine.
Cool.
let's go to the video comments Good afternoon, gentlemen.
Here we are at Patriot Park.
At the College of the Ozarks.
As Carl has observed, in the United States, we take our patriotism, and we take our veterans quite seriously.
Very nice.
Indeed.
This is...
Oh.
Ceiling in particular.
I'm sure I've been there.
I don't think I've been there.
I went to a nice cathedral recently in France in the Dordogne area in a town called Sarlat, which had this magnificent look to it, but also right above the entranceway doors, there was an organ set into the wall right above the entranceway.
It was really magnificent to see.
Super.
There are some fabulous cathedrals in France.
Oh, yeah.
Must visit more of them.
My opinion is to warn the audience about this book.
Born an Austrian who later added British citizenship, it was a mistake for Hayek to end up identifying as a Whig-type liberal.
He's a European progressive through and through.
He's superb at analysing what constitutes free nations and the rules they require perforce to ensure liberty is maintained, but his clarion call that governments must govern by principle flies in the face of the English model that created the Whigs.
I've not read The Constitution of Liberty.
I did read Road to Serfdom many, many years ago.
I do have a copy of The Constitution of Liberty.
I dare not read it because I did read The Road to Serfdom and wanted to claw my eyes out of boredom, frankly.
He is not the most dynamic writer in the world, and Road to Surfdom is this thick, Constitution of Liberty is this thick, so I'm not interested, sadly.
Although, thank you, Alex, for speaking about the book and putting yourself through that.
Yes.
Okay, I was just thinking once again about those fairy tales, and yeah, it sucks that the originals are out of print, but one of the things that also occurred to me is that the original stories are also public domain.
So, if we wanted to write our own versions, or at least use the original versions, there's probably an artist in the Lotus Eaters viewership who could do some really good illustrations, you've got a really good publisher, Yeah, there you go.
Well, any artists, and I know we've got a few in the audience who are interested, get in touch with old Craig, eh?
Have we got any more?
No, that's it.
Let's go through the written comments on the website, then.
Would you like to read your own, Stephen?
Right, I'm gonna try and get on to that.
This first comment, for some reason, is forced.
Lucas.
Oh yes.
I'll just read this here then.
Jethro Evans says Gibraltar has voted twice to stay British, 67 and 2002.
Yeah, 99% both times said no.
If Stam's government is negotiating Spanish control over borders or governance, it's ignoring democracy and betraying Gibraltarians.
I know, but the truth is, they don't care about democracy.
Is this my thing, Scotty, of Swindon?
There won't be any attempt to expand Europe's territory.
I mean, Eurovision includes Israel and Australia.
Expansion is occurring, I've got to admit that.
Didn't they also want to get, like, Tajikistan and all the stands into the Eurovision as well this year or something like that?
It'll become the Eurasian song competition, weren't it?
The EU's treatment of Orban...
So maybe if you can read them from me, that would be great, I'm afraid.
Yeah, thanks, Scotty.
The EU's treatment of Orban really smacks of, you're on this council, but we do not grant you the rank of master.
The EU might want to check how all that ended for the Jedi Council.
Why is it that Hungary remains in the EU, seeing as Orban is so opposed to it by the sounds of it?
Well, the odd thing is, they'll vote for the Orban, but they're still quite supportive of membership of the EU for some reason.
And so I think part of this break that he's trying to do is trying to create a language and a division into the country that says, it's EU or us.
And so that if they ever get to the referendum stage, that he knows that they can win it.
Colin P says, the rather bellicose attitude of the EU towards Russia-Ukraine strikes me as somewhat ironic, given that one of the reasons for creating it in the first place was supposed to be to lessen the risk of war.
Then when he said about Eurovision having Israel and Australia, so expansion occurring with the EU, I mean, Australia is like, it's Israel was also established with hefty support from America and Europe anyway, and most of the Israelis, the Ashkenazis at least, are going to be descended from Polish and other Eastern European Jews.
So there is an argument to be made there.
Just imagining sometime in the 22nd century.
Just one about European nation going to war and it's just written in the treaty at the end.
It's like, for your unconditional surrender, we will allow you to participate in the Eurovision.
And I'm just being like, right, sign that paper.
For some reason, I think you're right that Eurovision is basically used as a tool of international diplomacy in that way, isn't it?
It's their soft power, but it's more successful.
Oh, yeah!
Which is ridiculous, because you'd never want to be caught on stage with half those performances.
I still don't watch it, though.
I've attended a few Eurovision parties in my time, but I've only ever been there for the drinks.
And, you know, you do the thing where you all pick a name out of a hat, and that's your one, and if you get it, you put a couple of quid in, and you get the pass at the end of it if your team wins, or your country wins, and never won it.
No.
No, I was forced this year.
Daughters 12 wanted to see it.
There with my partner, both of them.
And the gratefulness that I felt when towards the end they turned around and said, we can't watch anymore.
Can't watch anymore.
I'm going, it's time for bed.
Most of the time the music's terrible.
Just get better artists on.
It's just when people came in and go, I am from Lithuania and you've got...
There are the points of the jury!
And there's people trying to dress up as though they're just coming out of a Star Wars weird character.
The outfits they are, how freaky they could be.
The last band that won that was relatively interesting was that band Lorde.
The rock and roll band that went up dressed as if they were all like weird demonic orcs or something.
They were at least interesting.
Yeah, I vaguely remember that.
I vaguely remember that.
Brian Tomlinson says, Communists controlling Western countries hate borders.
Accept borders that allow you to leave the country and borders at your front door after a CCP bioweapon attack.
Do you want to read through yours, Harry?
Yeah, sure.
Sophie Liv.
Only real answer here if you want it.
Come and take it.
Do a real proper invasion so America can defend itself.
Take it.
Try.
In the honourable, we're coming with tanks kind of way.
Not this womanly, ooh, look at me, I'm so oppressed, you have to give it to me way.
Seriously, so many of our problems would be solved if we agreed to traditional war honour rules.
You want London with Bangladeshi signs?
Come and take it.
What you're referring there to, Sophie?
It's an age of honour and heroism which is sadly long behind us now.
The proletariat says, "To be fair, we bought California at gunpoint.
We won a war, took the land, gave the Mexican government some money and called it a purchase.
It would be like a carjacker dropping an envelope full of money at your feet as he drives away in your car." Well, to be fair, if the envelope full of money is about the price of the car, then it's kind of even.
What you're describing there at the top...
And in fact, it was rather gracious of America to give them money for Mexico in the first place.
Because if they won a war, you don't actually have to give them anything because they've lost.
I would imagine it was to ensure kind of a no hard feelings agreement.
But, evidently, there are still hard feelings.
So really, I think what America should do, calculate how much that money would be now.
For inflation and ask for it back from the Mexican government.
That would be good.
Let's see how that goes.
Chance Bell.
You can't kick us, Mexicans, out of the land that was ours, like the Spanish did.
Arizona Desert Rat.
A family being close does not mean that they are good people.
Look at the Mafia.
They're usually tight-knit families, but commit some of the worst crimes.
This is true.
Michael Draybelbis.
Mexico can barely run its own country.
How do they expect to run?
A bigger nation.
Excellent question.
Small L libertarian.
My favourite part about Mexico ceding California to the US is that the Spanish Empire was based so much around finding gold then they lost Mexico and Mexico sold that land that had the majority of gold on it.
Very true.
Let's go over to yours.
All right.
Safeyliv says, so let me get this straight.
Europe can decide who can come and who can stay at Gibraltar, but you can't decide who comes and who can stay in England.
That's not true.
That's not true.
The British state does decide who can come and stay in England.
It just so happens that they always agree that anyone can stay.
It's everyone.
It's totally intentional.
Lord Nereva says, the Gibraltar issue is possibly the worst thing this government has done so far.
Starmer seems determined to sever as many parts of our country as he can, no matter how important and historic they may be.
Next, he'll be ceding Yorkshire to Norway, I tell you what, if he does that, I'll be the first one fighting!
Zombie Philip, the undead Duke of Edinburgh.
Great name.
I don't think they'll get rid of the Falklands, mainly due to the oil and gas deposits there.
Why the hell would we give something away that has tremendous growth, especially with it's thousands of miles away from Britain?
Well, yeah, but then also, why don't the government seize all the natural oil and gas that's right next door to us as well, and even under our feet, if they're not doing it?
Where we are, then I think they're regarded to care about it even less.
I heard it's more about the rare minerals that are actually on that part of the lands rather than the oil and gas now.
Alpha of the Betas says, There's no such thing as soft power.
There is hard power and restraint, and that restraint is called soft power.
One doesn't exist without the implicit threat of the...
Pretty much agree with that.
That is a good point.
Yeah, I haven't considered that.
That is a good point, actually.
I didn't.
Alright, we've had two more rumble rants come in.
Alex Adamson said, True, gone are the days of, if you want my land, kill me for it.
And Rhys Jam Peace says, Los Angeles, Paris, Balamena, Salford.
As Luca said yesterday, the fires of Isengard shall spread.
Where does Salford come into this?
Have Salford had any big riots recently?
I can't remember.
I mean, I lived in Salford for a bit, and I was living right next to the police station, so judging by how many sirens I heard, maybe there is constant riots going on there.
So you're a refugee?
There have been riots in the last two days.
I'll look into that.
Strange ways broken loose or something?
No, I didn't pick that up at all.
Well, we're coming up to the end now, ladies and gents, so thank you very much for joining us, and I do believe it will be Common Sense Crusade in half an hour, so if you'd like to, you can join in with Calvin for that, and until then, we'll see you this time at 1pm tomorrow.
Thank you for your time.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection