Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 19, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:07

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1190

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Thursday the 19th of June 2025.
	I'm your host Luca, joined today by Dan and Stephen.
	And today we're going to be talking all about Ted vs.
	Tucker.
	Indeed.
	And which one has the more authentic vision of America first.
	Yes, or somewhere else first.
	We're also going to be talking about updates on the immigration issue and the boats.
	Yeah, and a few other things like that, and what's coming to us in the future.
	How many more engineers and doctors are going to arrive?
	Never enough, I'm sure, is the answer the state will give us.
	And then at the end, I'm going to be covering the anniversary of Waterloo and why our history, why we're sadly being told to forget how great we once were.
	So, with that all said, Dan, over to you.
	Yeah, so I wanted to cover the Ted versus Tucker debate.
	I suppose we've got to ask the question, which of them came out of this the best?
	Which of them has the more authentic vision for America First?
	This is the clip that sort of has attracted most of the attention.
	Now, some people are saying it's a bit of a gotcha.
	Actually, I think this is key, this question.
	I agree.
	It's very important.
	Why don't we play this, Samson, and then we talk about it.
	Our buttons man is buttoning.
	I don't know if you can...
	There's no volume on that.
	Maybe that's the key.
	This is the clip, obviously, about the population of Iran.
	Tell you what, Samson, any chance we can get sound on this?
	I don't know if the viewers are getting it.
	Okay.
	We are troubled.
	Talk amongst yourselves.
	I might restart the segment, because otherwise it might make me look a bit silly on YouTube.
	Ah.
	Yes, all right.
	We're early.
	Do the magic.
	We're having the technical issues early.
	Were they singing The Hills Are Alive with the sound of music?
	Is this a...
	Yes.
	Yes, it is kind of key.
	No, we'll retake from the beginning.
	I think we're retake.
	Sorry about this, ladies and gentlemen.
	Chat has clearly got my back.
	We're all behind you.
	I just never take my head out of Ted Cruz when we were younger.
	I debated against him in the World Debating Championships in Glasgow.
	Oh, you debated Ted Cruz, did you?
	Yeah, we beat him.
	My partner, him and his partner, he went on to become a major hedge fund guy and former, like, either basketball player or baseball.
	He was brilliant at literally everything, but not Ted.
	And Ted used to, like, just recite the Constitution.
	I mean, I think I may have mentioned that in another podcast.
	Yeah, he'd recite the Constitution as a chat-up line for girls.
	Does that work?
	I didn't seem to work for people I saw around, but you never know.
	I didn't identify as a girl then in those days.
	They were proper days when men were men and girls were girls.
	You just went for girls.
	The button people look worried, so I don't know what's happening there.
	I'm wondering if...
	I might be wrong.
	Yeah, I think I want sound, so if you need to restart something, restart something.
	Does that mean we're going to lose the audience?
	No, you can sit.
	Right, we'll sit and chat.
	Remember we've got live mics, so we can't do what we normally do when the mics go off and just say what we really think.
	I think the audience might really like that.
	Yeah, so we're in the British place.
	What's that sound out there?
	Yeah, we're a special branch turning up.
	He's like, oh, those are very Brexity comments you're making.
	Yeah, there's twice APAC have been interfering with our mics in technical difficulties.
	They're just not sure.
	What is that?
	It's Elgato.
	Is that some sort of technical thing at the back?
	Is that what we use?
	Spanish ice cream.
	Isn't El Gato the cat?
	You know, it's that cartoon character with the little cat that has the sword.
	El Gato!
	My daughter and I used to watch it.
	I've missed that.
	Anyway, you've missed it.
	You know how the kids were looking Elgato and he was like, Fighting everybody.
	like he was brilliant very mountain anyway we ought to What are they talking about?
	We ought to release this and just see if it does better than our normal stuff.
	We got it!
	We got it!
	Wow, we got sound!
	And we've hit my five-minute mark.
	I'm going to restart.
	Can I get some thumbs up from the...
	Okay, good.
	Not the whole thing.
	Don't do the introduction.
	I'll just, hang on, click on the notes, find my place.
	Here we go.
	Hello and welcome.
	We do apologise.
	Right.
	Oh, how did I start it again?
	Let's talk about the Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson debate.
	So what we've got to get to in the bottom of this one is which of them has the more authentic vision for America First and which of them won the debate.
	Now, there was...
	I want to focus on about two or three, given the time constraints.
	And there was this bit, which was about, you know, do you actually know anything about the country you want to invade?
	Which some people have dismissed as being a bit of a gotcha type question.
	But I actually do think that this is key.
	Can we watch this and then we talk about it?
	How many people living around, by the way?
	I don't know the population.
	At all?
	No, I don't know the population.
	You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?
	How many people living around?
	92 million.
	Okay.
	How could you not know that?
	I don't sit around memorizing population tables.
	The reason I think this is key is because Ted has laid out his position here.
	It's all about regime change.
	And that is clearly what is going on here.
	I mean, we'll talk about the nuke stuff in a minute, but it's clearly about regime change.
	It has been for 45 years.
	The mission has been regime change.
	Now, the reason this is important is, and I'm going to quote here from the U.S. Army Marine Corps' Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Section FM 324.
	which recommends No, that was a rubbish bit.
	What about the trines?
	But no, 324 says that...
	Now, let me give you some sort of historical examples.
	So, Germany.
	The US did quite well in there.
	Population 65 million.
	They deployed 1.6 million troops.
	That was a ratio of 25 troops per 1,000 population.
	Big success.
	Right, that worked.
	Japan, 72 million, they deployed 350,000 troops.
	That was a ratio of 5 to 1,000, which is low, but they did drop nukes.
	So you've got a swing factor in there as well.
	South Korea, a ratio of 10. South Korea, half a win, maybe?
	I mean, the country's still divided in half.
	Well, also, there was a...
	Yes, there was a bit of that.
	Vietnam, 13.4.
	So that was actually a fairly high ratio, but of course difficult terrain, a loss.
	Bosnia, 15. That one pretty much worked.
	It was stabilised.
	Iraq, even at the surge, the height of the surge was only 6.7.
	Right.
	Loss.
	And to give you an example of a total loss, Afghanistan, 3.1, the Taliban won the war.
	I mean, yes, the US did what the US is very good at doing, which is winning the initial stages, but they lost the war.
	Bombing everything, destroying it, making sure there's very few people left in the buildings, and then we rebuild because we're making the contracts out of it.
	Yeah, which are now worthless to them because they didn't win.
	Iraq will take away the gold and lots of people, as we know in the deep state, make shed loads of money out of it.
	Well, they do.
	Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?
	The forever war is about the ongoing process, not about actually winning.
	So if you want to take Iran, you're looking at 1.8 million soldiers to do it properly.
	The US can likely deploy, at peak, 500,000.
	Okay.
	Now that is taking into account the active military and calling up the reserves and calling up the National Guard.
	And this is after the uptake that we saw in military recruitment after Trump took office?
	Yes.
	Yes, there is that.
	So, I mean, they've actually got a decent number of troops.
	They've got 1.3 million active service personnel, but you need a ratio of about three to one deployed because you've got, for everyone actively out there, you need two in either training or rotation.
	You can't just keep them out there all the time.
	I think we'd seen that about the British Armed Forces recently where they talked about how we've got so little if we want to go to war because we need to have three.
	Yes, exactly right.
	Talking about Ukraine.
	Exactly right.
	Yeah, and that is ignoring the domestic needs.
	And as LA has demonstrated recently, you actually do need the National Guard at home doing the job there.
	It ignores other priorities because, you know, wasn't Russia supposed to be the biggest threat to the world?
	Likewise, isn't, And Taiwan is different in that the US actually has genuine core strategic and economic interests in Taiwan.
	So it would be a really big commitment.
	So you're looking at 500,000 troops.
	And that is pushing it.
	That gives you a ratio of 5.5, which is below the Iraq level and getting towards the Afghanistan level that was a plain loss.
	So actually no, the population of Iran Yeah.
	It was ridiculous seeing on Twitter loads of people mocking Tucker for this question, in the same way like he was asking, oh, what's a RAND's national dish?
	Like it was something really...
	Yeah, as if it's a RAND.
	As if it's a RAND.
	When actually, no, the size of the population you're planning to implement regime changeover...
	It is kind of key.
	The Sun Tzu quote is not, know nothing about your enemy.
	It's got an interesting element.
	I'm just thinking strategically, if you were China, and you'd taken these figures together and recognised what the Americans are putting in their own material there, that you need a certain number of people to take over Iran, in a way, you'd be kind of thinking, go for it.
	Go on, get into Iran.
	Get into Iran.
	And as you're bogged down, like, Taiwan, here we come.
	Exactly.
	Bosh, we're in.
	Now, Ted has obviously picked up on this and he's noticed this, so he has responded.
	I'm going to play a little bit of this.
	Not in favour of putting troops on the ground.
	Donald Trump's not in favour of putting troops on the ground.
	Neither are you.
	Absolutely.
	No, no, no.
	No troops on the ground.
	So what we're advocating for is simply this.
	If America gets involved, it would be to do exactly what you just said.
	It would be to do what Israel can't do to take out a nuclear program, which is a threat.
	Drop a couple of bombs.
	So the objective is we're going to do regime change.
	We're going to drop a couple of bombs.
	You can't just do this from the air.
	You can't just, you know, even if you take out enough of the leadership and all the rest of it, you can't just do it from the air.
	Because I think the mistake that Americans often make is because they are so wedded to their system, their democracy, they kind of assume that if you take out a bad regime, a democracy will just spring out of the sand.
	Well, that's what they thought in Afghanistan.
	And everywhere else.
	And to be fair, we told them they could do it.
	I mean, our security services, our intelligence services, people who later on became MPs for northern constituencies and now have podcasts with Alistair Campbell, told him that's what he could do.
	Yes, it's not going to work.
	Now, I have also heard this plan about we're going to install the Crown Prince.
	That is a weak plan, because remember, the last Shah of Iran, he lost despite actually having an army.
	Now you're going to send his son in without an army when the other side already does have an army.
	So obviously, this is not going to work unless you provide him with an army.
	Who's going to do that?
	Well, it's not going to be the Israelis, is it?
	So it is going to be the US again.
	So if you sort of regime change through bombs and destabilisation, you're not going to get an organic democracy.
	You're going to get a regime which is even more hardline than the one that is replaced because that is...
	The only organised faction in Iran is the Revolutionary Guard, and they're embedded throughout the system, I mean, up and down, so there's plenty of depth to that organisation.
	And we've literally just had the Syrian example of where we're going to do this, where we're going to destabilise the regime from a distance, and what happens?
	ISIS took over, and they immediately started killing Christians.
	Now there is a Christian population in Iran, it's small but And it's almost like the point of Western foreign policy is to get as many Christians killed as possible, because that's all we end up achieving every time we do an adventure in the Middle East.
	So yeah, I'm not fundamentally against regime change in Iran.
	What I'm fundamentally against is trying to do it with a shit plan.
	Because every time you try it with a shit plan, what you get is lots of spending.
	So I understand.
	Defence contractors like it.
	They love it.
	You get lots of debt.
	You get lots of dead young Americans, and in exchange, apart from the defence spending, You get nothing.
	You just get a more destabilised region.
	you don't get anything for it.
	And it kind of relates to my Well, yes, that as well.
	I mean, I didn't mention that because I suppose that's not necessarily...
	Yeah, I didn't necessarily mention that because, you know, I'm kind of making the argument from the case of American interest, but I mean, that is certainly true.
	Yeah, I'll talk about that briefly when we come.
	Yesterday, I did an open letter to America on the Daily Channel, which you should all go and watch.
	Well, I made the case of, look, America, if you really feel the itch to do a bit of regime change, because it's been a while since you've done one, and I know you like them.
	Get out of the system again.
	Do it to Britain.
	We already have nukes.
	We have the sand people.
	We have oil.
	We have communists.
	We've taken out American landmarks.
	We've burnt down the White House, the Capitol, the Library of Congress.
	We have everything that you're looking for if you want to do a regime change.
	I'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek there because the problem is who is the most organised in the UK?
	Who has the networks and the weapons?
	It's not, I'll give you a clue, the British right wing.
	Because if the British right wing ever tries to, even starts to organise, they immediately get arrested.
	So the only people in this country who have an organised network and weapons...
	It's the other side.
	And we know that's the case because during the Southport riots, we could see the police going up to them and saying, please leave your weapons in the mosque.
	So we know we know who that.
	It's not the majority.
	It's the most organised minority.
	We were organised and have weapons, so we know what that's going to be.
	So we know that America is really good at winning the opening stages of a war, but it's really bad at winning what comes after.
	And this is kind of because America are very bad imperial administrators.
	And it's because, I think, because they refuse to acknowledge that they are an empire, despite the fact that they obviously are an empire.
	So, yes, there is that.
	Then I wanted to talk about this exchange here.
	I'm asking about your allegation and the Prime Minister of Israel's allegation that Iran is trying to murder the president.
	Killing terrorists is a good thing.
	Killing people who are trying to murder Americans is a good thing.
	Because if you're America first, you want to protect Americans.
	So killing Osama bin Laden was a fantastic day for the world.
	But you don't really believe that they're trying to murder Trump.
	Yes, I do.
	Yes, I do.
	Then why aren't you calling for military action against Tehran right now?
	Because they're not very effective.
	In terms of hit men, their hit men are not very effective.
	So they're hitmen, but not the bad kind, the efficient kind.
	What are you saying?
	They're a weak country who is on its knees, and I think we need to...
	Why are they the biggest threat if they're a weak country that's on its knees?
	I'm trying to keep track.
	They're trying to develop...
	I know, you're right.
	That is a problem that I have.
	I'm sorry.
	I missed that.
	I didn't see that clip.
	So, I mean, first of all, I would say that, is it really the case the Iranians can't find a hitman who is better than Thomas Crooks?
	Yes.
	I mean, surely the Iranians have somebody who's better than Thomas Crookes.
	I mean, all you need to do is find a sloped roof because you know that Secret Service will avoid it like a plague because of health and safety reasons.
	And, you know, it's not that.
	But, you know, the claim is.
	Yes.
	You know, I'm kind of trying to see it from a logical, kind of philosophical, political viewpoint of being within there.
	Well, yeah, they've got...
	Well, you tried to assassinate a Cuban president, you know, 300-odd times, and, you know, you weren't pretty good at that.
	So we're worried about a country that is on its knees, it's weak, hasn't got the capability.
	But, by the way, it might make a nuclear bomb, despite what people say.
	So we need to go in.
	weak and ineffectual and also a massive risk.
	And also really crap at producing anyone good at assassinating any individual.
	We don't need to do anything about them at all other than maybe my mates in the background are saying our share price is falling in the economic arguments.
	There's a bit more assets out there.
	We've got some good people that we might be able to put in in charge who can sell us a few contracts a lot better than Zelensky could.
	And that being controversial.
	It makes no sense to me, other than the one thing that I am, obviously, and most people of our concern, is we just don't want them capable of being able to wipe Israel off the ground.
	And I don't want that.
	I just don't want to see it happen.
	But is this the right way of doing so?
	And I've got some other views, but I don't know.
	Yeah, like I said, I'm not fundamentally against Razinja.
	I'm just against doing it incredibly badly and assuming that you can just bomb them out and then they'll be replaced by something better.
	They will be replaced by something worse.
	And we know this because that always, always happens.
	Every time.
	So, yeah, I thought I'd play that bit because it's odd that they are simultaneously weak and pathetic and you don't need to worry about them, but at the same time...
	significant threat.
	Turning to your point about the nuclear bomb, the problem is we've been hearing this for a long You've found 96. I looked at 27, yeah.
	Let's just listen to a bit of this.
	The deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.
	And Iran, by the way, is also outpacing Iraq in the development of ballistic missile systems that they hope will reach the eastern seaboard of the United States within 15 years.
	She's not beyond that.
	God, 13 years is quite a few months.
	It's uranium for the first bomb.
	The foremost sponsor of global terrorism.
	So I won't play all this, but you get the idea.
	They are two weeks away for the last 30 years.
	Maybe time works differently in the Middle East.
	I think it probably does.
	Probably does.
	I mean, I've also got a table of these claims, if you want to go back and look at them.
	I mean, this is not the exhaustive list.
	These are just the ones made in English to American audiences.
	And we heard this claim with Iraq.
	Yeah, yeah, we did.
	And then afterwards it was like, oh, whoops, yeah, maybe not.
	But, you know, whatever.
	Hey, don't worry.
	1.5 million people.
	Well, domestic issues got worse and there are genuine domestic issues to be focusing on.
	There is a very, very strong argument that a lot of the issues that we've got in Europe, in America, in Britain in particular, are a direct responsibility of Blair and Bush and their cabal deciding to go in and bomb the hell out of Iraq because we've got the mass immigration that has come from that.
	It's led to the ideology within...
	And the consequences are that we've got girls being raped in England.
	We've got housing costs.
	And this is what I have a massive problem with these people in power.
	I understand the argument that we've got to defend Israel, and I do the same, and we've got to defend our rights from people who are loonies having nuclear bombs.
	I agree with that.
	But every time you've gone down this line, you've messed it up.
	Yeah.
	So if this is what you genuinely believe, you need a much better plan.
	And a better calibre of imperialists and tech crews.
	Yes, exactly.
	I'm just going to flag this up.
	I don't really have time to get into this, but this popped up on my Twitter feed just before we came on air, so I wanted to highlight it.
	And it is a thread from Semiagog, who I've had on Brokonomics.
	And he's basically making the...
	He's providing the explanation as to why Iran is pursuing...
	Okay.
	Because, I mean, this was something that confused me and myself, because they're very low energy costs, so why do they need nuclear power?
	And he's got a thread here and explains it.
	The very short version is the bit with the oil is the vulnerable bit.
	Down at the bottom there.
	Oh.
	That's pretty much it.
	So, you know, Saddam Hussein attacked that bit immediately, and they kind of know that that's their vulnerability and their population and their capital is in the north.
	But read the thread, but it explains it all.
	But yeah, this is the sort of boomer bait that is being pushed out and being lapped up.
	You know, like this Todd Starnes, he's a news anchor of some sort.
	There are some in MAGA world who believe the mole high ground is radioactive mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, New York and Los Angeles.
	I'd like to say what a prick, but to be honest, he is honestly.
	If that's what we generally think, Yeah.
	Hysteria.
	Yeah.
	And having said that, if you're really trying to scare me off this idea, why did you pick New York and Los Angeles?
	I won't say more.
	That will get the police around in any second now.
	Yes, especially not those other names.
	I really can't say too much on this one.
	But no, let's focus back on what I think is perhaps even more of a core issue of this, the bit that's going to stick around afterwards, which is, I mean, Ted Cruz has been defending his record on this podcast.
	He's been a bit frantic on this.
	And I won't play this clip.
	I'm just going to read out the bit above.
	Oh, no, hang on.
	Maybe that one.
	Oh, yeah, that one.
	Okay, so I am going to play a little bit of this one.
	I don't know anything about the country.
	You're the one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump.
	No, I'm not saying that.
	You're the one who can't figure out if it was a good idea to kill General Soleimani and you said it was bad.
	You don't believe they're trying to murder Trump.
	Yes, I do.
	Because you're not calling for military strikes against them in retaliation.
	We're carrying out military strikes today.
	You said Israel was.
	Right.
	With our help.
	I said we.
	Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.
	Well, you're breaking news here because the U.S. government last night denied, the National Security Council spokesman Alex Pfeiffer denied on behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity at all.
	We're not bombing them.
	Israel's bombing them.
	You just said we were.
	We are supporting Israel.
	You're a senator.
	If you're saying the United States government is at war with Iran right now, people are listening.
	We are not bombing them.
	Israel is bombing them.
	Why do you do the snide OOK?
	Why do you do the snide LOK?
	I mean, that is kind of cutting to the heart of it.
	He's using Israel and we.
	Interchangeably.
	They're indivisible.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And he's a US Senator.
	The left and right halves of the brain, one cannot function without the other.
	Yes.
	I think he's caught within a trap, isn't he?
	Because the trap is that we are supporting them.
	But the question is, how do you support them?
	Because we're using our satellites above them, we're actually enabling with our satellites to be able to direct them to where they're going to be bombed, which actually got our individuals sitting alongside them.
	You know, that's the we.
	And there's a certain level of where you help where you actually are doing it.
	Well, yes.
	Yes.
	There's a certain point where you kind of fused, to be honest.
	Yes, you are.
	This is why I wanted to bring this up.
	This is Ted Cruz defending his sort of point on this.
	And I'll just read this bit out, this one.
	I came to the Senate committed to being the leading defender of Israel.
	Okay.
	You see, the thing that I find most peculiar about that is that he thinks that that looks good.
	Yes.
	To a certain part of the base that does play well, but this is where the fracture is coming in.
	It's like some people are like, well hang on, why not the leading defender of the US?
	Or Texas?
	And he's also missing out a very important point because we have people here who are MPs that went over to Pakistan and demanded that we have an airport that looked after.
	And we criticise them for being the leading defenders of Pakistan or the leading defenders of another country or the leading defenders of being another religion rather than being the defender of Britain.
	the defender of our nation, culture and history.
	And you can't then...
	Quite.
	And we criticise those people.
	Absolutely, quite right.
	Omar, who said, what is it, that she's there for the Somali?
	Exactly.
	That's right.
	He's like, well, you shouldn't be.
	I can't.
	And likewise, you should not be...
	You can be a defender of Israel if you want, but that shouldn't be your primary goal.
	No, and if Omar now comes out into the Congress and says, I made it my primary goal to come into Congress to be a leading defender of Somalia, there's no one in the Republican movement now can criticise her.
	And, you know, if I was her advisor, I'd be saying, get that out now, because it's a challenge.
	It's a challenge.
	Yeah.
	And she will show them.
	And it's a very, I think it's a very silly thing for him to have said, to open up kind of criticism for what is a good cause.
	Well, this is my point.
	How can it be America first?
	I mean, it's not, okay, I'm America first, plus also this other thing.
	Yeah.
	It doesn't work like that.
	And this is kind of where I want to kind of finish this segment, is that what's going to be the takeaway from this?
	I mean, Ted Cruz took 1.9 million from AIPAC.
	And I don't think it's unreasonable to ask if it's American interests that are driving American foreign policy.
	And for my money, Tucker won this debate hands down.
	And the reason is because, you know, what are we all going to remember from this exchange two weeks, two months, two years from now?
	I think it's going to be the extent of AIPAC money.
	An influence, of Israeli influence over the US.
	And I think that's a bit of a loss, a tactical loss for Israel, because what they had done is they built up this huge bulk of goodwill and support.
	And you kind of want to have that for when you need it.
	You don't want to take that and spend it on a regime change that will fail.
	But I think all we're going to get out of this, as we remember it later on, is Israeli influence on American foreign policy.
	And it gives...
	And I think that's going to be a really difficult element for us because every country should have its own independent foreign policy.
	It understands allies and the need to defend allies.
	but ultimately even we can disagree with allies about strategy or outcomes and it must be in the interest of the United States to be able to challenge Israel if they think So there's all sorts of elements about it.
	I can like people in countries in Europe, but it doesn't mean I want to be a member of the European Union.
	Of course.
	And I will defend them if they get attacked.
	If China decided to want to bomb Germany for whatever particular reason, then there's a reason for us to be at cause caution.
	But that is not my primary role of being an MEP or an MP as it was then and not now.
	It's because I want to come out and it's going to create problems.
	I'll read some comments.
	Oh, can I just say one more?
	Oh yes, go on then.
	Which was just another thing to consider as well, is that the American levels of sentiment and goodwill towards Israel are probably...
	And it does seem to be something that the young people in particular, they don't have the same level of loyalty.
	No, they don't.
	The boomers or Gen X have had.
	They don't.
	Historically, people of Ted Cruz's age.
	Yeah.
	And so going forward...
	Matt Hammond says, Dan's open letter to America was great.
	What he failed to consider was we'd install a print and we'd monetise it on Amazon with Jeremy Clarkson.
	Clarkson's kingdom.
	Yes, I'm all in favour of that.
	Little known fact, Ted Cruz is Spanish for I'm an idiot and I publicly co-concede of it.
	I don't think he is.
	I think he's quite smart.
	And if there was a better argument that he could make, he would have made it by now.
	That's a random name.
	He says, Iran being two weeks from having nukes for the last 30 years.
	Yes, excellent.
	And Stiglson says, it's 60 million years in the future.
	The sun is expanding to Red Dwarf.
	The Earth is mere days away from being consumed.
	Our Rahn is only two weeks away from building a nuke.
	Yes.
	Well, I'm going to go on to something.
	That's just as equally ridiculous as some of those statements, but actually, unfortunately, is a very poor and negative fact.
	Look, immigration is always in the front and foremost minds of many, many people.
	And it's kind of come back to us not only in this discussion here, as I'll come back later towards the end of this, about what would be an impact of regime change in Iran.
	But also we've seen the Casey report, the grooming gangs, we've seen 25%.
	And we're seeing the impacts on housing and schools across the country.
	And so the idea that immigration isn't going to go away is a big issue, legal and illegal.
	So I'm going to just do a quick summary on something.
	Some of it, I hope, can be a little bit light-hearted because I'm going to end up with something.
	Something that I think is quite worrying towards the end of it.
	So the first of these is, this is where we are.
	No, I thought the first one should be where we are on this year.
	Oh no, I've uploaded the wrong ones then, by the looks of it.
	I've uploaded it twice.
	So, okay.
	Alright.
	That's a bit of a shame.
	Right, so I'm going to talk about this year.
	We have kind of uploaded 16,800 people.
	Or Royal Navy completely unable to stop them.
	Unable to stop them.
	Oral and I just looking at them and welking them in.
	Maybe they've got a beer and a glass of wine or a dandelion.
	Well, I think the Lifeboat Service is helping them, actually.
	But the consequence of that, 16,800, we're 40% up from last year.
	We've probably made around 85 million for the people smugglers.
	kind of cost us I think on the figures that I've put on C-MEP this morning roughly up to around a billion already this year we'll first down.
	This year, yeah.
	This year, just to learn.
	It's a good business.
	If they were floating on the stock market, a lot of people would be buying into them.
	It's a good revenue.
	And if you look here, this is since 2018, just on the boats.
	$167,704 as of last night.
	You can see the annual cost, and when I do that, is $8 billion, just related to them.
	Four and a half.
	Just the boat people.
	Just the boat people.
	And then on the right, you see how much the people smugglers have made since 2018.
	And that's a rough estimate between £12,000 and £15,000.
	Pounds over a billion since 2018.
	That's what I say.
	Good model.
	Nice little business to be in on there.
	And I think it's down, isn't it, for the next one?
	Or is it next?
	No, it is.
	Yeah, I'll do my link, to be honest, up here.
	Okay.
	Much easier.
	And just as a summary, the boats aren't the only thing.
	Everyone seems to think, you know, okay, it's just a few little guys, and obviously if you're a member of the Labour Party, I think you just turned around and said it's basically all women that are coming across on the boat.
	Even though you never see one.
	Yeah, even though you very rarely see them.
	And those figures I'm just building towards the end of this.
	Kind of my latest run on colours and branding to try and pull together a massive number of everything that's occurred.
	That number of 226,682 are people who've come in on planes, boats, backs of lorries, and other ways of getting into the country.
	There clearly are those that we miss, but these all come from ONS figures alone.
	So there are four routes, again since 2018.
	And that £226,000 is only until March 2025.
	So you could probably add on another £10,000 on that because that's what's coming in April, May and June.
	So hang on there.
	This is a quarter, is it?
	No, this is since 2018.
	This is just illegal migrants, is that number?
	Yeah, just the illegal migrants that have come in on the boats, planes and trains.
	And I can see that you've got there how they're coming in on their arrivals.
	I see the numbers.
	Actually, that's my mistake.
	I can see that they should all have an extra digit on there.
	So I'm going to have to redo that.
	But the big number to look at there is 226,682, plus about another 10,000 since March 2025, who've come into the country.
	So 167,000 have come over on boats.
	You've got to then another 50,000 since 2018 come on the backs of planes and lorries and other routes as well into the UK.
	And that creates a huge sum of money to us, as I pointed out, 8 billion, but a huge sum of money to people smugglers too.
	And that ignores a separate number.
	Of how many people who are here claiming visas and then later on try and change it and say I want to stay here.
	That's a different set of figures.
	So 226,000 are legal since 2018.
	One of the bits of research I'm doing is going all the way back to 2000 just on asylum seekers.
	It's really, really difficult because the government doesn't produce the numbers of how many are illegals.
	But I've got around 1.2 million asylum seekers since 2000.
	So that'll be out there.
	Now, I'm going to say, okay, people might think that's pretty okay numbers.
	226,000, what's that?
	The size of Southampton, Winchester, Eastleigh, and pretty much some of it, and Portsmouth.
	Just a city?
	Just a couple of cities, you know.
	Maybe the whole of Greater Manchester.
	Not Greater Manchester, sorry, Manchester Central, not Greater Manchester.
	But it's a big number.
	Maybe some of our erstwhile fans who are watching this can come out and find what cities have got 226,000, but that's what's arrived.
	So imagine building that.
	Hospitals, schools, infrastructure, water, electricity, gas, then pay benefits to people, provide jobs, all for that number of people since 2018.
	Hospitals, GPs, the lot.
	A whole lot.
	So that's what's arrived, and then they're still coming.
	But I had to love this one, this story.
	Okay, they're still coming.
	This picture, someone had a video.
	I couldn't find the video.
	I saw it this morning.
	Someone did actually have a video of this man swimming and he had a crutch.
	I mean, what did he do?
	Jog past the French police who were apparently on the beaches.
	He quickly rushed around.
	He'd then get into the water and identify.
	He was planning to swim.
	Swim it the whole way?
	Well, no, no, no.
	He's got into that boat, and he's got a crutch.
	He's got a crutch.
	So he was on the beach with his crutch, and he got past the French police on a crutch, then got into the water.
	I mean, that's silly.
	The NHS will provide him one the moment he turns up.
	But I thought, did he identify as a submarine and use the crutch as a kind of water just to get to the boat to evade the police?
	I've seen the catching.
	But this is a kind of level of joke.
	French police are out there.
	They say that they're doing a job.
	They've got 800 million, I think, is so far that we've given them in the last 10, 15 years.
	Well, then why would they stop it?
	Yeah, that's right.
	We're paying their police from ours as well.
	So I just thought to myself, you know, that's a bit of comedy stuff, but it's not really funny.
	But apparently, Keir Starmer said he'd stop the gangs because he's now really worried about it.
	And allegedly, Keir is really worried about it.
	I was out on Tuesday night in London having conversations with some former Labour spads.
	I love the fact they're former Labour spads already.
	They came in, they talked about the ECHO, how they want to change it, and that Keir is really concerned about it.
	And I asked them, why is Keir Starmer really concerned about it when he's never really been in there in the past?
	And it's because of that, obviously.
	small boats.
	They fear it for votes and loss of their own power, just as the Tories did.
	Never out of the genuine injustice or principle of the thing.
	And that's crucial.
	It's not about the fact.
	I'm not finding that particular funny.
	I'm just looking in that boat, and again, I want to get, was it Darren Jones who was on Question Time?
	Oh, the Question Time.
	I wanted to have a look at that picture.
	Was he the one who said they were overwhelmingly women and children?
	Yeah, I just want to look in that picture and see.
	There's a lot of children in there.
	Huge number of children in there.
	All those at the back are going to claim that they're under the age of 18. And I've got some really fun statistics on that that I'm bringing.
	I might show you guys just as a sample to see whether you like the model that I'm using in the imagery at the back end of it.
	But, you know, again, they're not really doing it out of the care, the fact that they're concerned about us or the country.
	They're concerned about losing their seats now.
	And then I just found this one.
	I can't, I just...
	Right.
	Anyone who sees Mike Tap, he hates reform, the Conservative Party.
	And then he's produced this.
	We're facing a national security crisis.
	The Tory open borders mean the smuggling gangs are mocking us.
	We would not accept thousands barging through the barriers at Heathrow and we will not accept illegal entries by sea.
	The public are sick of it.
	We are sick of it.
	And you're quite rightly asking, what have we done and what more can we do?
	Right, so I'm going to stop there.
	This is a Labour MP for Dover.
	This is an interesting...
	Yes.
	Very interesting.
	Everything that I have said, I've done videos like that, of which I've been far right and extremist.
	And I'm just wondering whether Hope Not Hate are actually going to now put...
	Yeah, or whether Prevent UK, because only recently they've said that anyone who's concerned about mass immigration are now terrorists, or whether they're going to say Mike is a terrorist.
	I mean, if they're just saying the things that we were saying five years ago, why don't they just listen to us now and get a jump?
	On the next five years.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	I'm fascinated.
	And what we're saying is deportation.
	To the despicable criminals organising these crossings, your time is up.
	Amanj Hassan Zader knows it.
	the Iranian national living in Preston.
	He's now inside for 17 years.
	Ahmed Ebed knows it.
	25 years for smuggling thousands from North Africa into Europe.
	Paul Giglia knows it.
	Dilshad Shammo.
	All of these, by the way, all arrested and looked at under the Conservatives.
	Nothing to do with Labour.
	I bet they're all Labour voters, though.
	Smashing criminal supply chains.
	Anyway, so what he goes on to do there, and people, you can have a look at that.
	He talks about how Labour's doing exactly that.
	Smashing criminal supply chains with our friends in Europe.
	We're smashing the gangs.
	But the end of it is interesting.
	He then says we need to look at the ECHO.
	I don't want to drag it through because it goes on for three and a half minutes.
	Okay, what does he say about that?
	He then says we need to reform the ECHO.
	You can't do it, you just have to leave.
	Yes.
	Well, that is the point.
	I've been pointing this out for a long time.
	The first is the legal basis.
	Of which enables people to be able to claim appeals for asylums.
	And the first prior to that is whether they can actually pass in the first place.
	And when you make a claim for indefinite leave to remain, there are three categories.
	One is an asylum seeker, as we know it, under the UN Convention on Refugees.
	And that's minuscule.
	It's about 20%, 25%, if that, of all the people who are granted indefinite leave to remain fall under that category.
	A lot of those who are Ukrainian.
	Only about 5% fall under a direct category linking itself to the ECHO.
	The remaining 70%, 60-70%, depending on the year, is discretionary.
	It's all the rules created by the Home Office to allow people to come in.
	This individual has a mental health issue that can't be treated in Somalia.
	We've got the NHS, we can look after him, therefore he stays.
	That couple there will be abused in Iran for being gay, despite the fact that they've got one of the largest transgender kind of hospitals, haven't they, I understand, in the world.
	But hey, we'll still let them in, under our rules.
	I mean, I even heard a case, and I had to check it because I thought, no, that can't be true, but it was, that some guy avoided deportations because his son prefers the chicken nuggets here.
	Oh yeah, that's on the second stage.
	So then it comes to the ECHO creating legislation.
	Which is then interpreted by the lawyers to keep them in.
	You can get it.
	I'm the lawyer.
	You're the client.
	He says, my son, he doesn't like chicken mechanics in Albania.
	So I will put that forward as one of my arguments to the judge.
	And the immigration judge will go, do you know what?
	That actually falls right within the ECHL's principles and right to life and human.
	I got it.
	I don't like chicken McNuggets in Albania either.
	So they've then extended it.
	So anyone like themselves who's saying that we can just amend the ECHR to remove those elements are naive because what's happened now has become part of our common law.
	And it's not like we didn't watch David Cameron and the Tories spend 14 years running this exact line.
	We're just going to reform.
	And that's what I was coming to.
	You've picked it up.
	They're running the exact lines.
	I could be watching a video for Priti Patel or cleverly doing this.
	I'm not sure we'd have it in generic in the same way now.
	I think he'd go a lot further.
	So what I'm seeing in Labour is they're deeply concerned.
	Starmer's saying is that these people that I was talking to on Tuesday night, a very interesting group of people.
	There was myself, a presenter for GB News.
	I won't give you names of which one.
	Some Labour people, some others who are supporter Labour, all coming around saying they're all recognising this is the massive issue for Labour now.
	and that they're going to try and deal with it.
	And then we have...
	So if it weren't a threat to their power...
	Not out of will.
	No, I fundamentally believe that.
	I fundamentally believe that.
	And now we're hearing things like this over the last year.
	I was looking up but I wanted to get into the European issues and I decided I'm going to next week do a full part on what we're going to do in Europe, what Europe's doing on this and the big numbers that they've got and issues on that.
	But France is saying it wants to try and stop more UK migrants at sea.
	There is some real genuinely statistics coming out from the French trying to Why is it in the French's interest to do that, though?
	It's all to do with the EU deal that we've just...
	We have just succumbed on so many areas, like...
	I get there why they'd sign the deal.
	I just don't know why they would then bother to follow through, because it's not like we'd hold them up.
	No, no, we wouldn't.
	But I think there's some pressure on the French from within the Commission to say, oh, come on, you've got to hold up your end for a while.
	You've got to look like you're doing it.
	You've got to look like you're doing it, and that's what I think.
	And also, it may well be that they're actually are beginning to get a little bit worried about this.
	So the Interior Ministry here in this case, say the boats were up 42% compared to 2020.
	But what that means at the end of this year is we're looking around 54,000, 55,000 going to arrive this year.
	It will be the biggest number ever this year if it can.
	Because of the big months, end of July, August and September, where we've seen huge numbers.
	2023, I think we had 1,032 in one day.
	Sorry, 1,332 in one day.
	So we've got that.
	But Telegraph, Labour's migration promises have failed to materialise.
	We've not seen anything so far.
	Who thought they would?
	I know.
	And I can understand why this guy that I was talking to on Tuesday decided he wanted to get out of trying to work on this and go into, as they do, PR and lobbying themselves.
	But they recognise it isn't going to work.
	And then even the FT, which has been a big, big supporter of Starmer, is saying Labour's small post-policy risks foundering.
	Its previous success in stopping lorries makes reducing illicit migration harder for the government.
	But they're not stopping the lorries.
	They're coming back.
	My research is starting to say that they're recognising that we've become weak on lorries.
	So I haven't understood why.
	I've not got any of the people who talk to me from a border force or border agencies trying to indicate why are we checking less?
	Is it because we've opened our borders a lot more easily after this deal with the EU that more lorries are now getting through without being checked and stopped?
	There's no other hold-ups.
	So now the people smugglers are saying that the lowest end, I may just say, out of the way that the profit margins work and the way that you can get over, the lowest cost is on the back of a lorry.
	Right.
	You're just shoved there because it's the highest risk.
	The highest cost to you is when you're in the back of a car or the back of a caravan.
	Right.
	Because these people have been sold and you're getting into that back of the caravan with your family and you'll be hidden and you've got a lot of chance of getting through.
	And the person driving it gets a lot of money out of it as well.
	The middle ranking is on the boats.
	So they're shoving you back on the lorries because it's a risk for you.
	You can die because you...
	So people who either can't afford the last element of their debt to the people smugglers will get you to the lorries.
	And of course, once more, with certain lorry companies and people are bought off.
	Lorry drivers are bought off.
	So that does happen.
	And then we've got this, though.
	This is what I find very, very interesting.
	The Americans have got involved.
	So I asked Samsung to put this up for people This is interesting here.
	It's an organization in the United States.
	Very, very, very.
	Pro-mass migration.
	Very opposed to Trump.
	Very opposed to controlling immigration.
	And it has actually written and provided this research for a UK-EU deal on migration and asylum.
	Look at the date.
	June 25. It's all being linked in to the plans that are being discussed in the European Union at the moment.
	And I'll just run through there.
	They talk about who crosses the channel and why.
	Well, we pretty much know that they're crossing why.
	It's a lovely life in here compared to where they go.
	And they're looking at this, designing a readmissions deal and showing solidarity in return for readmissions.
	And this is what I'm hearing on the grapevine from Europe, is that a deal that's being looked at in seriousness, and I think it's quite a good model from this when I've opened it up, we lack the time to be able to analyse some of the big numbers in it, is that the readmission deal that they're considering is having ports.
	I don't mean it in ports as in boats, ports, stops, so that illegal migrants from Europe can come into France, and possibly even Germany and other countries, if it works this way, and go, hi, I want to go to Britain.
	And I want to go to Britain because I've got family there, or I've got links there, and I'm really fleeing the terror that's coming out of Iran.
	Sorry, Iraq.
	Any one of them.
	Obviously Iran's next.
	And then they're going to turn around and say, I want to go over to Britain and the French and the Germans will assess them using our rules, allegedly.
	Connected to some European Union framework of assessing whether someone is a genuine asylum seeker.
	And it will be done in their country.
	And once the French or the Germans or the Italians agree that person is...
	I don't love this idea.
	No.
	Directly.
	Terrible.
	And in return, allegedly, we will be able to return to France those who've come over on the boats.
	I mean, maybe if it's a ratio of 100 to 1 or something.
	Yes, so if there's a hundred, we leave, and then we get one back, that would work.
	But it doesn't work.
	Under the Dublin Convention, when we were in the European Union, it was three times as many came over to the war that we returned.
	So this is a little scheme.
	For the government to say we've got a proper policy in place.
	It gives them just enough to say they're doing something.
	We're doing something, we're stopping the boats and effectively works in the hands of those who say you've got a nice clean route to come in, the safe route.
	We've saved it and we're going to stop the people smugglers from doing it.
	Poppycock.
	Because at the end of the day there will be someone who says I want to get over there and might be kicked out.
	What do you think is going to happen?
	The people smugglers are going to go, hey, my man, let's come in.
	Unfortunately, it's a little bit more.
	Now, I don't know why I'm doing a French accent.
	Maybe it was macaroni.
	It was very good.
	Yeah, but there we go.
	And now you're going to do exactly that.
	And notice in the time I'm going to finish on this.
	And why I'm finishing on this is because I don't want to be the bearer of huge, horrid news.
	We're looking at 55,000 coming in this year across the Channel.
	We don't get as many as France, I admit.
	We don't get as many as Germany, and we certainly don't get as many as Italy.
	We're one of the top five countries that get this.
	But we're getting 55,000 because a year or so ago, the Europol and the Europeans warned that we had about 225,000 come across the Western routes, the Mediterranean routes, etc.
	This is their latest.
	Surging irregular immigration puts pressure on EU borders.
	You sort of term irregular, meaning illegal.
	Illegal.
	Look at the number.
	380,000 irregulars were cross-detected in 2023.
	That's now a jump of what they said was 230 in that year.
	So there was 150,000 more came in in 2023.
	And what happens is when they arrive across those Mediterranean routes and the West African routes, those right means that they head towards us.
	And they're warning us again that they've got similar numbers for this year.
	They're seeing huge numbers coming across the Western migration routes into the Mediterranean region, the West Africans in particular, and you can see Guineans, Afghans following Syrians.
	We've got a lot of Indians coming down now, flying into countries that then can get them in on these routes into Europe.
	Huge influx of Indians, as we've seen in the American borders, when they were crossing the borders.
	In Mexico, there were large numbers.
	So if we're going to see 380,000 again, I can estimate that we will get 55,000, 60,000 again next year.
	And this concerns me about why we get into a war with Iran.
	90 million there.
	We've just seen what's happening in Syria.
	We're seeing brutalisation and murder, even though we're going to roll out the carpet for the Syrian president.
	And they're going to do this.
	If their policy works, we won't see them coming across necessarily on the boats in huge numbers.
	I still think we will.
	But this time we'll see them just coming straight in from ports or safe ports or safe places in Europe.
	So I want to just let people see the numbers that are coming in, the threats to us in the future, and the challenges that we will have.
	But how the politicians in Europe are going to try and pull the wool over our eyes once more when nothing changes except more coming in.
	This is a real issue, isn't it, when Brexit happens?
	You think, okay, well, we've left the European Union, but none of that matters if the British elites and the EU elites are in total moral alignment with one another over what is correct.
	And what should be done.
	And they all agree that we should be taking these people.
	Yeah, they do.
	Even though we don't want them.
	They do.
	And even though that is dwarfed by the legal issue.
	And of course we've got American organizations drafting up the same ideology and policies for us to kind of incorporate.
	You know, I wonder where that money comes from.
	Is it USAID?
	Is it the State Department?
	Is it just these very large organizations that fund huge money?
	I mean, I did some brief research on some of the big NGOs and also the think tanks that support all of this.
	And they were looking like getting 10, 20 million pounds a year.
	And of course, IOM, the migration part of the UN, gets a budget of 3.8 billion.
	Give me $3.8 billion.
	We'd have the whole agenda chose overnight.
	Do you want to pick any of the comments?
	Yeah, I'll just go through comments.
	Habsification says, this will cause deep resentment from Britain to Europe.
	Well, I mean, the resentment was already there.
	The resentment was already there.
	It says Iran has the largest transgender hospital because they force all gays to undergo sex reassignment.
	The logic is Allah is fallible and these people are gay because they're in the wrong body.
	Interesting.
	I heard something about it.
	I didn't know it was true.
	And funny how that MP in the video points out the Iranian.
	Interesting.
	Yes.
	Alright then, ladies and gentlemen.
	So, on to something cultural and interesting and historical, which is yesterday, on the 18th of June, it was the 210th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.
	Because, you might not believe this, but one time a day, we were great and powerful and stood up for ourselves.
	And we commanded respect all around the world.
	And of course, beyond the actual battle itself, which is significant as a battle, of course, really the Battle of Waterloo is significant in terms of breaking the power of France and heralding the beginning of what will become known, of course, as the Pax Britannica, that century of British supremacy.
	Around the world from after the end of the Napoleonic War all the way until basically World War I. I mean, you can argue about the minute details of that, but that's the general essence of it.
	And so after throwing seven whole coalitions at Napoleon, we finally beat him.
	And then also, so one thing as well that I just wanted to talk about is that,
	And so, of course, in our case, it is only natural, despite all the things that we talk about, that we live still in the shadow of World War II, we still live in the shadow of World War I, which was, in many ways, just as important as World War II in terms of the psychological effect that it had on Europe and how it scarred a whole generation of Europeans.
	And, of course, so from there, of course, we naturally...
	You might think, oh, I had a grandfather who fought in World War II.
	I had a great-grandfather who fought in World War I, as I did, and I know stories about them.
	And having that connection, you know, to your family makes the history a little bit more real.
	Yes, but this was against the French.
	Oh, yes.
	Yes, the last war against France.
	The last good war.
	The last one.
	Yes.
	The last one truly moral.
	Yes.
	Now, obviously, I could be glib, and I could say, isn't it about time we had another?
	And after your segment, quite frankly...
	And despite everything I said in my Iran segment, I'm all in favour of destabilising France.
	Well, the helpful thing about France as well is that they often just do it to themselves.
	They are experts at destabilising themselves.
	They're doing a very good job at the moment in Paris.
	Three revolutions, two empires, five republics.
	Yeah, very volatile people.
	They take 53% of their own GDP in tax, which is insane, like the world top.
	Insane people.
	So, but ultimately, I do want to draw the point that even though it is true...
	It doesn't mean that the actual life laid down in service to Britain in 1945 or 1815 had any more or less worth.
	That person still picked up that rifle.
	They still fought bravely.
	They still experienced what that must have felt like to be a soldier fighting for Britain.
	Going back to Agincourt, the only thing that differentiates these men, really, is time.
	But they're still part of the same continuum.
	They're still part of the grand narrative of England, of Britain.
	And so that's one of the most important reasons why we should constantly commemorate battles.
	And we should commemorate what our men bled for.
	And so I wanted to start, really, by addressing this.
	So there was a policy exchange review, and it did a survey around 249 secondary schools in the country, going up to Key Stage 3. And for American audiences, or those who might not use those terms for the curriculum,
	that's all children basically between the ages of 11 to 14. And so by the time that a British schoolchild gets to the age of 14, that's the last time that you're ever taught British history compulsorily, right?
	From there, you get to take history as an option for a GCSE, as I did, right?
	I took history as an option.
	And then if you want, yes, you can go onto A-level and you can go Okay, but even back in my day, by the time you got onto GCSEs, it was all Russian Revolution and the War.
	And then it was just the war.
	Right.
	World War II.
	British history was long gone.
	Yes.
	But it wasn't always like this.
	No.
	It wasn't always like this.
	And we can see here from these details, 99% of surveyed schools teach the slave trade, and 89% teach the British Empire.
	That's good.
	But less than one in five schools teach about the battles of Agincourt, Waterloo, or Trafalgar.
	So less than a fifth of our schoolchildren are growing up to learn about Waterloo.
	That's true.
	I consider very discouraging.
	Now, obviously, I understand that there is a finite window of time in the school year, and that you can only learn so much.
	Yeah, but you want to cover the greatest hits.
	You want to cover the greatest hits.
	You want to cover the moments of glory.
	But I say glory, and I don't mean that glibly, because, of course, war is horrible.
	But there is still virtue in war.
	There is virtue in the bravery.
	There is virtue in...
	And we were good at it.
	And not being bullied as a nation, right?
	Yes, we were very good at it.
	But I suppose if you want a meek, servile population...
	Then the slave trade is much more useful.
	Because it reminds you to actually stay in your lane, be good, listen to the minorities, and don't have any ideas of your own.
	So you have here this article which...
	Why don't we recognise it?
	Probably because of places like LBC, to be honest with you.
	But nonetheless, so they did an interview with a 99-year-old gentleman called Phil Robinson, right?
	And Phil said that, yes, that's right, the Battle on Trafalgar and Waterloo were key dates in the curriculum when he was growing up at school.
	Yeah.
	Probably in the 30s, 40s, whatever it would have been.
	And one of the other things that I just wanted to pay attention to was not just what was taught at schools, but what used to happen out on the streets of Britain.
	So this here is an image that I pulled up of the celebrations for Trafalgar Day.
	Back in 1900.
	Wow.
	Around Nelson's Column.
	And you can see...
	It's stunning, right?
	So that's 95 years after the Battle of Trafalgar, and yet it was still able to draw out of living memory, but it was still able to draw crowds like that, that level of patriotism, that level of remembrance for these causes.
	I would have loved to have seen London back in those days.
	Yeah, me too.
	Me too.
	But that's sort of the point I also want to draw attention to in this segment.
	There is, you know, if the feeling is there, there is no reason we cannot...
	But we should be aiming for that.
	We should be aiming for that.
	That's what we should be aspiring to.
	And if school isn't going to teach it, then it falls onto...
	It falls onto us to do it, right?
	I was having a conversation with someone in the family the other week, and she just turned 16. And she said, oh, I'll never do history again.
	Well, what do you mean?
	I finished doing history at the age of 18, but I never stopped doing history.
	No, my daughter's still into it.
	I do it every day.
	I mean, literally reading something new about it.
	Even though you look at, like when you talk about British history and English history, there are a limited number of original documents.
	But you still get picked up from something that's different that you've not seen or read.
	Or an interesting story.
	And I think that's really vital.
	It definitely is.
	And if you feel it, you will do it instinctually.
	You'll do it instinctively.
	And so, because these men were...
	They're not just stories.
	They're not just words in history books.
	And I have here a picture of some of the last surviving Waterloo veterans at Chelsea Hospital back in 1880.
	I mean, just look at these guys.
	Incredible.
	Incredible.
	Yeah, that's real.
	John McKay, 42nd Regiment, age 95, wounded at Badarjus, wounded at Waterloo.
	Robert Norton, age 90, 34th Regiment.
	Germany, Holland.
	You know what I'm sitting here thinking?
	I'm thinking, you know, I like your point about teaching our kids proper history.
	The only thing that gives me pause on that, it would be useful to have some sort of visual materials for me to go with it.
	And I know that I can't just walk into Waterstones and pick up a book because it's probably going to be written by a lefty.
	Maybe Lotus Eater should be producing a based history of Britain.
	Maybe we should take that on as a project.
	It would be a good one.
	I'm going to have a think about it.
	I slightly mentioned it last week when I said we should be opening our own publishing company.
	We have some plans on that front.
	Good stuff.
	And then we can write our own books and publish them.
	Yes.
	And of course, this isn't just a case of...
	Waterloo was a group effort, ladies and gentlemen, even though we were the main stars.
	And, you know, the Dutch and the Prussians, they all had a hand in it.
	And so you've obviously got a painting here of some Dutch veterans of Waterloo.
	With the Prince of Orange who was on the battlefield that day.
	And I suppose, personally for me, the most magical of all is the fact that we actually have a very early in the technology photograph of the Duke of Wellington himself.
	Oh, really?
	This is him at about the age of 75, 76. This would have been taken in the 1840s.
	Golly, an early photograph.
	Incredible.
	Where did you get that one from?
	I've not seen that before.
	Yeah, to be honest, I didn't discover it until fairly recently myself.
	Well, to be honest, it's one of those things, isn't it?
	You think, well, General from 1815, there's not going to be a photograph of it, is it?
	So you just don't look for it.
	And then sometimes history surprises you.
	Yeah, well, this has surprised me.
	This is a cracker.
	Which is wonderful.
	And so, naturally, I just have to draw attention to one of the greatest historical films of all time.
	I can't, sir.
	I've lost my leg.
	Well, spoilers, spoilers.
	To my shame, I haven't watched this.
	I didn't know it was a thing.
	Yeah.
	But apparently this is free on YouTube, is it?
	This is all free on YouTube, yes.
	I'll be watching this, then.
	I just want to play this 30 seconds clip.
	Sorry, I spoiled it.
	No, no, it's all right.
	Oh, there he is.
	I've lost my name.
	Stoic as hell.
	We're still going to charge.
	Don't forget me sir as I go with you.
	And that was real.
	That actually happened.
	His name was Henry Padgett.
	He was Earl of Uxbridge at the time.
	And yeah, he took a shot, shattered his right leg, and then very composed said that line.
	So this is...
	And it's not got the time stamp on here, but I just also wanted to...
	if I can find it.
	It's around the 53th second mark.
	Now, Maitland!
	Now's your time!
	Ballon
	Peak cinema.
	Go watch it.
	That is just marvellous.
	It is.
	And I love the way that they got it back, back, back.
	You know, it's like a volley after volley.
	Oh yeah, it's just remarkable.
	But did you hear what he said on the horse?
	Buchler was saying on the horse, now my children charge.
	What a great line!
	I've been waiting decades for this man to go down.
	Yeah, it's remarkable.
	But it's all these little details, you know, this is the thing about history.
	It's all these little details that bring it to life.
	It's these individual moments of heroism.
	And it's a collective effort.
	As well, at the same time, it's all these things that come together.
	I've got to re-watch this.
	I've forgotten about it.
	I remember watching it as a boy.
	There's a fan cut in full HD.
	They've added about four minutes to this, I think.
	I'm not sure from where, because this is the only version I've ever seen.
	But yes.
	And so obviously I can't not mention the fact that, of course, Bo...
	I think I watched most of those.
	There's quite a few, isn't there?
	There are a lot of epochs now.
	No, no, specifically on the Battle of Waterloo.
	10 parts or whatever it was, but...
	He's got ten on the Battle of Waterloo.
	He did an eight-part series about the life of Napoleon.
	Wow.
	And then a three-part series about Wellington.
	Okay.
	And so between those two.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And he also, I've not added it here, but he also discussed the film itself, Waterloo, with The Critical Drinker.
	So if you're interested in that, you can go find that on the website too.
	And so there are, you know, even today, So you had here Waterloo Station marked the Battle of Waterloo.
	Oh, was this 200?
	I thought that this was very embarrassing if I brought up it from 10 years ago.
	Well, at any point, it still brings about the...
	I just genuinely didn't know they still did this at Waterloo Station, because I would have gone if I'd known about it.
	I'd like to see it once.
	I must say, I mean, it's going back a while now, but when the whole Channel Tunnel thing was going on and people were talking about the expensive stuff, I dropped my objections immediately as soon as I found out that the French side was terminating in Waterloo.
	I just thought, yes.
	Oh, no, I wasn't going crazy.
	I did pull up the right one.
	It is the 210, so this is a current article.
	So, yes, this was just yesterday.
	And, of course, you've got them dressed in that beautiful British imperial red.
	And, you know, but, you know, I don't want to...
	you look at the faces, they're older gentlemen, you know, the Chelsea pensioners and they're, you know, and ultimately there comes a time when it's on the younger generation to, you know, Well, we could do with a regiment of red coats today.
	Don't I believe that?
	Send them straight to Dover.
	Absolutely.
	Or possibly Calais.
	Yes.
	And then who knows what might happen from there.
	Oh, golly.
	So, yeah, I just think that it's really important to commemorate these events and talk about them.
	whenever necessary and whenever they come up, because in talking about them and discussing them at the dinner table with your families and discussing them at friends and hosting local events, because there's this one here at London Waterloo Station, which is, of course, one of the places where you'd naturally expect to have them.
	But if we ever want to return to this level of glory, then it will require us...
	They don't want you to remember that Britain used to be more than Channel Crossings and X Factor and Deliveroo and Human Rights Laws.
	We weren't just great, we were the greatest.
	We were the greatest.
	We were the greatest.
	No wonder they were the greatest.
	They're a criticism of us now.
	We're talking about it.
	So you're looking back in the past, you're old nationalists, you're old colonialists.
	It's not really the question about it.
	It's just about having respect for our history and these people that we're involved in.
	And also that from this was a sense of pride.
	A sense of real companionship, belonging, and the way thinking forward.
	It creates a positive...
	Not because we want to go out and blow everyone up.
	It's because that unity, that thing that we look at, whether it's the flag, whether it's the royal family, whether it's the history, joins us and combines us into one.
	It doesn't segment us.
	And hopefully we can have new victories.
	I mean, I would like to have something like that remembering Remigration Day.
	We'll have it.
	Yes.
	We'll have it, Dan.
	And then we'll celebrate that for the next hundred years.
	But you wait.
	Yeah, but also, you know, but it's also about the sacrifice.
	It's not just about the greatness and the glory, it's about the sacrifice as well.
	And the Duke of Wellington, after the Battle of Waterloo, said, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.
	Right?
	So it's also about what they sacrificed.
	It's about the...
	And that might just be the case with Britain 2. War takes huge tolls, not on those who have to go out and be in combat, but it takes tolls on the families who are away from them and it takes tolls on when they return.
	I'll never forget.
	You know, the impact on my grandfather, you know, jolly old man that he was, but he clearly suffered from either forms of PTSD or certainly bad memories.
	And we used to say when Jim was sitting there with his brandy on his own in a corner, leave him alone, because you didn't want to disturb him on those times.
	And, you know, whether he was in his 70s, he was still remembering.
	And he never talked about it.
	Well, rarely.
	He rarely ever talked about the losses that he faced in the Second World War.
	The only thing he advised me against was never to eat curries.
	Well, he spent his time in India.
	And he said there's only one reason why they put herbs and spices on food.
	And I won't say that on here nowadays.
	Not in front of the children.
	Clearly today everything is healthy.
	Oh, I'm sure.
	And all the meat is cut in the right way.
	Right, of course.
	So, yeah, remember those from World War II, remember those from World War I, remember those from Waterloo, and remember those who stood for England.
	Okay, we can go to the video comments, Samson.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Good morning, lettuce eaters.
	Picking up from last weekend's backpacking trip, after a terrible night's sleep, the weather didn't seem to do me any favors.
	The diffuse lighting from the clouds made for good flower pictures, at least.
	Before turning around to head to church, I almost made it to the pass, with the worst of the climbing right at the end.
	This gap between the rocks was really steep, and the hard-packed snow drift was both annoying and somewhat dangerous to climb and descend without my boot chains.
	Hope you guys are having a good week so far.
	He is showing us some really beautiful parts of Oregon, isn't it?
	Just stunning.
	You kind of want to get out there.
	Fantastic country.
	I want to get rid of this Ayatollah t-shirt.
	Khomeini died years ago.
	But Marge, it works on any Ayatollah.
	Ayatollah Nachpada?
	Ayatollah Zahedi?
	Even as we speak, Ayatollah Razmara and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power.
	I don't care who's consolidating their power.
	The Simpsons used to be so good.
	They were brilliant.
	Consider a space with an unknown topology.
	Maybe a landscape enveloped in fog or a frying pan with an uneven temperature gradient.
	You might be looking for the lowest or the coolest point.
	One means of finding it is called Monte Carlo analysis.
	Choose points at random and record the depth or temperature.
	As you add more points, the more likely it is you have an idea of the point of interest.
	Using linear set of points risks missing details, hence the need for randomness.
	A WASP's random oscillations when approaching something delicious seems like Monte Carlo analysis.
	and it's relevant to my next video.
	Sorry, I was trying to pay attention, and then they just saw wasps, and I just got angry and forgot everything.
	Monte Carlo analysis.
	Use a lot in finance, that one.
	All right, we'll go through some of the comments.
	Do you want to go through on your segment, Dan?
	Oh, yes.
	Hang on.
	Here we go.
	Henry Ashman says, Ted Cruz's line about how Bible verses say people who defend the state of Israel will be blessed was just bonkers.
	It clearly felt like he was searching for a line to justify his idea.
	Yeah, there was this other exchange which I would have covered if I had a bit more time, but basically Cruz was saying that because the book of Genesis talks about defending the nation of Israel, which clearly does not mean the modern state.
	No.
	And that's why he wants to do it.
	It's like, that's bonkers.
	In the time of Genesis, they did not mean nation to mean anything like what we mean today.
	Nation-state didn't exist as a concept.
	Yes.
	Come Brian Kulak says...
	The Iranians and the Europeans.
	Probably all of us.
	A matter of perspective.
	It's definitely better for some.
	Israel would love to see the Amkite tribe smashed in the land in chaos.
	It also advances the agenda of the Kalergi plan.
	Zionism and communism and more migration to Europe.
	That is certainly an element.
	Someone online says, I've been through this before, and it was a lie, and countless people lost their lives.
	Why does lying Ted think we want to go through that again?
	And a small L libertarian says, Tucker have just said there were 400,000 people in Iran, what Ted did with it.
	Right.
	Do I do any more?
	Oh, okay.
	Alex says, I hate that the thing has gone viral is the Iran population clip.
	I don't think it's a good argument for Tucker at all.
	No, I think it's key.
	I disagree with that.
	I think it's key.
	If you're going to have a plan, you should...
	No, you're enemy.
	I mean, you've got to start there.
	And there's a myriad of other moments where Tucker demolishes him.
	He also destroyed some taboos with regards to Israeli influence and American hawkishness.
	Yeah, I think that is the key bit that's going to be remembered.
	It's going to be...
	And George Happ says, Cruz was given instructions by his AIPAC guys to shield for this war.
	I hope that the Normies have learned something from the previous three regime changes, which only makes things worse for the population and keeps the war machine going.
	Yeah, it makes some lobbyists rich, but massively drives debt in the home nation.
	Stephen, can you see if I'm okay?
	No, I can't, so you're going to have to read.
	That's all right, I'll read it.
	I'll read it.
	I'll get this light above me, I'm afraid.
	Chad Koala.
	Koalas are pretty Chad.
	Britain only sent low-level criminals to Australia, no murderers or rapists, because they wanted a functional colony.
	It's astounding that Britain used to carefully vet their own people's backgrounds before exporting them elsewhere, and have now committed to importing anyone who shows up regardless of their background.
	It's a great point.
	Yeah, it is a good point.
	It's a really good point.
	Actually, Samson's moved it up so I can actually now see.
	Oh, great.
	which is great.
	So we've got Michael...
	is it Drie Beavis?
	He says, the most annoying thing about the modern boat people is that I'm old enough to remember the boat people from Vietnam, one of whom is a close friend.
	Those boat people took great risk, travelled with families or were mostly women and children and came to integrate into whatever country would accept them.
	They learnt the language, sought jobs, and in many cases refused charity in favour of work, which I recall was something that was pretty true at the time.
	Contrast that with the modern boat people, mostly men, true, entitled and of course of military service age, and the numbers in England receiving the equivalent of population of several countries of my home state of New York and that population.
	That's very true.
	We've got Henry Ashman who says, I've seen reports in recent weeks that scientists think humpback whales are trying to speak to humans and other scientists are trying to use AI to learn to speak to whales.
	Can a deal be struck with whales to push the boats back to France?
	It sounds ridiculous, but honestly it's more viable as an idea than anything the Tories and Labour have tried lately.
	That said, it is Keir Starmer's government that would be involved in negotiations and I expect David Lammy would give away the nation of whales as part of the deal.
	I mean, two points on that.
	One, somebody in the live chat while we were talking about it said, well, one on Megalodon.
	I mean, if we could bring back direwolves, why can't we bring back Megalodon and just stick them in the channel?
	And the other thing, I bet if we do speak to whales, you know, I'll take this comment with the word, they're frantic to speak to us.
	First thing I guarantee they're going to say is Geoffrey Epstein did not kill himself.
	If we are able to communicate with Wales, it will be fantastic to finally be able to understand Diane Abbott.
	Yes.
	Oh, gosh.
	Too many vowels.
	I even think they would go around and say that's impossible.
	Man of Kent says the one deterrent that would have worked for gangs is the penalty for human trafficking is capital punishment.
	Leave the ECHO and leave treaties that force us up to take refugees and rewrite our own laws to say that men can't claim asylum, only women and children can.
	There is a very good argument for looking at the UN Convention on Refugees.
	I've even heard some in the Labour Party talk about a need to consider some change or amendment.
	But whether we would ever leave it is something I don't even think the Conservative Party of Reform would do.
	Although, personally speaking, I would.
	I think most of the agreements we've done have passed their time limit.
	Was he using the crutch as a crutch, or was he trying to use it as a paddle?
	Says AZ Desert Rat.
	I don't know.
	I think if it did have air and water and he could float, he would have probably gone under the water himself all the way there.
	And someone online says, if you say you fill the channel with the old pirate ships to stop the dinghies, irony, we will bring up all those dinghies.
	I've just got one minute left, so I'll just rush through one.
	Zesty King says, I'm British and have a history degree.
	I was never once taught about the Norman Conquest, the Napoleonic Wars or the British Empire.
	It was through travelling the UK and reading books after I left uni that I...
	Yeah, yeah, many such cases.
	Fuzzy Toaster says, Miss Bray's Feminist and Oncobunko from, yes, Demi-Queer Proportional Fat Poetry.
	Good point.
	Sorry, I'm just flustered, but that was really funny.
	And then Roman Observer says, Roman Empire is best empire, but you can be second best.
	No, no, no.
	No, no.
	The stats are clear.
	I've just seen something.
	We'll just end on this.
	Bloody Hope Not Hate put out a new report.
	And you're in it.
	I know!
	You've been here for like two weeks.
	I've been trying to get into the Hope Not Hate report for two years.
	For God's sakes, put me in.
	You're in.
	Put me in!
	And I've barely started my work.
	I'm only just getting beginning.
	Yeah.
	You don't feel as though...
	I've written to them and offered them...
	Yeah.
	And sent it to them and said, look, all you're going to do is upload this.
	But they won't do it.
	That's all we've got time for today, ladies and gentlemen.
	If you'd like to join Calvin Robinson for Common Sense Crusade, it begins in half an hour at three.
	And if not, then we'll see you tomorrow at one o 'clock Friday.
	Thank you for your time.

▲