The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1214

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 23, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:28

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1214

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Road Seaters episode 1214 for Wednesday the 23rd of July 2025.
	I'm your host Luca joined today by Lestelios.
	Hello everyone.
	Returned from his Odyssey around Greece back to, but not Ithaca, Swindon this time.
	And special guest Charlie Downs.
	Thanks for coming in today.
	Thank you Luca.
	Great to be here as always.
	Wonderful.
	We're going to be talking to you today about the Britannia Hotel in London being colonized, the latest in the long line of hotels to get such a treatment.
	We're then going to talk about the Mehdi Hassan and versus the Pine Sap incident, right?
	And then we're going to be talking about why Kemi Badenock is probably just finished at this point.
	Yeah, it's over.
	I want to say something to everyone here.
	First of all, no one likes coming back from summer holidays, but the very fact that I'm here with you two esteemed gentlemen in this office and talking to you actually makes things better.
	So, I mean, it's things could be worse.
	That's very wholesome.
	Thank you very much.
	Cheers for that.
	Right, let's begin by talking about the Britannia Hotel.
	Okay, so obviously, as I've covered in two segments in the past week now, everything that was going on in Epping and with the Bell Hotel over there in Essex and the genuinely remarkable protests that we were seeing outside that hotel, not just in terms of numbers, but in terms of conduct and the way that all these locals have come out in a really, really sophisticated way that the whole community should be really proud of.
	And so I'd just like to start by talking a little bit, rounding that story out.
	Obviously, one of the main things was that the police, the local Essex police, first denied that they were helping to traffic anti-protesters, anti-racist protesters to the hotel.
	Well, it's a little harder to deny once you're caught on camera doing it.
	This is just so ridiculous, this.
	And like, heads need to roll for this.
	I mean, what exactly, what guidelines permitted the police to do this?
	Because it seemed like they were quite actively trying to kind of, well, stir up conflict, basically.
	I mean, why else would they be?
	I think it was, the reason I've seen going around is something like their duty bound to facilitate freedom of assembly and expression, which is quite an interesting justification for basically bussing in rival groups of protesters, one of whom are local people concerned about their children, the other of whom are like state-sponsored foot soldiers, agitators, to kind of, you know, foment a conflict.
	It's meant to be a negative right, not a positive right.
	Yeah, right?
	You don't have a right to be transported by the police.
	You have a right to be bussed by the police.
	To your nearest demonstration.
	It is an interesting interpretation of freedom of assembly.
	I'll give them that.
	Well, this goes on to say in this article that the police have admitted escorting pro-migrant protesters to the hotel that we were just talking about.
	And they said, however, the force backtracked after being shown footage of the protesters being escorted.
	We have a reasonable duty to protect people who want to exercise their rights.
	In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to, as you say, Charlie, facilitate free assembly.
	We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
	I have a right not to be taxed.
	Will the police do something about it?
	Will they facilitate it?
	Well, I would prefer that right be enforced.
	I'll give you that one.
	I'll give you that one.
	So, as always, Rupert is asking the important questions here, writing to Ms. Balls, as Beau would call her.
	You've got questions like, who authorised the decision to escort the counter-protesters to the Bell Hotel?
	Why did Essex police initially deny escorting the group?
	And what disciplinary action will be taken over misleading public statements?
	Who will be sacked?
	When will that decision be taken?
	Amongst other important questions.
	Finishing, obviously, with will you commit to deporting every single illegal migrant and closing these awful hotels down for good?
	Because that is actually the larger issue at play here.
	The larger issue.
	They're not going to do that.
	And as Rupert even says himself there, you know, he knows that power doesn't entirely just rest.
	That's going to be a long game thing.
	For sure.
	But right now, we do need all of those questions answered, as you say.
	I'm willing to bet that the answer to the question, if anyone is going to get sacked, is no.
	Not happy with it.
	You're saying that I think that that's what.
	And tends to be the way.
	People rarely see consequences for this sort of thing when they're acting as agents of the state.
	It is weird, this whole thing.
	Because I try and not be too sort of conspiratorial-brained, right?
	Because I think that conspiracies do obviously happen.
	In fact, that's probably the majority of politics.
	But at the same time, the idea that the government is seeking to actually foment civil unrest and conflict, I find that, well, it becomes less and less hard to believe with every passing day.
	But to what end would they be kind of seeking to cause that kind of thing to happen?
	Is it to crack down?
	Maybe it is.
	Maybe they want an excuse to crack down hard on the so-called far right.
	But this kind of thing that happens, you know, when you see that the police literally bussing in counter-protesters with their professionally produced placards and masks as well, that was the whole thing.
	Like, none of the locals are masked, but the people that were bussing in were wearing masks.
	And that's got to, I mean, that raises some eyebrows for sure.
	Why are they doing that?
	Like, what other reasons?
	Yeah, I mean, there are all sorts of conjectures we could think of.
	I mean, it could also be very simple.
	These people know these particular police officers.
	Yeah.
	And, you know, they have infiltrated within the police force.
	And they say, okay, right, they are our guys and we are going to transport them to the nearest demonstration.
	But it just shows you, there's a larger point here, which I think isn't made enough, which is that there was a time where it was an article of faith as a conservative-minded person or a right-winger or in the states, a Republican, to be pro-police and to back the police kind of almost to the hilt because they're protecting the public.
	It increasingly looks like they're basically agents of a hostile state that exists to Oppress the indigenous people.
	We covered this on the podcast yesterday.
	Dan did a segment talking all about the police finding themselves to be racist.
	But just the fact that the English population was really the main population, main community of England that actually allowed itself to be policed with consent.
	These were your natural allies.
	These were the people who could help you work alongside you to foster community cohesion.
	And instead, you decided to basically turn your battens on them.
	Your hive is jackets.
	Yeah, and see them as enemies.
	So with everything that has been happening in Epping recently and the great victories that the people were having there, you then started having rumors swirling about online that a lot of these illegals in the Epping Hotel were being moved over to the Britannia Hotel.
	Now, I just want to say, I've not found any personal conclusive proof as to that being the case.
	But what we do know is that there are illegals in the Britannia Hotel at Canary Wharf.
	I don't know whether or not they're the same ones.
	I'll come back to you on that one.
	But this is quite the step up from the Epping Hotel.
	This is a four-star hotel.
	Looks nice.
	It looks pretty good.
	It costs a pretty penny as well.
	I'll take you through some of the pictures.
	Goodness me.
	Better than anything I've ever owned, I can tell you that.
	Why do they have two chairs there?
	Because sometimes you can have more than one person in the hotel room, Stelios.
	Yeah.
	How about your microphone?
	Usually it's one chair there.
	The one person who sits there is the witness.
	Maybe in a three.
	They have two witnesses there.
	Well, maybe in a three-star hotel, but we're dealing with the big leagues here.
	So one of the other interesting things about this as well is that I went to just try and book some rooms out on this to see, you know, July, August.
	Oh, sorry.
	No availability, funnily enough.
	And so you get here a lot of people that it's worth going through, leaving these one-star reviews now.
	Avoid this untrustworthy hotel chain.
	On the 9th of June, I booked and fully paid for two rooms, and the hotel has been taken by a large group booking all of a sudden.
	And there are many reviews July saying the same.
	Look, that person there says coming all the way from Italy.
	Yeah.
	And it's just been cancelled.
	So holidaygoers having their bookings terminated for the purposes, of course, of moving more and more law-breaking sea people into the United Kingdom and housing them at our expense.
	It's interesting that, you know, Canary Wharf is like, obviously there is a residential area, but it's primarily offices and business, etc.
	But it's interesting that somewhere like that, which is, I mean, it's not exactly going to be.
	I can't help but think that the kind of people that would live in an area like that are not going to be the kind of people that would go out and protest this kind of thing.
	They're young professionals, etc.
	But actually, but actually that has happened.
	And that's an interesting development in and of itself, I think.
	Isn't it close to the city or part of the city?
	No, it's opposite Thames.
	It's on the Thames.
	Yeah, but it's right opposite the city.
	I don't know about this hotel specifically, isn't it?
	It's certainly in that area.
	Yeah, I couldn't.
	So generally speaking, it's supposed to be close to one of the economic centres.
	Yes, yes, this is true.
	Well, to be honest with you, Charlie, that was one of the things that I had originally led me to believe the speculation that these people had been moved from Epping to here because I thought as well, well, probably the most sensible place to move them to, London.
	I mean, who's going to complain about just another broken neighbourhood in London?
	Quite.
	You won't even notice it in the way that the tranquility of Epping was disturbed.
	There is, I mean, I think this report came out either last year or the year before, so it's likely substantially higher now.
	But there's over a million illegal migrants in London right now.
	And so it's just a drop in the bucket.
	Yeah, the 500 that are being kept in the bell hotel, in the Britannia.
	That's the one.
	The Britannia Hotel.
	So obviously, we'll have no support from the local MP, ladies and gentlemen, because it's a Spana Begum, independent MP for Poplar and Limehouse, which includes Canary Wharf.
	We are clear, refugees are welcome here.
	Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before and we're kind of sick of it at this point.
	Let's carry on.
	So then Chris Rose brought up this, the fact that people are getting WhatsApp messages through saying that they wanted to let them know that there are recent developments regarding the relocation of asylum seekers and refugees to a nearby hotel.
	We understand that some of you may be feeling concerned, especially following the protests in Epping.
	Please rest assured.
	I'm not watching the sexual assaults.
	Yeah, not about that.
	Focusing on the protests is the problem.
	Please rest assured that the estate team is taking this seriously.
	We will be sitting down to review and discuss all our security options other than just not housing them.
	Other than the obvious one.
	Yeah.
	So Jack Hadfield went down there and decided to go do some reporting and speaking with a lot of the people who had come out.
	Jack is a good man.
	Jack is.
	Yeah.
	He was also in Epping as well.
	We got some good reporting from him there.
	So keep up the good work, Jack.
	But you have here this woman, Nathalie, can't remember her surname.
	We were all ratioing her last night, and she's since deleted it.
	Deary me.
	Shame.
	But I'll just play you the first 30 seconds.
	What did she say?
	Well, I just think it's really, really important for people to understand that there are no safe and legal routes for refugees to come to this country.
	This is the only way they can come here is on a boat to pay.
	Yeah, they've got the funding.
	Why should we put that burden on the rest of Europe?
	I'm going to leave it there just because there's a very outraged chap's volume.
	They are a burden for every Other country in Europe, but not for England.
	Yes, well, towards the end, there's a chap who gets quite liberal with his See You Next Tuesdays.
	And don't get me wrong, it was tremendous film, you love to see it, but obviously, for the sake of YouTube, I can't be playing.
	Honestly, though, I mean, I knew so many of these types, like when I was at uni, for example, I went to a very liberal university, so these types were ten a penny.
	And it's just, it always fascinates me this, and I will know, I make this point often, it seems like, you know, to myself, but you know, people like this young lady, I'm sure she's perfectly nice.
	Like, I don't have anything against her personally, but she clearly thinks of herself as being some kind of representative or agent for the dispossessed, the downtrodden, you know, fighting the power, etc.
	When the reality of the matter is she is a foot soldier of the power structure, she is, you know, acting as an agent of the establishment.
	Pushing an open door.
	Absolutely right.
	So she's actually the opposite of a radical.
	She is a regime.
	She's also doing the meme with Daenerys from Game of Thrones, where they say this is how white leftist liberals feel when they're talking about when they're talking about migrants.
	And it's just so wild that she's a young woman and she is going to be, if these people were to be moved into her neighborhood, she would be at risk.
	She'd be one of the people most at risk.
	Whether she acknowledges a risk or not change the risk.
	She may do so, but I don't think she understands it.
	And to be fair to her, she's not a person.
	Well, no, she's not.
	She's a member of the Green Party.
	She doesn't understand anything.
	Exactly.
	She's like one of those couples who wake up one day and say, no, it's just bad conservatives who tell us that people are generally speaking aggressive.
	So let's travel to the nearest cannibal tribe.
	And we're not going to get eaten.
	They get eaten every time.
	And look, maybe I'm being idealistic, but I am at a point now where I'm not actually that interested in kind of coming down hard on people like this.
	No.
	You just want to say to them, like, look, it's not unreasonable to just recognize that what's happening to this country is just not good.
	Not good for normal people.
	Just get out the way.
	Move aside.
	Yeah.
	Or just like just recognize that you're not evil for wanting to live in a safe country.
	You're not evil to recognize the reality of the fact that this country simply doesn't have the capacity for more migrants, legal or illegal, or asylum seekers or anything like that.
	We don't have, you know, you walk in the streets of this country, do you think we have the infrastructure and the means to have a refugee system?
	Like we're in no position to be offering asylum to anybody, you know, whether legitimately or not.
	That's correct what you're saying.
	But the point is, if you factor in the sort of leftist indoctrination according to which it's all the rich and the rich is everyone is globally rich, which means that every working class person in England counts as globally rich.
	Let's tax them because they're bad people.
	So in her mind, it's nowhere near full capacity.
	I know.
	Or infrastructure pressure.
	I just find it increasingly impossible to believe that these people exist, to be honest.
	Well, I just want to appeal to them.
	I just want to shake them and just say, just look at what's happening around you.
	Like, it's just so frustrating.
	You can be real.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	No.
	Well, you know, the people of Britain are trapped in a very abusive prison system.
	And the jailer is people with this ideology.
	This ideology is just holding us to ransom and abuse and has been doing for years now.
	Years and years.
	And that's perhaps why the gentleman came down so hard on her at the end.
	People are just sick of it.
	They are.
	They are entirely sick of it.
	So let's move over to talking about some more about the day, unheard.
	Canary Wharf erupts as protesters rally against migrant hotel plans.
	And as you were saying earlier, if the gamble was, oh, house them in London, it'll all go peacefully.
	Miscalculation there.
	Miscalculation there.
	So tension flared in Canary Wharf on Tuesday night as hundreds gathered to protest the reports used of the Britannia International Hotel to house asylum seekers.
	And the demonstration marked the latest in a series of anti-migrant rallies across the UK.
	Obviously, it goes on to talk about hot off the heels of Epping.
	And I also found this particular part interesting.
	Opposite the hotel, a swarm of live streamers and independent media reporting on events.
	They surrounded a 17-year-old activist called Young Bob, Bob, who won applause after calling for deportations and demanding hotel owners stopped leasing their properties to the government.
	He accused Reform UK of breaking its local election pledge to prevent migrants from being housed in areas where they were not wanted, arguing that constituencies should have the ability to remove migrants.
	Perfectly sound.
	Perfectly reasonable.
	And look at that, 17 years old.
	Yeah.
	Well, you know, maybe we should lower the voting age cure.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, I apologise if I'm getting ahead here.
	Luke, you may bring this up, but it is interesting the message that's being sent now, because the Epping protest worked.
	And that's the thing.
	It did.
	It worked.
	The local MP caved and forced the illegals that were there to relocate.
	And the message that that sends is that actually the only, and I'm going to be careful how I say this, but the only language that the state recognises is the threat of force, the threat.
	Not force itself.
	We disavow the use of force.
	We do.
	But the threat of force, clearly, is all that this government recognises.
	And that goes in the case of the English community, but it also goes in the case of the Muslim community and the various others who have come to occupy our island.
	And so it's interesting how quickly that has manifested itself with this protest outside of the Canary Wharf Hotel.
	Because it's clear that people are realizing, actually, we can actually do something about this.
	People have the feeling of agency that they've felt they've lacked for such a long time.
	And the way they do it is not at the ballot box.
	It's by getting out into the streets.
	And that's interesting.
	It is.
	And that's not a good development, by the way.
	It should be at the ballot box that we can fix these things.
	But people increasingly feel like it's just not viable.
	No, I know.
	The issue is that, you know, there are all sorts of forms going out of the streets.
	Some of them are tolerable or permissible.
	Some of them are not.
	But the issue with the ballot box is that if it's once every four or five years about an overall agenda, and then for four or five years, it's complete lack of participation, then yes, the governments are going to feel considerably less pressured to deliver on their promises.
	So, obviously, there has to be a distinction between good and bad ways of being political.
	I think it was earlier this year.
	But it has to be more than once every four or five years.
	Well, and this is the thing.
	I think it was earlier this year, there was that parliamentary petition to call a general election that got like millions of signatures.
	Obviously, it didn't lead to anything.
	No.
	So, you know, how are people supposed to change things in between elections?
	Or you could see that this is a pressure mechanism.
	Yeah.
	So it wasn't going to call general elections.
	But it was something.
	No.
	So then you also have the fact that the, I'll just scroll on to Patrick Christie's.
	Today a Home Office spokesman told us that the Britannia Hotel in Canary Warf was categorically not being used as a migrant hotel.
	Now it turns out that it has been taken over for use as an overflow facility.
	It's like, why lie about such provable lies?
	I know.
	And we've seen what lying does.
	It just makes things so much worse.
	In the case of Southport last year, covering up and lying, it just makes people really angry.
	People are already angry.
	It's just like throwing petrol on the fire.
	All of this is born out of distrust.
	And distrust breeds resentment and resentment breeds hatred of the system.
	But the government, I don't even say government just meaning labor, obviously just governments we've had all our lives.
	They just refuse to change in these tactics.
	Where's the transparency?
	Where's the honesty?
	And obviously that's why you have very sensible positions like this from Rupert, which is illegal migrants don't need hotels in Canary Wharf.
	They need tents, lots and lots of tents.
	Securely detain them in a tented camp on Ministry of Defence land until they can be sent home.
	Why is this even controversial?
	Yeah, well, this was a policy that we came out with this morning, Restore Britain being us, that basically lays out the case for, you know, it would be cheaper, safer, and more efficient to house these people on a bit of land with tents and a kind of minimum humanitarian standards.
	So we're not talking about letting people live in squalor, but what we are talking about is minimal food, minimal clothing, as little as is moral to give.
	And it just, you know, it would prevent these incidents where these unvetted thug foreign men who are put up in local communities sexually assault and rape young women who live in those areas.
	Yeah, that wouldn't be a risk.
	Or robbery or working illegally, whether that be actually committing crimes or as a food delivery driver.
	All of that is not an issue.
	And of course, this is a stepping stone.
	Like, it's not the ultimate solution to the problem, but it would at least mitigate some of the risks that are, well, running riot right now.
	Yeah, to the local British people.
	And also, you know, it's just that thing, isn't it?
	Like, well, good God.
	If you're housing them in a four-star hotel in the middle of London with rooms like that, how quick is that going to be on TikToks?
	And how quick is that going to incentivise even more to come across?
	Yeah, whereas, you know, the tent plan has the opposite effect.
	You know, it's a deterrent.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	So in that case, why even leave France?
	So if you want to do something constructive and helpful, I very much suggest going and joining Restore Britain, which Charlie is very much a part of.
	Indeed.
	The membership's been going very, very well.
	It's £20 a month, isn't it?
	£20 a year.
	£20 a year.
	Two badly priced pints in the wrong pub in London.
	Quite.
	And you can really make a difference past the point.
	Political means coming together.
	were just talking about how in between elections it's very hard to put pressure on the government but this is how you do it i mean restore Britain is the vehicle um that you know that is gonna We've already had reform commit to being net negative immigration, which was directly as a result of our activism.
	So join up.
	Do just that.
	So I'll just go to the rumble rounds.
	I've got Tamrat says, the problem is, Charlie, here, vote nullifies, her vote nullifies yours.
	Heinleinianism.
	I'm sorry, I'm not an expert on Heinleinianism.
	It's the wrong host today.
	Sorry about that.
	That's just like service guaranteed citizenship, I guess.
	Habsification says, if these sea people are becoming even more prevalent, are we seeing the signs of our very own late Bronze Age collapse?
	No, I don't think that we're collapsing.
	I think that we're being held hostage.
	I think that there's an enormous amount of patriotic energy.
	Don't let anyone tell you that it's over.
	It's far from over.
	This is a blip.
	The last 30 periods are a blip.
	This is not a Doomer podcast.
	And LoganPine17 says, this might be Fed posting, so I'll read the rest in my head.
	But I have to say, I won't.
	That's not happened.
	Yeah, no, that's, no.
	I agree.
	Okay, right.
	Let's move on to your Stellios.
	Okay.
	Right.
	So there was a debate, a Jubilee performance, let's say, or event with Mehdi Hassan and 20 allegedly far-right conservatives.
	And there was an instance where one of them called, I think, Connor Estelle, also known as Pine Sap, he lost his job.
	Right.
	As a result of his appearance and participation in this.
	So I will say that I dislike cancel culture and I think that generally speaking it's a bad thing.
	But I think if we abstract from the particular case, because it's not enough to talk about someone if you just see them talking about two or three minutes.
	We can make all sorts of value judgments.
	We will talk about it during the segment.
	But I think that the most important thing that I want to talk about in this is ways of debating that are good, ways of debating that are bad, and ways of debating that are entirely self-serving as opposed to helping, getting some good points Across and also not allowing people like Mehdi Hassan look like the defender of Western civilization.
	Is that what it's come to?
	Yeah, because if you look at it, and in some people's minds, they're a minority, but in their minds, just being completely just reacting by saying any accusation the left is directing towards me, I'll accept.
	And I will market myself as a caricature of what the left has constantly been bombarding everyone that people on the right are or non-leftists are.
	This isn't helping.
	This actually helps the left.
	This helps people like Mehdi Hassan appear like the defenders of Western civilization.
	Yeah.
	Well, this was the thing.
	I saw people, you know, it was going around that Mehdi Hassan got destroyed by some of these people.
	And I watched it and I was like, he didn't.
	He won.
	You know, he made a lot of those people look pretty foolish.
	Yeah.
	So we'll show you clips, but I want to start by saying that I really dislike this Jubilee setup.
	I'll start playing this here without a sound because I think that there's something particularly problematic about this.
	So, you know, you have someone like Medi Hassan.
	In other cases, it was Ben Shapiro.
	In other cases, it was Jordan Peterson.
	And they are debating a multitude of people and they don't have enough time.
	In some cases, they have five minutes.
	In other cases, they have 20 minutes I see there.
	But generally speaking, I think that these kinds of conversations need more time.
	And podcasts are uniquely good for this.
	And I think we are doing a good job about this because when you want to have paradigm shift in conversations...
	That's true.
	This is not conducive to actual progress.
	So you see, he makes a claim and people are going to just run as if they're in hunger games or something to get a seat.
	And then they're going to have a limited amount of time.
	It's such slop.
	Yeah.
	It's such a gimmick.
	It's just...
	Generally speaking, that's not...
	That's not.
	Exactly, yes.
	But that's not the kind of setup you want for serious conversations, especially when they're conversations that are challenging paradigms.
	Because when you're challenging paradigms, you want a lot of time to contextualize what you're saying.
	And challenging paradigms can take all sorts of forms.
	Some of them are good, some of them are bad.
	Some of them can be sensible.
	Others are completely insensible.
	Right.
	So I think that basically this kind of setup is uniquely tailored in order to make clips and clicks and impressions on X and other platforms.
	It's ripe for misinterpretation, ripe for misrepresentation most of the time.
	Some of the times people are very explicit, but it's not the kind of setup you want for these conversations.
	To be fair, I thought that the Jordan Peterson one was actually pretty interesting.
	there were some good quality conversations in that one.
	I think that this was a particularly bad one'cause this is...
	That's kind of what I mean.
	Like it really exposed the blind spots and weak points in Peterson's ideology.
	But I thought it was very interesting.
	I'll be very honest.
	I don't know if it did.
	No.
	And I'm not going to base my opinion on a small clip on it about it.
	So that's what I said.
	All these things, what you're ultimately looking at is in every position, you have sophisticated versions of it.
	Sometimes some people may not be very quick in their speech.
	It's one form of presentation of arguments that sometimes can sabotage your point from coming across.
	And you need to evaluate it from all sorts of things because Peterson might be putting forward a worldview.
	It might have some weak spots that are exposed at the time.
	But the other person may not have an ultimately better alternative.
	No, of course.
	That's why.
	And the same applies for political conversations.
	So what I'm going to say about this debate between Medi Hassan and Peinslap, I've already said on Symposium 28 on the linguistic subversion of wokeness, where we are talking with Bo and Josh about conceptual psyops and some traps that the left has set within discourse.
	A sort of push to lure people who are not leftists into identify in the exact same ways that the left wants them to identify so they can put up a fuss and say, hey, look, all these people are like that.
	And some people definitely fall into this trap, whether because they're idiots or because they're naive, but not idiotic necessarily.
	I'm trying to put it diplomatically.
	Or because they do it because it gets clicks and it's self-serving while ultimately helping the left by presenting it as the actual defender of Western civilization.
	Right, so I want us to look at some two clips from it.
	This is someone called Antones who said we should all carry ourselves like this.
	Unapologetic, disruptive, smart vision, and absolute political masterclass.
	I completely disagree with this.
	So do I. And I think that, once again, it's important to not take it as an either-or.
	So, for instance, being unapologetic.
	I think sometimes it's a good thing.
	The question is, unapologetic about what?
	Right, well, of course.
	Yeah?
	Well, like we were saying about the people in Epping being unapologetic about what they're standing for outside the migrant hotels.
	Yes, that's a point where you can't equivocate.
	Yeah.
	There's no ground to seed there.
	And that has been a big problem for conservatives or whatever for a long time is they have been apologetic about their views and about their identity.
	So let us play to play which is majority white.
	It should stay there.
	How does the United States?
	I mean, we've gone so off topic, but how does the United States look like under your?
	Sorry, what's your name?
	My name is, well, my name's Connor.
	It's a pleasure to meet you.
	Took you a little bit of a doubt there.
	I use a pseudonym online.
	Fair enough, Connor.
	Fair enough.
	How would Connor's America look?
	What would it look like?
	Well, quite frankly, I think we would deport people who shouldn't be here.
	I didn't ask you borderline.
	What does the government look like?
	What does the government look like?
	I would say, quite frankly, it's under a sort of benevolent leader, such as the- Where does he come from?
	It could be a kind of aristocratic class, could be someone.
	Who picks the autocrat?
	Frankly, the people.
	I mean, we could hold a vote on it, Keynes.
	Isn't that democracy?
	Well, sure.
	You can have a vote to get to that state.
	And then no more votes afterwards.
	Absolutely.
	100%.
	Wow.
	And if that autocrat kills you and your family, you're fine with that.
	Well, I'm not going to be a part of the group that he kills because that's the whole thing.
	How do you know?
	Carl Schmidt.
	Autocrats tend to kill everyone.
	Covenants very well in his work.
	It's the friend-enemy distinction, right?
	You call it Schmidt the Nazi theoretician.
	Absolutely.
	I don't care.
	Are you a friend of the Nazis?
	I don't care.
	I frankly don't care being called the Nazi.
	I didn't say that.
	I didn't say that.
	I said, are you a fan of the Nazis?
	Well, they persecuted the church a little bit.
	I'm not a fan of that.
	What about the persecution of the Jews?
	Well, I mean, I certainly don't support anyone's human dignity being assaulted.
	I'm a Catholic.
	But you don't condemn Nazi persecution of the Jews.
	I think that there was a little bit of persecution.
	We saw that.
	You would rename this show because you're a little bit more than a far-right Republican.
	Hey, what can I say?
	It just looked like a Catholic.
	I think you say I'm a fascist.
	Yeah, I am.
	Absolutely.
	I'm just checking who's clapping just to get my set of where everyone is on this.
	Because you know that millions of people are going to be watching you on YouTube and checking out who the fascists and the Nazis are.
	I'm not ashamed of that whatsoever.
	During the pre-war period, prior to World War II, it was only those parties that properly enacted the people's will.
	That's why they won.
	The conservatives were fat cats.
	Right.
	So what no one has said about this is that Mehdi Hassan admitted that being a Nazi is not the same as being far-right, where he said you're a little more than a far-right Republican.
	So that's the win on this, at least.
	Everyone's pretty absolute political masterclass.
	Absolute political.
	Getting that gem out of Mehdi Hassan.
	Honestly, like that framing, though, framing it as a political masterclass is absolutely nonsense.
	Because if you showed that to any kind of, I mean, sure, they're in America, but in Britain, if you were to show that to any normal person, they would take the side of Mehdi Hassan because they'd think the other guy looked like that.
	That's the issue.
	That's the issue.
	And that's what I want to say is that there is a tendency for people to say, I'm going to express myself in ways that are the exact way that the left is presenting me because I want to show them that I don't care.
	Well, it's okay.
	To some people, you can't care, but you don't care what they think of you.
	But when you are debating, it's not about your interlocutor or your opponent.
	It's about the audience.
	And language occurs within a context.
	It's a social context because we're communal beings.
	And within that context, there are notions that are linked with good or bad.
	And what propagandists are trying to do, they're trying to link their side with a good and their side with the bad.
	So they want to make it sort of hip to some people.
	They want to marginalize, to self-identify with what the culture thinks is the synonym for evil.
	So when they do this and they recreate the sort of mentality of the prison courtyard convict who exposes the neck, say, hey, I'm not afraid of you.
	You're not a threat to me.
	That's not the proper context.
	That's not the way you're doing a debate.
	What it ultimately ends up being is saying, this guy goes out and shows to millions of people who have watched this is, I am exactly what the left is constantly bombarding us, that non-leftists, non-Maoists are.
	And Mehdi Hassan comes off as a sensible one here.
	Yeah, and you know what else?
	The chap in the blue, Pinesap, is that his name?
	Yes.
	The impression I got when I watched that was that he was arguing with an invented character in his head.
	He wasn't arguing with Mehdi Hassan sitting in front of him.
	It was arguing with what he thought the left were, which is why he jumped immediately to, I don't care if you call me an Azi.
	Mehdi Hassan hadn't actually called him a Nazi.
	He was just immediately kind of on it like that.
	And it just made him look an idiot.
	And there were also several contradictions.
	Like, for instance, he's going to be anti-democracy, I'll show you this.
	But then he said, these parties were autocrats and they enacted the people's will.
	Anyway, there are several...
	not benevolent.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	But also that's the, So how do you know you're not going to be smoked?
	And says, I'm not going to be smoked because I'm going to be on that side.
	Well, yeah, lots of followers of Stalin believe that.
	And then he brings up the Carl Schmidt friend-enemy distinction.
	And again, it's like he's arguing on the internet or something like that.
	And again, there is a way, by the way, to bring that up.
	And Medi Hassan says, well, what, the Nazi theorist?
	You'd be like, well, yeah, but he's also on every university.
	Yeah, that's what I wanted to say...
	And that's why they become very big names, because you have all sorts of scholars, a number of scholars interpreting what they said.
	And you have left-right Hegelians with every thinker.
	But what happens here is that what I want to say is that everyone reads Carl Schmidt.
	He was an assy theoretician at some point.
	I think he sort of was sidetracked or he...
	Well, he was...
	I don't...
	Yeah.
	He never...
	I think he was trialled at Nuremberg, but he wasn't found guilty of anything as far as I'm concerned.
	But anyway, both left and right read Carl Schmidt.
	Right?
	They read him.
	That's not the issue.
	And the friend-enemy distinction, that's my personal view.
	I think it's abstractly formed.
	To a degree, everyone believes in it because every system has a notion of who is going to be marginalized and who is going to be punished.
	So every system has friends and enemies.
	The point is, how do you define an enemy?
	Who is an enemy?
	What do you do about an enemy?
	How do you go about living in a society?
	What do you do about potential friends?
	These are several questions that they should be asked.
	And once again, this format is not conducive to that kind of conversation.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's what I said in the beginning.
	When you want to make a good conversation that is challenging paradigms, you need time.
	And you need time to contextualize what you're saying rather than just saying, well, I'm too hot for contextualizing.
	So any bad interpretation you want to throw my way, I'm going to say I'm it because it's going to make clicks.
	It's just such a duzz.
	You know, textbook example of how not to do it was, you know, he mentioned Carl Schmidt by name.
	That gave Medihada sign a really easy in to say, oh, what, the Nazi?
	You're siding with the Nazi.
	And then he said, yeah.
	It's like, yeah, I am.
	I don't know.
	Real Nazism hasn't been tried yet.
	Yeah.
	That would be a good out of context.
	No, but it's just textbook.
	Because again, as I said, I, if I was in this situation, wouldn't have mentioned Schmidt by name at all because it's just such an easy in.
	You just say, well, all system has friends and enemies, and I believe I'd be on the side of the friends because I'm a patriotic American and the dictator I'm talking about would be a patriotic American.
	So we'd be ideologically aligned.
	So I don't think that I would be oppressed.
	I may be wrong because that's the volatility of a dictatorial system.
	And he just closed the whole thing down.
	But instead, he's like, well, I am an honest.
	No, I'm not going to say that, actually, because that would come down context.
	Anyway, you see what I'm saying, though.
	But also, politicians lie.
	So, yeah, it will be dangerous.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So I'll not show the second clip because I'm conscious a bit of time.
	So we have here Pine Sap was fired from his job.
	searched here and I found that this was a job in tech, the tech industry.
	Let me It's called, I think, VEUP Limited.
	Yeah, so it's a tech company.
	Right, so there was a sort of funding event.
	He created a give, send, go to find a new job and people have been funding him.
	I think he has raised more than $20,000 at the point.
	Yeah.
	And he says here, fire for my political beliefs.
	And he has a donating page.
	Give and go.
	And here we have him on Rift TV.
	He shares his experience on Jubilee.
	And we have the people there who are trying to give him a very charitable interpretation.
	And they also try to somehow portray this as being a bit more traditionally right-wing, which I think is not the case.
	I think we can say it's not.
	No, definitely not.
	Right.
	Okay, so there have been several interpretations as to what he meant.
	Someone says here, Peinslap's method, whether you like it or not, is a different question, was to disarm the slur.
	He found it to be absurd and ludicrous that such a term was being thrown at Franco and him.
	So he simply said yes and laughed in his face.
	Was he professing the doctrines of fascism as espoused by the pre-war authors in Germany, Italy?
	No, that is stupid.
	And says, these are my thoughts exactly.
	I care about being Catholic, not any particular ideology.
	And when Mehdi Hassan used the term as a slur, I want to disarm the way it has been used to harm so many of us who just want a better world with God.
	Our faiths will not be slandered.
	Well, look, I can speak.
	I am a Catholic and I'm also, you know, I am engaged in the political arena and I debate people on, you know, shows not dissimilar to the one we're looking at here.
	And there's just such a, this is just not the way to go about it.
	It just makes you look like a fool and it makes it really easy for people to, you know, we're on the radical edge of politics and that comes with a certain degree of danger because it does, if you get it wrong, it makes it really easy for people to paint you like a lunatic.
	And therefore responsibility.
	Yeah.
	And so and so really the strategy that we should be deploying and guys like, you know, this one who is, you know, I believe him at his word that he's a Catholic and he's somebody who cares about the future of America.
	The response is to come across as the reasonable one in the room.
	Not to come across as some weird fringe kind of frenzied lunatic who says like, yes, I am that.
	Yes, I am this.
	It's to appear more reasonable and more representative of the general public than your enemy, which he probably, to a certain extent, maybe not him, but there are those in that kind of sphere who are.
	Because many of us are not.
	Well, there are Catholics who are more sensible than Media Hassan, yeah.
	Well, quite, but that's.
	Well, I think Media Hassan is a Muslim, is he not?
	But anyway, like, you know, Medi Hassan is a subversive Islamo-leftist who does not represent the opinions of the general public in America.
	Don't give him what he wants.
	Don't give him what he wants.
	You know, make him look like the radical, the lunatic, the frenzy.
	Exactly.
	That's why I'm worried about a tendency of people, which are particularly online, and I know I'll get lots of hate for saying this, but it doesn't matter.
	They are trying to portray themselves as the caricature of the left, portrays any non-leftist as being.
	And this actually helps the left because it helps the left propagate the same narrative according to which it is the left that is the last bastion of freedom against these people.
	And there are incentives for people personally to do it.
	We have lots of people who have made huge audiences just because they went out and they said something that benefited them personally, but actually has harmed people who are worried about the leftist hegemony.
	Yes.
	Because it makes everybody else look like a fool.
	Exactly.
	Because what we're looking at is essentially, if we're talking about a population in which we have sort of 10% that is leftist, 10% that is right-wing, and 80% that is a bit, you know.
	To be led.
	A bit more, let's say, I wouldn't say necessarily to be led, but in some cases, yes.
	For all sorts of reasons.
	Some of them just don't have time.
	But they don't have time to give into constant understanding of discourse and how each person frames what happens.
	Right.
	So they're a bit more volatile in their and a bit more how should I say it?
	Fickle?
	Not fickle.
	I would say they're a bit more.
	It's easier for them to be manipulated by narratives.
	That's why what the left is also trying to do, and I think that this is conscious.
	It tries to say that to a very large extent the majority of the culture is the culture is split, the majority is pro-us, but also you have another important segment of the population, particularly straight white men, who are this, that narrative, and they need to be punished for that in perpetuity.
	So I think if we want to maintain a sort of sanity and rationality in discourse, the response is not to say, well, we're going to completely destroy the word, any word and the meaning of any word and anything the left says you are.
	We're going to say we are that.
	But we're going to say, no, I'm not going to allow the left to distort my view of the world.
	And I'm not going to blindly rush into saying just to seem cool what the left says I am.
	And this is key, I think, because I think there's two ways of buying into the enemy's dialectic, which I think are wrong.
	One is what that guy did, where he just scattershot of the edgiest thing.
	Exactly.
	So I think how you just put it, to look cool, is exactly right.
	That's exactly they're trying to look edgy and funny or whatever.
	But the other way that it's wrong is to say, oh, no, I'm not.
	I promise I'm not.
	And here's why.
	Because then, again, you're buying into their dialectic and they've already won.
	The right way to approach these issues, and I say this as somebody who has been called these kinds of words on television and on radio and that sort of thing, is to just say, well, look, people like you, you call everything that word.
	You call like milk far right and you call air conditioning sexist and you call the countryside racist and all that sort of thing.
	So coming from you, those words, they just don't mean anything to me.
	They did mean something at one point, but people like you have completely stripped them of their meaning, which is actually a bad thing in and of itself.
	And what I'm seeking to do as a young man is just speak about the concerns I have about this country, about the fact that people my age can't afford housing and don't want to start families for that reason, about the fact that women and girls are increasingly unsafe on our streets.
	You know, these are not unreasonable issues.
	This is not fringe weirdo politics.
	This is just day-to-day life for normal people.
	And the fact that you are so intent on shutting that down by calling me words that have lost their meaning because of overuse tells me a lot about you, actually.
	And it tells me the interest that you're serving, which is essentially the interests of the power structure that currently governs us.
	Because if you listen to the government itself, to the universities, to the corporations, to the media, they all use those words as well for the same purpose.
	They always use them to shut down reasonable debate about issues that actually affect people.
	And that is how you do it.
	Yes, I am that.
	I think that's how you do it.
	And that's the sensible thing.
	And I don't know to what extent some other people can do it.
	And the issue is that you have a microphone, they have a microphone, you can do it.
	Maybe they think they can.
	So maybe they're not going to be as sensible.
	But again, it's about presenting yourself as being the reasonable one in the room and them as the crazed lunatic.
	And it's actually not that hard to do because they are crazed lunatics.
	Exactly.
	And I'm going to end with Carl's post that I agree with.
	He says, crazy how Medi Hassan is just such a flagrant liar when he knows the other guy can't prove him wrong because the other guy said that he hasn't been in London.
	It says claiming London is a very British city, that the British aren't losing their culture or that the English are in a minority in London are just not true statements.
	And it says despicable.
	So that's the point.
	When you have people like that, you don't rush to make them appear as the defender of Western civilization.
	That's it.
	Good stuff.
	Right.
	All right, yes.
	Do you want both of those?
	I will.
	Thank you very much.
	Very good.
	Sorry.
	Talk amongst yourselves.
	That's all right.
	How do I get to that?
	Do you want to go through your Rumble Ramps do yourself?
	Yeah, Scott Saigai, you can only talk about this debate if you have a parrot on your shoulder.
	I have to be a parrot.
	You did this.
	No, there was a video of Carl Cab Daly, and a parrot just flew on his shoulder.
	We're still a bit overwhelmed by this news.
	Right, so Akrul says Mehdi Hassan doesn't believe anything.
	He merely deploys leftist talking points as if they're tools in a toolbox and he's among the best at it.
	Well, that's what debate actually is.
	He is.
	That's why you go out and expose it.
	Yeah, and you have your own tools.
	You have to have your own tools as well.
	Okay, and OPHUK says Mehdi Hassan called non-Muslims animal a couple years ago.
	Isn't he also one of those who constantly talk about Islamophobia and everything?
	Yeah, never short Islamophobia.
	Right then.
	So, many viewers will remember the beginning of Kemi Badenock.
	So this was 2020.
	We were all locked up in our homes.
	BLM were on the march and woke was reaching its peak and then out of nowhere came the based what We don't do this with communism.
	We don't do this with socialism.
	We don't do it with capitalism.
	And I want to speak about a dangerous trend in race relations that has come far too close to home to my life.
	And this is the promotion of critical race theory, an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression.
	I want to be absolutely clear.
	This government stands unequivocally against critical race theory.
	We all remember this, right?
	I remember I was at university at the time.
	I was sort of, at this time, I was probably still calling myself a classical liberal or something like that.
	And sorry, Stellios.
	And, you know, I remember seeing this.
	She'll convert you again.
	Indeed.
	Oh, yeah, after we win, then I will go back to being a classical liberal.
	But I remember seeing this and thinking like, wow, this lady is good.
	She's solid.
	You know, it's impressive rhetoric.
	And I remember for a while thinking that she was pretty impressive, as did a lot of other people.
	You know, a lot of people in our circles were saying the same thing.
	Like, I don't want people to pretend that, oh, Kate Vadena was always awful.
	No, a lot of people were behind her for a long time.
	It just felt like you were being suffocated slightly less To see one voice in Parliament that was against the entire, like, just because they went full woke and you couldn't go anywhere without it.
	So to see one voice made it look more impressive than it actually was.
	And never will full woke men.
	But there was real promise.
	There was real promise at this time.
	Because again, you have to remember the context.
	Everyone was losing their minds during lockdown and all the rest of it.
	And it was like culture wars were absolutely out there salient.
	But since then, I think it would be fair to say that things have gone downhill a little bit.
	I do want to just give credit.
	This article that released today called Kemmy Bednock Isn't Working in The New Statesman of All Places by Will Lloyd is very, very good.
	I've used it for a part of this segment, so I'd encourage everyone to go and read it because it is excellent.
	But, you know, let's just go through the history, the recent history of Kemi Bednock.
	So she survived the collapse of the Johnson government, of course, ran as leader after that, didn't win, but secured herself a place on the cabinets.
	Obviously, the Conservatives were in government at the time, of both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak.
	I seem to recall in that time when she didn't win as well, that she did have Gove's backing.
	Yes, right.
	In that particular...
	And we will get onto that because that's an important piece of this puzzle.
	And then, of course, fast forward to last year, Sunak's government faces, well, receives the most damning, largest defeat that the party has ever seen in its 200 years of history.
	Sunak resigns and the membership, or rather the leadership race begins, and the membership choose Kemmy Badenock as their new leader over Robert Jenrick, among others.
	And so as leader, what do we think?
	Impressed?
	Not particularly.
	I mean, honestly, until this segment, I'd forgot the Tory Party existed, to be honest with you.
	Well, indeed.
	Basically, I think that the Tories are destroying themselves.
	Well, that's certainly how it looks.
	I just don't see how that would work.
	And I don't see why the Tories would care that much to portray themselves as more left-wing than the left-wing.
	We will get to that, because that is another important part of this.
	She also doesn't like Sandwich.
	Sorry, I'll stop interrupting.
	But I mean, there's so many funny anecdotes about her sort of personal habits, which we will get to.
	But for a brief time after her ascension to the throne, the Tories did start, they had a mild uptick in their polling.
	And many in the party were saying that, you know, we're back.
	We've changed.
	You know, we're not the Conservative Party of before.
	But obviously, most people saw through that, in part due to the fact that it was quite publicly the case that Michael Gove, one of the architects of the, you know, the 14 years, was essentially backing her and was running her.
	And it was at this point that she decided to accuse Reform of faking their membership numbers.
	You remember this?
	They had this ticker online, and she, citing her expertise as a software engineer, said that they were essentially lying.
	And it was very quickly shown to be, you know, they weren't lying.
	The number was accurate.
	That's how we know when it's going down these days.
	Well, indeed.
	Indeed, yes.
	But it was, well, this reports that the atmosphere in CCHQ on that day was intense embarrassment, which you can understand.
	And so despite the dire performance of the Labour government, the Conservatives are continuing to deteriorate and decline.
	They're just not, you know, reform is just clearing up, basically.
	Reform is exploding in support and continues to poll in the 30-plus kind of area.
	And yet, rather than going on the offensive and building a strong policy base and a new kind of family of faces for the party, Payton's chosen this kind of softly, softly approach where she's commissioned Alex Burkhart, who is the chairman of the Policy Oversight Committee, to go on this kind of two-year-long academic kind of introspective exercise to restore the intellectual credibility of the party and is doing no actual policy work in the kind of here and now.
	And what that means is reform, who are also not doing any policy work, are able to just present them as being out of touch, flatlining, in a tailspin, going nowhere.
	And they'd be right.
	If reform aren't wrong on this.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And a source from inside the party says, thinking we had to go through this stupid process has left us like a rabbit in the headlights, which is not a great look.
	And meanwhile, the party is hammering funds.
	CCHQ is a graveyard, I'm told.
	I mean, there are some sound people in there who I know, but I'm told that it's just like a cancer ward in there at the moment.
	I mean, you know, and you can imagine it.
	And most of their donations are going to paying off debts from the election last year.
	So it's not, you know, it's not a happy place to be.
	And there's a part of this article that I do just want to read out verbatim because I just found it so amusing.
	So according to those who have watched her operate up close, she has developed a habit of vanishing into her AirPods and iPad.
	Senior Tories complain that she is difficult to reach before 11am.
	She rarely leaves London to campaign in the regions.
	Asked on Westminster Sages what her economic plan is, she talks instead about the social issues that fueled her rise, from gender clinics and trans people, to a new concern, abortion.
	Evenings are spent doom-scrolling and making calls to editors and producers about trying to spike negative stories about her.
	Her husband, Hamish, absorbs the worst of the tweets, the ones that she can't face.
	She is fragile and frightened.
	At PMQs, Badenock's hands shake as she reads her lines from a piece of paper.
	Her backbenchers notice.
	On television, when she rouses herself to appear in the studios, Badenock blinks more than she used to.
	Her donors notice this is not someone who is enjoying the job.
	I think anybody who has watched Ken Badenock in recent times will have recognised these same patterns.
	Like, she clearly is not.
	She doesn't enjoy being interviewed.
	She doesn't enjoy speaking in the house.
	You know, this is somebody who is completely out of her depth, quite honestly.
	And it's interesting and, sorry, Luke, I was just going to say, it's also a recurring thing that you see through many prime ministers now, that people who are in every way mediocrities thinking that they should be the one to get that.
	Whether it's Kia Starma, who's just won by proxy in this recent election, or Bedenoc herself, or Theresa May, it's like, you know what I mean?
	It's like, look, you don't inspire strength.
	It's defined by the title.
	You don't have the skills.
	Our system is defined by mediocrity.
	And this is what Dominic Cummings speaks about so often, about how elite talent nowadays doesn't go into public service.
	It goes into basically finance.
	And that's why you're left with the kind of the Oxbridge dregs entering the House of Commons and indeed advising those in there.
	Or podcasts.
	Yes, indeed.
	So that brings us to the present time where yesterday Badenock ordered a Tory Party reshuffle.
	Now, there were a number of new appointments, but the most noteworthy two, in my opinion, were James Cleverley, to shadow secretary for housing, communities and local government, there we go.
	And Neil O'Brien as shadow minister for policy, renewal and development.
	So I'll take those one by one.
	So Neil O'Brien is somebody who I don't know him that well, but I've spoken to him on a number of occasions.
	I follow his work quite closely.
	He's very, very good on data when it comes to immigration and various other issues.
	And he seems like a very sound guy.
	I mean, again, I don't know him that well.
	I understand that he backed COVID lockdowns quite heavily and various other things during that time.
	So, you know, make of that what you will.
	But he is part of this kind of this faction that is emerging essentially around Robert Jenrick alongside others.
	So it's interesting that he's been brought into the shadow cabinet.
	But James Cleverly, my goodness, he is just the embodiment of an anachronistic form of politics, like Badenoch herself, actually, who is just totally unsuited to the time in which we find ourselves, still committed to kind of Cameronite one-nation liberalism, still defending the Boris Wave and the various other things, various other betrayals that took place during the 14th.
	And the recent Afghanistan stuff as well.
	Well, I have to say, actually, though, just to come back on this, now that I know Stuart Andrew is going to be Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I might just have to betray the entire cause.
	I don't know who he is.
	But I don't know.
	He just inspires confidence.
	Yeah, quite.
	And I mean, there are some other appointments that are not in the Commons, but are actually at CCHQ and in the Office of Leader of the Opposition.
	Most importantly, Henry Newman, who is now Kemi Baynot's Chief of Staff, which means he is running the Kemmy Baynot's office.
	I mean, the Chief of Staff position is the most important for any politician.
	And this is a guy.
	I don't know if we have the picture.
	I think we do.
	There we go.
	That's him.
	That is Henry Newman, the new guy running the Conservative Party.
	That inspires confidence, doesn't it?
	Anyway, I could go on, but I am going to let Dominic Cummings take over from here because this is just so glorious.
	Great appointments by Kemi.
	I hate my Nigerian tribal rivalry.
	Cleverly, the last great defender of the Boris Carrie wave, proud defender of giving soldiers' houses to Afghans, one of the architects of the disgraceful giveaway of Chagos, opponent of house building, loved, loved, loved by officials because he is pure NPC.
	We'll read out documents like the Chagos surrender with a straight face.
	No questions ever asked.
	Just say it's the legal advice minister, and you can get him to say anything.
	Will fit in well in KB's regime for its last few months.
	Also good to see Newman, now running KB's office, also super logical, one of those who worked with Carrie, that's Carrie Johnson, to support the mental trans rights Stonewall campaign strengthen its grip on the cabinet office.
	Co-campaigner with Starma for Camden Pride.
	Hope to see Wally an advisor on national security, Carrie an advisor on propriety and ethics, and one of the gay sex addict drug users in charge of family policy in this reshuffle.
	Absolutely surgical.
	Same old Tory party then.
	Well indeed.
	And so that's the current condition of the Tory party.
	And I've got to say, in my own experience, I have actually met some of Badenock's advisors, and they are just the most unimpressive people that you can imagine.
	They are just totally wedded to that kind of Westminster bubble lifestyle, totally out of touch with what the general public are actually thinking and feeling about.
	No real understanding of why they're not.
	It's a total bubble.
	And they really do think that the right response is to take this kind of slow, introspective approach where in a lot of cases they actually double down on a lot of these issues, whether that's immigration or...
	Check the privilege.
	Yeah, all of it.
	Pretty Patel, for example, relatively recently defending the Boris Wave and saying that we brought in engineers and astronauts and all that nonsense.
	But these are the people we're dealing with.
	These are the people in the highest ranks of the Tory Party right now.
	And I seriously think, you know, Kelly Beynon is a relic of a bygone era.
	Her politics hasn't changed meaningfully since 2020.
	She's still talking about woke.
	She's still talking about trans madness and all the rest of it.
	And sure, some of that stuff is still salient.
	But actually, the problems we're facing as a country are so much deeper and so much more fundamental than that kind of culture war stuff now.
	Oh, yeah, we're talking about becoming a minority in our own country.
	The threat is existential.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Doing with existential issues here.
	Birth rates, demographics, housing, energy, the economy, the entire economy.
	These are the most fundamental issues that any nation would ever have to face.
	And Beidenox doom scrolling on her iPad and talking about trans, you know, the Looney Woke Left have gone mad.
	Like, that's really where we're at.
	It's so frustrating.
	And so, yeah, I mean, that's basically the condition of the Tory Party.
	And so I want to talk about now where the Tory Party should go from here, because this may well be unpopular with the Lotus Eaters audience.
	But I do actually think there is a way that the Tory Party could be used as a vehicle for radical ideas and for radical change.
	Because the Tory Party is so desperate and so flatlining and so obviously dying, I think that there is at least an opening there for the sound people in the party, of which there are quite a few, a good number of very sound people.
	Well, Rupert said about between 130 MPs, probably about 50 a word.
	Yeah, I mean, I won't list the 50 here, but the three metrics that I will use are those people who have signed Rupert's mass deportation early day motion, those who attended the rape gang inquiry that we held in Parliament last week, and those who voted or rather signed the early day motion to release Lucy Connolly.
	So those people are as follows.
	Jack Rankin, Peter Bedford, Andrew Rosendale, Lewis Cockin, Gavin Williamson, Louis French, John Lamont, Paul Holmes, Andrew Snowden, Julian Lewis, John Hayes, Esther McVeigh, Gavin Williamson, oh sorry, that's Andrew Rosendell there.
	Jeffrey Clifton Brown, Robbie Moore, Matt Vickers, and yeah, more of the same, Charlie Dewhurst as well, who signed for Lucy Connolly to be released.
	And there are some honourable conventions as well.
	Robert Jenrick, of course, Nick Timothy, Katie Lamb, and Chris Philp.
	And I think Chris Philp is one of those people who is, you know, I don't think he genuinely believes a lot of the stuff he says, but I think that he can see the way the wind is blowing.
	And I actually think that a lot of the party are that way.
	I think that if they could be shown that power and victory lies with being more radical and being more right-wing, they could be won over.
	And that's why, you know, there is this specter haunting the Tory Party.
	Which is Rupert Lowe.
	God, what?
	A magnificent image.
	I know.
	So basically, you think it could be the case that a based Tory party emerges.
	I think Kemmy Badnock steps down.
	Listen, what we're dealing with in the Tory Party is people who respond to incentives.
	They are people who want to keep their seats.
	They want power.
	They want to be invited to nice Westminster drinks parties and all the rest of it.
	And if you can show those people that public sentiment and votes and victory lie with us, I think they will come over.
	And look, I recognise that it's not ideal to have a group of people who are just following incentives kind of acting on our behalf, but it's better than people who are either ideologically committed to the opposite or just totally without a care for principles at all.
	And so I do believe there is this opening in the Tory party for some sound ideas and sound people to start to come through.
	But what they need is the right leadership, because Kami Baidenock is just not the person.
	Again, she's controlled by these interests that clearly just don't know what time it is in the country.
	And on the Gove point, this is quite interesting.
	I heard from a very reliable source recently that they're not talking to each other.
	I mean, it has to be noted that two of the appointments she made are close associates of Gove, so there's certainly an amount of involvement still there.
	But I'm told that the two of them are not on speaking terms, which I think is very interesting given how passionately he was backing her.
	Anyway, if you want to be part of shifting the discourse in this country and playing a part in the kind of movement that I'm talking about, you should join Restore Britain, which is Rupert Lowe's movement of which I am a part.
	And it is only through this kind of organization, this concerted organization and pressure that we can actually shift the discourse in our direction.
	Because we don't have any electoral mechanisms in the immediate future.
	Things are going to hell in a handbasket.
	And so I think that this is really the only vehicle we have, the only center of gravity that we have for meaningfully changing the way things are done now.
	Because yeah, everyone's talking about 2029, but actually things are bad now.
	They are.
	And they need to change now.
	They do.
	But on the point of 2029, because I agree with you that that's where that we do need to change things now.
	But obviously 2029 is where the bigger changes would come.
	And I think that what you have there is, because of all the existential problems that you outlined earlier, we're in a position now where do we wish to fail but do it perfectly in the pursuit of perfection?
	Or do we actually want to win for the first time in our lifetime?
	And I'm so glad you've said that because this is so crucial because this is why we didn't start a party.
	This is why we started a movement.
	Because actually a party, everyone says, oh, Rupert should have started a party.
	But actually, no, that would have hampered his ability to shift the discourse in the way that he has.
	It would have hampered his ability to create kind of, well, to find allies in other parties because he would be viewed as an enemy, as a rival castle, a rival party.
	Yeah, reform would never work with Rupert.
	Well, exactly.
	Whereas this movement, what we're essentially trying to do, if you think about it, mapped on some kind of spectrum.
	If Restore Britain is here and reform and conservatives are floating somewhere around here, what we're doing is we're acting as a center of gravity and pulling them towards us.
	And as I've already said today, this is already happening because in the wake of our activism and our campaigning, specifically around the topic of net negative immigration, which is to say reversing mass immigration, Reform UK have come out and said that they are now a net negative immigration party.
	Now, of course, they'd never say that that was because of us.
	But I mean, you know, we've been really like leaving the charge on that in the mainstream.
	And now they're saying it.
	And again, increasing numbers of Tories are interested in what we're doing.
	And so I think really, you know, we have a real opportunity here to create something like an arms race between the Reform Party and the Conservative Party.
	Because I'm not wedded to either.
	I think whichever is the most viable vehicle for our ideas entering the halls of power, I'll take it.
	If that's the Conservative Party, so be it.
	If that's reform, so be it.
	But it's not clear right now which one it will be.
	And I don't think either of them are ready for government yet.
	Largely for the same reasons.
	Personnel, lack of policy, lack of vision, lack of organisation.
	They're both in the same boat.
	And it's so embarrassing that that's the condition of the right in this country in this time of national crisis.
	But nevertheless, we have to make something of this situation.
	And I don't think a new party is the solution.
	I think that we need to work with what we have.
	And I do think that it is possible there are glimmers of hope in both parties to turn them into the kind of vehicle that we need.
	I agree with you.
	I agree.
	All right.
	I'll read through some of the rumble rants for your segment.
	It says, Logan 17 Pines says, all I have to say is zero seats for the Tories and Labour.
	Well, obviously.
	Yeah, sure.
	But it's a nice idea.
	But actually, if the Tories become viable, why?
	Also, it's a bit like the ship of Theseus, isn't it?
	Because you can take all the planks out of the Tory party and replace them with our own planks.
	Well, it's not the old ship now, it's the new ship.
	And by the way, the Tory Party has done that before.
	Thatcher was an example of this.
	One thing that I'm sympathetic to people who are very annoyed with the Tories, but on the other hand, actually, it's not necessarily an argument against it, but recognizability and brand helps, especially in politics.
	They do have a brand.
	Yeah, yeah.
	They're the oldest and most successful political organization in the world.
	Many of them are traitors.
	Let's not get that twisted.
	Many of them are traitors who are sitting in parliament right now, but it's not all of them.
	And it is also, again, it's one possible tool in the toolbox, the Tory Party.
	And again, this idea that we have to be absolutely purist and ideologically committed to never working with the Tories, it's just stupid.
	It's like what you were saying about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
	Yeah, and as far as the perfect is the enemy of the good is concerned, is that in some spaces, maximalist language is promoted, but you can't build a coalition, be that a party or a movement, out of people who don't compromise with anything.
	And when you have people whose whole whose flag, essentially, is that I'm not compromising with anything, you can't cooperate with them.
	And listen, I mean, I respect Ben Habib hugely, and I think he's a very, very committed man.
	He's a very, very principled man.
	But he is this way, I have to say.
	He is more interested in being right than he is in winning, I think, which is why he was so committed to going down the party route, which we disagreed with.
	Anyway, I think this second point here is interesting.
	Can I read this out?
	Yeah, go for it.
	So the hamsification, the destruction of the Tories Via zero seats should be part one.
	Part two should be about blocking these Tories from fleeing the ship and attaching themselves to other movements and parties.
	And that's the point, right?
	I mean, I don't necessarily agree with the zero seats thing.
	If, I mean, if the Tory parties don't change, if they keep Badenock or somebody like her, Cleverly, for instance, in the position of leadership, they're dumb.
	It's over for them.
	And don't get me wrong, I'm going to be saying if this, if they're led by someone like Cleverly in 2029, I'm going to be saying, yeah, they're not our vehicle.
	They're not our guide.
	Final blow.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	But actually, but actually, you have to change with the circumstances.
	And look, let's be real here.
	Reform are not presenting a particularly appealing prospect right now.
	And even if they won, you cannot trust them.
	They just seem unserious.
	They seem disorganized.
	And look, I know these people.
	I know many of the people who actually run the party.
	And a lot of them are good people.
	But there is also a certain element within the party who are just unserious and who are not interested in detail.
	And they don't even seem like they want to win.
	That's the weird thing about it.
	They seem more interested in the lifestyle associated with being in politics.
	But anyway, if reform show themselves to be the viable vehicle, I will get on board with them because the country is what should be our priority at this time.
	But no, I mean, again, I know people in both parties and there are sound people in both parties.
	And it's just about bringing those people together.
	I agree.
	So again, Charlie, trying to change the Tories is pointless.
	They've done far too much damage and the Tories carry far too much historical baggage.
	And again, I get that.
	I'm not trying to go to bat for the Tories here.
	I'm just saying, I'm just looking at the landscape as it exists and looking at where there are openings for our kind of ideas, for the kind of ideas that those of us in our space have been talking about for years at this point.
	And look, is it reform?
	You tell me.
	Is it the Conservative Party?
	Again, it's not clear at this stage, but we have to be prepared to, like you said, Stadios, compromise and kind of make peace with, you know, having compromised with people that we don't necessarily like, but who are prepared.
	Of course.
	No, no.
	Of course not.
	Of course, there are red lights.
	It's not the...
	If you can't...
	Yeah, that's what I mean.
	Yeah, that's so right.
	And again, if your principle is either 100% or nothing at all, then you're going to get nothing at all, unfortunately.
	Whereas if your principle is, we'll take 50% to begin with, if that means making some compromises, I take that.
	If we get 50% of what we want, we will be in a damn sight better place than we are now.
	Oh, absolutely.
	God.
	Well, just one more thing on that point as well.
	It's just that as regards to Hamification's point about them having too much historical baggage, that is true.
	And it's undoubtedly the place of part of the reason why the Tories are failing now under Kemi, even though Kemi's the last thing that they need in every conceivable way to do better.
	And perhaps the membership and the MPs should have been smarter in that for their own sense of self-preservation, if nothing else.
	But if a leader were to come into a Tory party with a dynamic view of change and the public were to see the change happening in the party.
	A genuine clean break with the party.
	You can see it happening before your eyes.
	Much in the same way, it's not entirely a comparison, but in the way that Kiostama changed Labour after Corbyn.
	People knew it just wasn't the same party anymore.
	And people follow up on that.
	They notice when things are what they once were against what they are now.
	Yeah.
	But that is the way our system works.
	People forget this.
	But the two parties, Labour and Conservative, have both undergone substantial transformations.
	Even as recently as New Labour.
	New Labour is an example of this.
	What is needed now, one option that we have, is something like the new Conservatives.
	I wouldn't call it that.
	After four elections of defeat.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I mean, hopefully it doesn't take that long because we will be screwed if it does.
	No, no, I'm not saying that.
	I'm just saying that, but eventually the public...
	And again, this is the thing.
	In terms of responding to incentives, if the Conservative Party get desperate enough, this will happen.
	Because they're not stupid.
	As much as they might be, you know, as much as there might be people in their ranks who don't have the best interests of the country at heart, they aren't stupid.
	They're savvy political operators.
	They wouldn't be the most successful party in the world if they weren't, right?
	Right.
	Okay.
	Let's go to the video comments then.
	Thank you.
	Recently, I was speaking with a friend whose entire family is in the Canadian education system.
	And beyond the usual issues you expect with the diversity, he told me about some Syrian refugees with genuine shell shocks so bad, every time the period bell went off, they'd have genuine panic attacks, starting to tip over desks to make makeshift cover.
	And also interestingly, the Ukrainian refugees we took come from such a low-trust society, they just form cartels and bully all the white kids.
	And are otherwise such genuine white supremacists, they essentially engage in racial conflict with everyone else.
	Can you imagine growing up under these conditions?
	I'm turning 30 this month, and above all, it really stood out to me that people my age are most likely the last to ever know normalcy.
	Quiet.
	Well, happy birthday for them, of course.
	Happy birthday.
	And who knows, perhaps those Ukrainian refugees will be giving spicy speeches in the Canadian Parliament, which is historically happened recently.
	This should be a Radio Junior video.
	Thank you.
	When we say that Kemi Baudenark enjoys doom scrolling, I don't even think this is the sort of stuff he watches, to be honest.
	No.
	Ah, goodness.
	UK.
	You need to have a level of cringe.
	Of love of cringe to watch videos like these.
	You see, my love of cringe is very, very particular.
	Very, very particular.
	It's not that.
	No, it's not that.
	It's like Peep Show and Alan Partridge.
	That's my love of cringe.
	Okay, so just some comments from my segment.
	Omar Rawad says, I haven't verified this at all, but I seen a post that the hotel owner is of a certain maybe and living in Austria to avoid tax.
	If so, not only is he rinsing the taxpayer and Ruining our country for profit, he's not even paying the government for the privilege.
	Well, I didn't include it in the segment, but I did see an article from last year, in fact, talking about the terrible reputation of the Britannia Hotels.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	You know, four-star or not, they weren't very well regarded.
	I also didn't mention it in the segment, but apparently, and truth be told again, I can't see how it would be any other way.
	But all the staff who, of course, worked at the Britannia Hotel have been sacked as well.
	It's so weird, that part of it.
	Like, what are they trying to do?
	I mean, they're obviously trying to cover it up.
	Yeah.
	Like a stalvanistic purge to stop the secret getting out, which it did the next day.
	Great.
	Jimbo G says, I used to work in the Britannia Hotel, and it was shockingly poor.
	Well, that would align with what I just said.
	Even by bad hotel standards, the management has run it into the ground.
	I imagine the black hole of taxpayer money they will be getting for the migrants will keep it secure and afloat.
	Oh, this is the most disgusting thing about the whole illegal immigration thing is it's a money business.
	People can make a huge.
	I mean, there's that guy.
	I can't remember his name off the top of my head.
	This hotel tycoon character who's a billionaire, almost purely off of this, you know, this trait.
	Oh, it made me sick.
	Okay.
	Speaking of managers, I think that this is one of the best ways of persuading ex-leftists to start thinking in less commy terms is to talk to them about managers.
	And especially, because in the communist view, in Marxism, for instance, managers are just doing nothing.
	But talk to them and show them how do bad managers destroy their weekly lives and how good managers can reverse this.
	And they have your attention.
	Well, I remember a segment you did recently, Charlie, about the five Marxist reasons against mass immigration.
	And of course, they're perfectly salient points.
	But as to your points, Delios, I just wonder whether or not if you were to have this argument with them, their hatred of managers and the rich would be put above their self-loathing themselves.
	It wouldn't work in a debate.
	It wouldn't work in a debate because that's where the factor of the audience would be present.
	on a one-to-one conversation.
	Yes.
	It's easier for them to accept this.
	Yeah.
	We've got a man of Kent saying, Staios, the second chair in the hotel is for the...
	Ha ha ha ha!
	Thank you very much.
	I'll leave that one there.
	Glad I caught myself.
	I'm clearly learning.
	And Zesty King says, the Epping protests could be solved by simply...
	Ah, so much.
	Yes, Bonnie Blue into the hotel.
	Should need more than two chairs.
	Oh, my God.
	That room would need more than two chairs.
	Wonderful to have you back, Stelios.
	Wonderful to have you back.
	All right, do you want to go through some comments for your segment?
	Yes, of course.
	They're not going to be about Bonnie Blue.
	Let's hope not.
	And don't make them about Bonnie Blue.
	Go on then.
	Right, so Fazzy Toaster says, Medi is the kind of person to make a mistake if you get them flustered about something.
	He really isn't the kind of person to be doing what he does, which is why this thing was manufactured.
	Yeah.
	And this, I mean, I don't know to what extent it was.
	I'm willing to, And the casting thing, I actually didn't show it live, but it's very suspicious.
	I don't know, Samson, could we pull out the second segment, the third link?
	So if we go on the third link, it says we're currently casting, and look at the person who casts.
	That doesn't exactly scream trust.
	It actually gives different, it raises different connotations.
	Let's say.
	Right, okay.
	So White Ryder says, leftists are the biggest followers of the Schmidtian friend-enemy distinction.
	We don't need to have the same political views to be friends is only ever said by right-wing people.
	If anything, the right need to follow the friend-enemy distinction to the same degree.
	If the left want to ostracize everyone else that doesn't believe in their ideology, we should acquiesce and allow them to be alone.
	I do find it quite frustrating the way that people on the right now, now that everyone's discovered Carl Schmidt, everyone just like references him in every single conversation.
	It's like, well, actually, friend enemy, friend, enemy, friend, enemy.
	And it's like, yeah, it's a useful conceptual framework, but it's not the answer to everything.
	But also, notice how ungrammatical, in ungrammatical ways they speak when they mention it lots of the times.
	But also, you know, I think everyone follows it.
	And that's where the abstract aspect of Schmidt points.
	It's just, you know, I think, by the way, some people are incredibly trigger-happy to name almost everyone an enemy.
	Others are incredibly stupid to name almost everyone a friend.
	Quite right.
	No, but I've been guilty of doing the exact thing that I just said.
	I was on Talk TV on one occasion and I said, well, Carl Schmidt talks about this thing called the friend-enemy distinction.
	And the host was just like, what?
	And the right way to kind of use it is to internalize it.
	You don't have to reference it all the time.
	You just have to recognize that it's true.
	I mean, there are all sorts of things that come with it.
	So, for instance, in some cases, Schmidt was saying that the rivalry between friends and enemies takes the form of killing each other on the streets.
	That's obviously something I don't like.
	But that we can abstract several aspects of this from the more abstract point that he makes, which I don't think most people would disagree with.
	The issue is temperamental, with how trigger-happy are you to name one an enemy?
	How stupid are you to name almost the entire world a friend, even if the world says that they hate you?
	It is.
	Just what we are.
	Yeah.
	Derek Power, master of chippies.
	I like this.
	I think the fundamental flaw with these kinds of debates is they use the Hegelian dialectic.
	If they were using the classic dialectic, that will be much better.
	Yeah.
	Play stupid game.
	Also, Derek Power plays stupid games, win stupid prizes, and in the end, nothing ever happens.
	Wink.
	First day back.
	It really is your first day back.
	Yeah.
	Roman Observer says, if you want to be edgy and hardcore, far right, don't go for I'm a Nazi, which is a leftist framing.
	Say, I want a full-on Catholic theocracy.
	Yeah, based.
	so if we live I you know it's like they're saying I what Forget this happened.
	Forget this happened.
	I had a blank.
	One of my Joe Biden moments.
	You know, when I started, I had these blank moments.
	You know, the thing.
	Yeah, what was I going to say?
	Anyway, I had one of those.
	Right.
	And Sophie Liv, I'm going to be extra careful with your comment, Sophie.
	Man Stellios.
	I felt my brain licking out of my ears.
	Why would you do this?
	Why would I not?
	Why not?
	Why the hell not?
	Right, how long have we got?
	Five minutes.
	I will go through some of my comments.
	So Zesty King says, something else to note is that Kemi Badenock's husband, Hamish, has links to the World Economic Forum.
	Yeah, Hamish Badenock's an interesting character because he's another one of these people who exerts quite a lot of control over the Conservative Party.
	And I wasn't aware.
	I mean, I'm not surprised that he has links to the WEF.
	I wasn't aware of that beforehand.
	But he's another one of these.
	I mean, my impression of him from what I know and from what people who know that kind of faction have said is that he's, yeah, a big part of the problem.
	White Ryder says, most of us are still classical liberals.
	There's just a bigger fight and classical liberalism is not fit for that purpose.
	Classical liberalism only works in a homogenous society.
	I'll be happy to be one again when appropriate.
	Yeah, obviously true.
	I mean, I'm far from the first person to say this, but classical liberalism is just the codification of English life, basically.
	You know, English habits.
	We should have a discussion about it at some point.
	Not a debate necessarily, but I think Go.
	No, no, wait.
	Nazi Stellius?
	No.
	No, we should do that.
	That'd be fun.
	I think it would be a good idea at some point.
	Daniel Rowan says, it makes me think that reform dumping Rupert, putting him outside of the party system, may actually have done more.
	It's funny how things go.
	I mean, yeah, that is the case.
	I mean, Rupert has a lot more freedom now as an independent, which again is why we didn't start a new party.
	As an independent, he doesn't answer to anybody apart from his constituents.
	And so he's uniquely positioned to say things that other people can't say, aren't permitted to say, to sort of act as this kind of far more nimble, like free agent who can attack different issues in a far more agile way than an entire hulking party can.
	And again, that's the utility.
	And by the way, James McMurdo.
	I was about to come to that, he is now an independent as well.
	And, well, he is beginning to signal certain things.
	I mean, he said yesterday that the only two issues that matter right now are mass deportations and shrinking the state, which is brilliant.
	And again, again, I can't help but think that if he'd said that when he was in reform, he probably wouldn't have.
	Well, that's the point.
	He didn't say that in reform, did he?
	Exactly.
	No, James McMurdoch is a very good man.
	And I want to see him become more sort of in the public eye and more active.
	James McMeeking.
	How weird.
	The correct way to engage with the forces of chaos is with an armor of contempt.
	Don't embrace nor fear them, nor fear their accusations.
	And yeah, that is right.
	Like when you confront these people who just debate you in a really dishonest fashion, you don't buy into their game.
	You just say like, no, just wrong.
	And I'm not going to go down this way.
	Don't allow the brains of God.
	You know, trapping 101 in debate is frame your opponent.
	Just don't allow your opponent to frame you.
	Yeah.
	Well, this is what, you know, that recent clip from LBC with Ian Dale, where he accused that woman of being a dinosaur.
	You're the dinosaur.
	Right.
	And he's totally ignorant to her.
	So like, Ian, we've been living in the world of men like you our entire lives.
	And you are the one that's out of date.
	LBC is like the prime example of this because it's set up in such a way, and this is the case for in-guest studios as well, as I have been in the past, where the host is like behind this big desk and they've got all screens and headphones on and they've got producers whispering in their ear and giving them statistics and doing research for them.
	And then either as a guest or as a caller, I mean, even more so if you're just a normal person calling in, you are at this sort of structural disadvantage where you're just a person talking and they are actually, what you're actually talking to is the gallery who are doing research, who are pulling up statistics.
	You've got screens in front of you and all this sort of thing.
	And so it's set up to make the interlocutor look like a fool.
	And it's designed to create these clips, which they think make them look good, where Ian Dale is saying, oh, you sound like a dinosaur.
	When actually he is the out-of-touch one in the room.
	Indeed.
	There's just one question here for you as we wrap up, Charlie.
	For Charlie, is there anything we in the United States can do to support Restore Britain?
	Yeah, well, I believe that we are accepting memberships from overseas if you care about the future of Britain.
	If perhaps you are an expat or you have ancestry in this country, you're welcome to join.
	I don't know if that's going to continue to be the case.
	I'm not totally sure on that because there have been conversations about that.
	But no, I mean, follow us on X, engage with our stuff, send us some cash.
	I mean, that doesn't hurt.
	And yeah, just support us.
	And if there's anybody that, yeah, if you've got British friends who live in the United Kingdom, tell them about us and encourage them to join as well.
	All right.
	Well, Charlie, thank you for coming in today.
	Thanks, chaps.
	Always a pleasure.
	Guesting and Stelios, good to have you back.
	All right.
	We'll see you at 1 p.m. for the podcast tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen.

▲