All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 18, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:32:07
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1232
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Who are the men that pick for scraps amongst the ruins of the end of history?
You should know, because you encounter them every day.
Between the towering buildings of a fallen empire, we find the Felahin, the historyless men, who know nothing of the turning of the cosmic wheel and find themselves outside of civilization itself.
Cut loose from the great chain of being.
They represent the loan into which our dying culture will return.
That is, unless we choose to take up the burden once again.
This Felahen condition is the subject we explore in issue 4 of Island magazine.
On sale while stocks last and available worldwide at shop.loadseaters.com.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the podcast of the Load Seaters for Monday, the 18th of August, 2025.
I'm joined by Stelios and Charlie Downs.
That was coming in, Charlie.
How are you?
Great to be here, as always.
I'm very well.
Yourself?
Very, very well.
Warm for some reason today.
It's not even warm actually.
Actually, cooled off.
Yeah, I know.
It's really quite cool.
And yeah, I'm personally feeling very hot.
How are you doing, Stelios?
I'm really well.
Yeah.
Should we saw it?
Well, we will in a minute because we're going to be talking about how Ricky Jones got away with it, which of course he did.
Of course, he did.
If you're a labor counselor, you can call for people to have their throats slit, and that'd be fine.
If you were right-wing, don't say anything on the internet.
How an illegal immigrant in America killed three people and didn't care.
Just had no impact on him at all.
Sleep like a baby that night, unfortunately.
And how Generation Z is resurrecting God.
Much to, well, I mean, obviously, this is Nietzsche's going to be very happy about this, really.
This is always the thing.
Everyone thinks, oh, Nietzsche was in favor of the death of God.
No, it was a tragedy.
It was a terrible thing that happened.
But apparently they're going back to church, which is nice and it needs to be done.
Anyway, right, let's begin.
So last week we encountered a very bad verdict.
I would say it's a very nonsensical and unjust verdict, according to which Labour counselor Ricky Jones was found not guilty.
So basically he got away with it.
Now, who was and who is Labour counselor Ricky Jones?
About a year ago, he was in a protest, in a counter-protest in Waltham Stowe, where he was speaking against the riots as well as other protests about the Southport murders.
Yeah, this was directly in the wake of the Southport riots.
Exactly.
A very high-tension, very rowdy time.
And this was the counter-protest, as you can see, being funded, at least in part, by the Communist Worker, the Socialist Workers' Party.
Exactly.
And he was a labor counselor in Dartford in Kent.
He went there to this counter-pro protest in Waltham Stowe.
I think it's the north, towards the north of London.
And he led this chant before he led the Free, Free Palestine chant, which doesn't seem to me particularly pertinent to the Southport murders.
It seemed to me to be unrelated.
It's an omni-course thing, isn't it?
It's just when everything is just packaged together.
Yeah, it's everything, just everything at once.
They're probably calling for climate justice immediately afterwards.
Yes, exactly.
And Amnesty International there.
This lady there was cheering.
So before he led the Free, Free Palestine chant, he essentially incited people to violence.
And we are going to play this.
If that's not incitement to violence, I don't know what is.
This seems to be an exhortation to engage in violent acts.
And we're going to play this for YouTube purposes.
Obviously, I'm going to say I'm not in favor of it.
But let's play it.
That's the one finger as well.
Yeah.
Pointing to the throat.
Oh, yeah, I mean.
Yeah, yeah, this whole thing.
I saw the BBC coverage where they're like, well, he drew his thumb across his throat.
And it's like, but he did also say we need to cut the throats of this fascist and throw them out.
By the way, it does say on that placard there, that professionally produced printed placard.
It says socialist workers party.
It says smash fascism and racism by any means necessary.
And so they are telling you who they are.
And those means are violence.
Yeah, I mean, I personally enjoyed the little white women who are just like, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You saw that woman, like, directly on his right.
She did go a bit like, oh, when they said the cut the throat, she was like, yeah.
She was elated.
Yeah.
It's all a bit of fun for these.
It was a religious experience for her.
Yeah.
But I mean, I don't know how that's not incitement.
Like, we need to cut the throats of these people and throw them out.
Okay, well, I mean, I would consider that.
I've never called for cutting the throats of anyone.
I would think that I was inciting if I was.
But he got away with it.
Yeah.
Can we talk about the omni-cause very quickly, if we can go back a second?
Just because I find this to be one of the really interesting things, how they happen to be on the same team for absolutely everything.
Yeah, right.
I mean, you can see here: socialist workers smash fascism, racism, by any means necessary.
Free, free Palestine.
And then I know what their opinions are on climate change, abortion, abortion, veganism.
You know, I know what their opinions are on everything because notice that their entire worldview is anti-the West.
And I mean that, like, genuinely, like, all of the pillars that make the West strong, as in, you know, free speech, political rights, you know, anything that we consider natural and normal to a healthy society, they're completely against.
Yeah.
But if you look at you look at the makeup of this crowd, look at the faces around this Ricky Jones character, and it's all, you know, from the looks of it, middle-class white people.
Because Walthamstow, I've spent some time in Walthamstow, and it's one of these areas of London that is very, at once very diverse.
And you have like, you know, halal butchers and Eritrean fast food shops, and then you have like hyper-liberal white people.
And also, let us not forget that when he's talking about Nazi fascists, he is talking about people who disagree with all these demands because we know that the establishment is using these words very liberally.
They're doing it to even describe policies they were advocating five, ten years ago.
Maybe 10, 15.
Yeah.
Right.
So we have this article here from the BBC.
He said that he spoke in the heat of the moment.
I mean, like the song goes.
It was the heat of the moment.
I guess he did.
He was in the middle of trying to encourage a crowd to go and cut the throats of fascists.
Right.
That is the heat of the moment.
He was suspended by the Labour Party the day after the alleged incident.
Look at this framework.
Even the BBC, a labor counselor who called for far-right protesters' throats to be cut.
So we're just conceding that there definitely are far-right protesters, right?
Yeah.
But we're also conceding that he definitely did it as well.
Yeah, well, quite right.
So he pleaded not guilty.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, if I have this video, if I'm watching this video and someone pleads not guilty, that's even a reason on its own to increase their punishment and their sentence.
It's not a reason to let them away because it means that there is zero remorse.
There's zero remorse.
Right.
So what they did also was that he said that the comments were made in the heat of the moment.
He denied encouraging violence, violent disorder.
I mean, the party asks you to disbelieve your own eyes.
Yeah, of course.
We've just got a different interpretation of what cutting throats means.
Yeah, maybe, I don't know, while I was talking, but also curious how it was an isolated incident.
Oh, yeah.
So it wasn't an indication of any such thing as far-leftist extremism, such as there would be in other cases where any mild criticism of the establishment is immediately credited or blamed upon a far-right epidemic.
That was neurodivergent challenges.
Oh, well, I mean, he's mentally impaired.
Yeah.
And how exactly can he be expected to be a counselor or anything like this?
Always makes me laugh this, by the way, because what they're basically saying there is like, oh, no, don't worry.
He was, it's fine that he called for people's throats to be cut because he's insane.
Yes.
Yeah, no, no.
But this is an excuse they use constantly when it's some migrant who commits a terrible crime.
Oh, he can't be sent to jail.
Why?
Because he's mental.
Yeah.
It's like, well, why is he on the streets?
Yeah.
Because we don't have any asylums anymore.
That's why.
Bye.
Off you go.
Yeah, well, that's how we have cards and knives with mental illnesses across the West.
It gives new meaning to the terms.
So I say here, the agreed facts read by Mr. Holt, who was the prosecutor, stated the experts agree that these challenges may contribute to impulsive verbal responses in emotionally charged situations.
Well, if I'm ever in court, I'm going to use this as my defense.
I suffer from a number of neurodivergent challenges.
I'm autistic.
And this contributes to impulsive verbal responses when I'm in emotionally charged situations like being on trial.
But also, you need to add something to it.
Something that you need to add is that these challenges can impair his ability to plan responses and inhibit inappropriate remarks.
So you're never guilty of hate speech.
Okay, that's all.
Why did the crowd cheer?
Why did the crowd cheer?
Yeah.
You know, why weren't they like, oh, right, this guy's mental.
He's genuinely insane.
And this is just an emotionally charged situation where he's making inappropriate remarks.
No, they were all like, yeah, bravo, we do need to do that.
Right?
It's so unbelievable in the context of the thing.
And is there no reasons they cheered?
Yeah, and it's over-determination.
It would still be the same outcome if one either of them was absent.
It's one is they agree with it, the other is they're they're literally programmed to be tribal.
Well, I was just going to say, I mean, I don't know what the legal landscape is in terms of this sort of area, but all of those people's faces are on video cheering and cheering on calls for violence.
Is there no sort of legal proceedings that could be brought against them?
No, apparently not.
Right.
So, there are rumors about how much the court case lasted, how much the jury trial lasted, that range from between seven to thirty minutes.
Now, he was given the following legal advice: plead not guilty.
Why?
Because the whole thing was supposed to establish whether there was the criminal intent, what is called in Latin mens re, according to which it has to be present in order for someone to be pronounced guilty for a verdict to say that it's this person is guilty.
And essentially, they said that we're going to have a jury trial, we're going to have 12 jurors that are going to be selected randomly, yes, randomly from his local community.
I know that's that's what it says: that jurors are supposed to be chosen randomly, and it lasted around seven to thirty minutes.
That's what the reports are saying.
And imagine that seven minutes, yeah, yeah.
I mean, to be fair, it is pretty cut and dry.
Well, yeah, I mean, if it was a conviction, then yeah, it would have been cut and dry, but after seven minutes, like, no, he's not guilty.
It's like, really, really, okay.
Also, there have been extra rumors going around about the let's say the diverse nature of the jurors.
Um, they haven't been confirmed yet, that's why I'm not gonna show anything.
But there have been concerns about who was part of the jury.
I have seen people saying that something like half the jury was uh diverse.
Yes, um, I Dartford is a very diverse place.
Well, I was going to say, yeah, it is a very diverse place, so it would probably be virtually impossible not to have a diverse jury.
Um, and that then leads on to further questions of okay, what does a jury of my peers actually mean in a multicultural society?
Because I mean, like, if this was in Lebanon or something, and you got a jury full of uh people of a different religion to you, if you were, say, like for us Druze or Christian, and you got a jury of Muslims, you'd be like, Well, these aren't my peers, uh, and I don't really consider there to be a collective we between us and the diversity.
So, are they my peers?
Uh, and I saw Lawrence Fox posting about this quite quite hard actually.
He was like, Look, basically, we've got a right to have a jury of white men, yeah.
And it's like, well, kind of, yeah, like you know, if there's going to be this kind of post-liberal ethnic voting block politics, that's what it will end up having to come down to.
I have said that the institution of jury trial is an important one, and I'm going to abstain from denying counter-signaling you.
I'm going to add another bit to the mix.
But I just want to be clear: like, the assumption that underpins a jury trial is that these people don't have an intrinsic ethnic animus against you.
Yeah, and that's the assumption.
What I wanted to say was like the issue with the jury trial is that you are appealing to, in a sense, your people, because your people have your culture and they can judge better whether what you're doing in your own culture constitutes an offense or not.
And if it is, to what extent, what's the degree of your culpability, which poses several problems for multicultural random jury picking because you don't know what culture they are from, and you don't know to what extent they are sharing your common values.
I mean, even now, British culture is still a lot more genteel than many of the cultures these people are coming from.
And so, calling for people's throats to be slit, well, that might be quite normal in Uganda or wherever, you know, but it's not normal here.
Yeah, well, I've had this conversation with my good friend and colleague Harrison Pitt in the past about how in a diverse society, you know, well, essentially, the ethnic and the racial precede the political, right?
And the political can only really take place in an ethnically homogenous society.
Because when you have an ethnically diverse society, politics becomes I wouldn't say the political precedes it because no, the political is always going to happen, it's the character of the political.
That's about setting up the hit.
You imagine this jury, uh, sort of you know, you imagine an England that is you know, uh, majority English, super majority English, right?
Um, 95 plus percent.
In that sort of situation, the ethnic in-group preference of the English for an English perpetrator or accused wouldn't really come through because everyone is English.
Whereas in a diverse society, like in this situation, for example, the ethnic preference of the jurors for the accused may come through in their decision.
And it likely has done, given this.
I mean, the best example of this, the O.J. Simpson trial.
Like, sorry, some of the jurors came out years after the event and said, yeah, no, I voted for acquittal because he was black.
It's literally that simple.
And the thing is, like, we don't understand just how clannish foreign cultures are.
I had a Greek friend, and not you, Stellios, but I had a Greek friend who I was having a conversation with him a few years ago.
I was like, look, if your cousin stole a car, would you tell the police?
And he was like, no.
And I was like, right, there we go.
That's why we have the culture we have and you guys don't.
Sorry, it's just that simple.
We are very particular about this sort of thing.
And our clan is the entire country is basically what it comes down to.
And your clan is absolutely not.
Your clan is a very small group of people that look out for each other.
So it's like, look, man, we've got a bunch of people here who are just not fit for jury trials.
That's the point.
I mean, that is the character our politics has now, you know, and it perverts the course of justice.
It's moving into this mould.
And also because we're talking about a multicultural society that imports millions of people from outside.
When you're importing people from the entire world, you're also importing the conflicts of the world.
So it seems like, in this case, the conflicts of the world that have nothing to do with Britain post-Southport riots and demonstration in August 2024, when this exhortation and incitement to violence took place, it seems like they played a part in the jury decision.
Yeah.
I mean, like, politically, it's going to be self-evident that that area is going to be highly labor-centric, right?
They're going to have a certain political bias because these are the client groups that Labor not only brought in, but have been cultivating with donations, with handouts.
And so, okay, so you've got a labor counselor who is yelling, free, free Palestine, kill all the fascists.
If you've got a bunch of die-hard labor voting people on the jury, well, I mean, obviously I support him.
Obviously, I don't think he's guilty.
I mean, why wouldn't I think that?
Yeah, you know?
Right.
So we have this article here from GovUK understanding the jury process.
And I'm not going to read all of it, but what I want to focus on is the last bit, a fairer society.
The role of jury trials remains integral to the justice system and reflects a commitment to fairness and accountability that dates back centuries.
As if this is just universal.
This is baked into the fabric of the universe and not the direct product of the English experience of political life.
The core principle remains, a diverse group of individuals randomly selected coming together to consider evidence and reach a verdict.
So if you receive a summons through the post, you're not merely fulfilling an obligation.
It's an opportunity to contribute to the collective pursuit of justice and ensure a fair society for all.
To be fair, right, in an ethnically homogenous society, you do want a diverse jury.
You do want a pass guy.
You want a butcher, you want a hedge fund manager, you want that kind of diversity.
You want it to be a random sampling of the population.
But the problem is, like, the collective pursuit of justice and a fair society for all means different things to different kinds of people.
If the collective pursuit of justice means the black guy always gets off because I am black, then we just don't have the same standard and we can't operate in the same way.
We are never going to agree on this.
Right.
And there has been debate about whether this was a case of two-tier justice.
My view, let me just tell you in a nutshell, it absolutely is a case of two-tier justice.
Now, let me give you some examples of people who disagree with it.
One is Jacob Rees-Mogg, who says this is self-evidently not an example of two-tier justice, as this counselor was cleared by a jury.
Oh, holy jury.
Lucy Connolly offered a guilty plea, so did not have a jury trial, although she probably could have done had she pleaded not guilty.
Now, this is totally mistaken and misleading.
Number one, Lucy Connolly is not the only person who has been prosecuted for this.
So just by Jacob Reese Mogg showing that there have been differences between Connolly's case and Ricky Jones' case, it's not enough to show and infer from this that this wasn't a two-tier justice.
This is, sorry, just this sophism.
There's no other way of putting it.
This is misleading reasoning.
But so many conservatives of a certain age, they do have this faith, this unshakable faith in process and institution, which is totally outdated.
I will say...
Sorry, just the thing.
But that's the thing, isn't it?
When Jacob Rees-Mogg was young, the country was 95% English.
And so he could look at the idea of the jury trial and go, no, this is actually a great English institution that we can put faith in because the general Englishman, the average Englishman in his day, was a very level-headed, sensible chap who didn't particularly have a bias one way or another about you.
I mean, most, I mean, even back like 20 years ago, people were just not as political in the way that they are now.
They weren't as connected as they are now.
You know, you can reasonably assume that the guy didn't know that much about politics, right?
So he was like, okay, well, what did he do?
What were the behaviors that informed him?
Right.
And so this is something what is clear by a jury, as if the jury itself is beyond reproach.
Yes.
I'm sorry, that's just not the case.
But moreover, the advice that these two different people were given would have been a different nature because of the kinds of things that they were engaged in.
A labor counselor, oh, well, you know, protest, plead not guilty, blah, blah, blah.
Lucy Connolly probably had no interaction with the courts up until this point.
Advised by a state-appointed solicitor, just plead guilty and you'll get a light sentence.
Pleaded guilty, got the absolute hammering.
Whereas there was the Welsh former Marine, I think it was, who's like, I'm not guilty and I'm not pleading guilty.
And he got off.
Because jury of his peers from Wales, instantly, were like, well, obviously that's not an incitement to violence.
But that's, I mean, this is the flaw in, I mean, among many in this mindset, which is you plug into that the idea that Englishness is an idea or a costume that anybody from that web can put on.
And yeah, jury, you know, it is beyond reproach.
It still works.
And this is therefore not an example of two-tier justice, which is obviously.
I'm sure if this was in Devon, then yeah, it'd be fine.
I would agree with you, Jacob Reesmog.
The Rash had the top comment.
Oh, yeah.
The top replies.
He says Connolly wasn't allowed bail, was pressured into a guilty verdict, including by her solicitor, had an expedited trial and faced stiffer charges.
Her devastating, extenuating circumstances were ignored.
Jones claimed he was too daft not to know that calling to cut people's throats was wrong and this was accepted by the judge and jury.
He faced none of the pressures applied to Connolly.
The difference in their treatment is a direct result of their race and political affiliations.
I want to say to Charlie what you said before, I don't think a focus on process is outdated and it won't be outdated.
What is interesting here is also that there is a persistent attempt by people like Jacob Reesmog and some other people to hide behind legalisms.
And that ignores not the process side of justice, but the substantive bit of it.
which has to do with the...
It's kind of like a wet blanket for conservatives, right?
Yes.
Like they kind of, oh, this is a really thorny issue, but oh, thank God the jury have decided.
Therefore, I don't need to think about this in any way to get out.
Exactly.
Because you are right.
The process is genuinely important, but it's not infallible.
Look at how the left is talking when they are talking about jury decisions when they are in trouble.
They always say, well, it may be just on the individual level, but it's not just as far as the common good is concerned.
But there's also the other bit that people like Chris Mogg and his people who agree with him on this, they're constantly trying to say that these two cases are different, which is absolutely misleading.
Of course, they are different.
Every case from a legal perspective is somewhat different.
But there are other differences as well that needed to be taken account, such as Ricky Jones didn't end his incitement to violence with for all I care.
Yeah.
Like the thing is one difference.
Lucy Connolly made a Facebook post, wasn't it?
It probably was seen by like a dozen people.
Like there's probably hardly anyone that saw it.
And then she deleted it shortly afterwards.
We can see the people that Ricky Jones was inciting.
They were cheering.
They were being incited by him.
So it is very different.
His is clearly far worse.
It is far worse.
I think people did see her post before she.
Yeah, she did.
People did see her.
I'm sure a small number of people will have seen it, but you can't prove that anyone was incited by that because you don't know who saw it.
You don't know what they were thinking when they saw it or anything like that.
But with Ricky Jones, we've got the video.
We saw him exactly.
His rhetoric is far worse.
His rhetoric is far worse.
The consequences of his rhetoric are worse.
We saw them cheering for it.
Everyone who saw Lucy Connolly's post could have been like, no, that's wrong, Lucy.
How dare you?
You don't know anything about their responses, but we know the responses from his.
Yes, and we have this from Prospect Magazine understanding the Lucy Connolly sentence.
As they're saying, Connolly was arrested twice and interviewed and was charged under section 19, clause one of the Public Order Act 19.
Oh, it was a tweet.
I thought it was a Facebook post.
Provides a person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, is guilty of an offense if they intend thereby to steer up racial hatred or having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be steered up thereby.
She was sentenced on the grounds of a forward-looking consideration, which is the political decision to send the message across that this is harmful and we're not going to take it.
The same consideration didn't apply on his case.
The jurors didn't appeal to that consideration.
They appealed to a completely backwards-looking consideration, such as what was his state when he did it, and not only appealed to a backwards-looking, because sometimes I'm also in favor of retributive justice, very much in favor of retributive justice, but they inverted it, right?
And they started focusing on how to be soft on this person and how to focus on mitigating factors that absorb him or diminish his moral culpability and allegedly establish that he had no criminal intention.
It's crazy as well because he's a labor counselor.
So he is a political agent.
He holds an elected office.
I mean, I would have thought that would come.
I mean, if the charisma of the office is anything to go by, Lucy Connolly was just a person posting on Twitter.
She wasn't elected to anything.
She doesn't have anyone who looks up to her with respect or with any kind of authority.
Whereas he does.
So shouldn't he be, shouldn't that be a mitigating factor?
Shouldn't that be a problem?
And no one mentioned of stressful conditions and impulsive behavior that could, under circumstances, be seen as speaking in the heat of the moment, as they have been saying for him.
So he got away with it with it.
Of course he did.
Dragon Lady Chris says, hello again, Charlie.
Since Luca has officially joined the lads, you've been promoted to the number one spot on my favorite guests.
Congratulations.
Wow, there we go.
A jury of 12 randomly hand-picked left-wing activists.
The thing is, you don't even need left-wing activists to be hand-picked.
You can just randomly pick from a selection of diverse people who weren't here in the country five years ago.
And, well, the results you get.
The term neurodivergent seems to describe people who have never heard of the snap of dad's belt as a child.
Now, the thing is, right, this guy obviously knew what he was doing, and he obviously was just like, right, okay, how can I get out of this?
And the lawyer was like, well, if you claim that you're basically mental, they'll let you off because they're going to be assaulted.
I do have to just bring it up again.
It's just so mad that the response to somebody being like mentally unwell and calling for violence, as happened in this case, the response is to let them off free.
As if them, you know, as if that doesn't make them more of a threat.
We do this all the time with people who actually do physical harm to others.
And they go, oh, well, he's from Somalia, so what do you expect?
And it's like, well, I mean, we send him back.
I mean, why is he still here?
It's like, no, we're going to say he did nothing wrong, just let him off, community order or something.
And then he's just free to carry on wandering around.
Just mental.
Logan says, I'd like to imagine the Dark Lord pulling his hair at the obvious scapegoat being thrown away.
He must have given Kier Starmer an earful.
I think that rumors of the Dark Lord's ability to control the Labour government are vastly avastating.
Anyway, right, so illegal immigrants are actually generally quite dangerous to have in your country for lots of different reasons.
First being, you don't know who they are.
So you don't know what their prior criminal record is.
And if you're someone who has been either alleged or convicted of a crime in a foreign country, it's entirely in your interest to get out of that country.
And also, there's only one reason that you would come to Britain or indeed the USA illegally when it's so easy, as in the case of our country, to come legally.
And that's because you don't want your name on the books.
That's because you don't want the authorities knowing who you are.
Yeah, you don't want to pay taxes.
You don't want them to be able to come and get you if you're accused of a crime.
You want to operate in the dark.
Yeah.
And I'm sorry.
They have special treatment in some cases.
You could hit it.
Yeah.
You could live a luxury life in hotels.
Yeah, by taxpayers.
In the case of Britain and in some parts of America, you can indeed get a kind of luxury life paid for by the taxpayers.
But the point is, you're doing it because you fundamentally do not respect the country or the people in the country.
And what you are doing, therefore, and this is in every single case, is you are coming to take advantage of those people.
And taking advantage of those people indicates a certain kind of mindset.
It indicates that actually you don't really care about those people.
You don't really care about the standards, the country, the mindset, the work of generations that went into building it up.
And you are there thinking, right, okay, I'm going to get as much as I can out of this while I can.
And then when something goes terribly wrong, we can see that they don't care.
Now, we've got loads of examples in Britain.
We're going to talk about an example in America.
But we've got loads of examples in Britain of migrants in hotels who are just taking the piss completely.
Just constantly pouring scorn on the British who are currently protesting everywhere about this.
But this is an example from the United States where, and I'm going to play it because you can't see anything terrible, thankfully.
But this is an accident caused by an illegal immigrant.
For anyone listening, not watching, so this truck driver decides in the middle of a motorway with a giant lorry that he's driving, he's going to try and do, I know, a three-point turn.
And so obviously his gargantuan truck just turns to block the entire sort of three lanes, four lanes, however many it is.
We can see it there.
So there's nowhere else for cars to go.
Now, if you're speeding down there at like 70 miles an hour or whatever it is, actually it's quite difficult to slow that down enough.
And a car smashed straight into it and three people died.
And that's terrible.
Absolutely terrible.
Now, people couldn't help but notice that this guy directly after the crash had absolutely no emotion on his face whatsoever.
Didn't seem to care in the slightest.
This seemed to him just to be an inconvenience.
Oh dear, that's a shame.
This is generally something that I personally don't care that much about.
Like no remorse, no like shock.
And it's like, okay, well, this is the problem, isn't it?
Yeah.
I mean, the thing is, I mean, I don't know what the law is in America, but in Britain, if you have a driving license from a foreign country, you are allowed to come here and just drive.
And I think you have to have a learner plate on your car.
But I mean, still, that's insane.
Like, the idea that countries where there is zero driving license infrastructure, where there's no real process or standard.
And this is the outcome of that.
This is what happens.
I mean, I should have got some videos of people driving in India for this segment, actually, because obviously his name's Hajinder Singh.
So he is an illegal immigrant from India.
As you can see in this, he is listed.
He has entered the United States legally.
But the thing is, he doesn't have an Indian driving license.
What he has is a commercial driver's license from the state of California.
Oh, right.
So the Californians were like, yeah, this illegal immigrant from India can just have a commercial driving license.
Why not?
I mean, I don't even know that he's got a normal driver license in America.
There's no evidence to suggest that he does.
And so, yeah, like you were saying, if anyone's ever seen the roads in India and there are like the Indian traffic accidents.
Again, I should have got the data up for this, actually, but I've looked at it before.
It is something like a hundred times more than Britain.
It is insane.
And for some reason, this guy just, I mean, just it's just crazy how you can be like, no, I don't care about anyone else around me.
I've decided I'm going the wrong way down the motorway.
I'm not going to wait until the next junction or wherever.
I'm just going to turn around here.
Like, what is the thought process?
Well, it certainly demonstrates a lack of understanding of cause and effect.
Demonstrates a lack of impulse control.
Demonstrates a lack of consideration for anyone else.
That's the thing.
It's like, well, I'm driving a giant truck.
It's probably going to be fine for me.
But again, we assume that people from other countries have the same sort of standards of consideration for the people around them that we do.
And we know that there are countries in which they simply don't.
And you know something else?
I mean, there will be people who will have reacted to this story and said, well, you know, white or naturalized citizen truck drivers kill people all the time.
And it's like, yeah, but as is always the case when it's a migrant, especially egregious in the case of an illegal migrant, it's a decision taken by the government directly that has led to the death of these people.
That wouldn't have happened if the person wasn't here, but he's only here because of, you know, lax policies.
Yeah.
And obviously you had people trying to politicize this, complaining, being like, oh, well, you know, isn't this Donald Trump's fault?
It's like, well, no, Trump's been the most anti-illegal immigrant president ever.
And of course, it's California that gets to decide this, as Grok pointed out.
This absolutely was illegal, frankly, because it says Title 13, Section 26.01 requires lawful presence to get the CDL.
So he was given it irrespective of the fact that he was illegal.
So you should never have had that anyway.
So he shouldn't have been here.
He shouldn't have had the license.
And of course, you're not allowed to just employ illegal immigrants, are you?
As truck drivers.
Just imagine the times we're living.
You're not allowed to be here, but you're allowed to drive here.
Not just allowed to drive.
You're allowed to drive some sort of 30-ton truck.
And that's caused three people to be killed.
In fact, we've got a news report here from the Times of India, which is actually surprisingly detailed.
So the fatal collision unfolded around 3 p.m. on Thursday, Tuesday, sorry, near Fort Pierce, when Singh attempted to cut across a highway through an official use medium pass.
And this is another thing.
It was just like, look, these signs are not advisory, right?
They actually mean something, and they're there for a reason.
And you've just found out why these signs were there.
So no, I just saw the video with a car just literally because he's traveling down a motorway because you don't expect the motorway to be blocked.
Yeah.
Quite sad.
Just honestly, it's the first time I'm hearing about it.
It just makes me very sad.
Yeah, no, it's terrible.
Three people died in that crash.
So he decided that actually the official use only sign applied to other people, presumably legal citizens, with licenses that they were actually legally allowed to have.
And since he didn't have that and he wasn't a legal citizen, this wasn't his problem.
Again, the total lack of concern on his face is just what is most remarkable.
And worth remembering that there's no reason for him to be concerned because it's not his people in the car.
He knows he's not going to have any connection to the people in the car because how could he possibly?
So, oh, well, a car's just crashed in the main.
Well, I mean, that's going to be inconvenient.
Yeah, that's going to be an inconvenience for me, isn't it?
Photos from the machine seen showed the van torn apart, its roof peeled back, its content scattered across the highway.
Emergency crews used hydraulic jacks to lift the trailer and recover the victims while Singh was seen standing nearby with black expression, which, again, just, I mean, sorry, mate.
I'm sorry that you can't feel any compassion for the people you just killed.
But man, I am so not happy with the way that this has gone.
And it's just one incident, but there are so many failures of society that have led up to this point.
Why was this illegal in the country?
Why was he given a drive to license?
Why was he employed by a truck company to do this?
Why did he feel it was okay for him to take that turn?
Exactly.
Why did he feel that he didn't have to follow the rules?
Like, how immune to prosecution do you have to feel to have committed all of these crimes and then be like, oh, this is official use enough.
I don't need to worry about that, you know, that sign, that regulation.
Like, you have to feel that the rules just do not apply to you to get this far down.
I wouldn't be in someone else's country illegally to start with, let alone apply for licenses and work that I wasn't supposed to be doing.
But anyway, what do I know?
Anyway, so they carry on.
Because it just gets worse, right?
So two passengers in the minivan died instantly, but the driver was pulled alive from the wreck, but succumbed to his injuries at the local hospital.
Authorities identify the victims as a 37-year-old woman, a 30-year-old man, and a 54-year-old man, all from Florida, because it happened in Florida.
Investigators said Singh carried a California commercial driver's license, had been in the U.S. legally since crossing the Mexican border in 2018.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement had issued a detainer to him, according to CBS 12.
If convicted of homicide, he faces time in prison in Florida before deportation.
And that's the thing, right?
He's murdered three people.
He's killed three people.
I'm sorry, deportation is not sufficient punishment for this.
And also, so this happened in Florida, but he got his license from California.
Yeah.
So it's not even like the people who possibly in theory voted for this kind of politics to govern their state are the victims of those policies.
It's people who generally vote against those kinds of policies.
And in this, we can see how the Democrats can continue destroying America even without having control of a state.
Florida, obviously, being governed very well by Ron DeSantis, very right-wing, very Republican, but that doesn't help if California can just rubber stamp HGV licenses for illegals coming across the border.
If they can just do that, again, all of it's illegal, but there's going to be no comeuppance for anyone.
Like a bunch of people should, okay, well, who issued his license?
Yeah.
Who allowed this to happen?
Who's at the company who hired him?
Prison, prison, prison.
Heads must roll for all of this, and yet nothing's going to happen.
And now three Floridians are dead, despite the fact they probably didn't ever want this to happen.
Like, they didn't want him in the country.
They probably voted in the direction they thought would go against it.
And yet this has still done this to them.
So yeah, this is all terrible.
Three people lost their lives because of his recklessness, and countless friends and family members will experience the pain of their loss forever, says the executive director of the Florida Department of Highway Safety.
Again, that person has no authority to rescind this guy's license.
Like, what can he do if California is prepared to just rubber stamp licenses for illegals?
So did you want to say something?
No, I'm just reading what it says there.
executing an illegal u-turn just because the rules we have my truck with a huge truck yeah This is the danger of employing illegals to do anything.
They already think the rules don't apply to them.
So why wouldn't they think other rules don't apply to them?
Because I follow rules, like rules of the road, rules of whatever it is, because I know this has an effect to the people around me.
This is the thing.
I mean, you know, there are Democrats, certainly in the US, who you don't hear it so much nowadays, but AOC, Ilhan O'Marr and others, who would use the phrase, no human being is illegal.
And it's like, okay, that's that's a buzzword slogan, whatever.
But actually, illegal behavior points to a you know, it points to a personality, right?
It points to character.
That's exactly right.
So, actually, this guy was an illegal who doing illegal things because he's somebody who doesn't care about legality.
Not only, and to add to this, there's a range of behaviors between the very combative ones and the reconciliatory ones.
You need to have civilization, you need to have the overwhelming majority of people displaying reconciliatory behavior.
It's the ability to, you know, to go your own way, go separate ways when there are minor friction.
When you have people who routinely violate the law, they show that basically I don't care about anyone around me.
So they're going to be very combative.
And we see this on a daily basis.
Well, they can get people killed, can't they?
And so this is the real problem with just having illegals at large in your country.
They don't follow the rules.
If you think the rules are there for a good reason, which most of them actually are, I mean, I know a lot of them are nonsense, but those things are generally not things that most people engage with on a daily basis.
When it comes to road laws, I mean, exactly.
Exactly.
Don't perform a U-turn on a busy.
It's a matter of life and death.
Exactly.
It's a matter of life and death.
And also, that's also the same thing in policing.
You are supposed to protect the public and the common good.
You're not there to oversee racial relations.
No.
I can't do that.
How do you prevent this?
Yeah, exactly.
That's more important.
We always talk about from a right-wing perspective, well, deregulation.
It's like, yeah, okay, yeah.
I agree that deregulation of like, you know, in various corporate areas, that's important.
But this is not the kind of rules that people engage with on a day-to-day basis, as in, you know, what side of the road you're supposed to drive on and things like this.
This is done for people's safety.
And this is precisely the point that I'm making here: is that actually the illegals are a general threat to safety.
Yeah.
By the way, just to lighten things slightly, I mean, back in the day, you'd hear libertarians always arguing that driving licenses are like, well, overstepping, you know, overstepping the mark of the role of the state and infringing on one's individual liberty.
And it's just like, nonsense.
Yeah.
No, no, you're right.
You're absolutely right.
So anyway, yeah, he's likely to get deported.
Unfortunately, because again, I don't, White House spokesman Abigail Jackson says this is a devastating tragedy made worse by the fact that it was totally preventable.
Illegal aliens have no right to be in the country, certainly should not be granted commercial driver's license.
Yes, but who are you going to punish for this?
Heads have to roll.
While operating the semi-truck, he jackknife, blah, blah, blah.
And the thing is, this probably isn't even the first time he's done this, right?
So this is from 2021 that you can see that the state of Arkansas had what they consider a historic bridge because the bridge was 80 years old.
But that's the same guy.
Same guy.
Same guy.
It's the same guy.
Driving a truck.
The rules didn't apply to him, right?
So Arkansas have filed a lawsuit against truck driver Harin Jassin in Bakersfield, California-based trucking company, U.S. City Link Corp.
So it seems to be the same guy.
Same guy doing the same job.
Leftist equality of opportunity.
He wants to be a driver.
Maybe he needs to be given with all the social benefits that make him a driver because it's good for his social, his self-esteem.
Yeah, but the thing is, right, the suit was for pressing for funds to repair damage caused by Singh.
But they also want punitive damages because he reportedly hauling a load of processed chicken to Danville when his GPS device led him to the Dale Bend Bridge.
There were signs posted at the bridge warning the driver about the six-ton weight limit.
But Singh attempted to cross the bridge anyway with his 38-ton truck.
It's like, again, the signage is not arbitrary.
And if you ignore it, bad things happen.
It's there for your own good and for the good of others.
It isn't.
I've got to say, the closest I've come to this is, and everyone, I think everyone will have done this.
It's a relatable experience.
You'll be driving somewhere, maybe you're running a little bit late, and you'll come to a road that your sat lab is taking you down and it says road ahead closed.
And you kind of think, well, maybe it's not.
How close?
And I'll just, yeah, and I'll keep going.
It's like a guideline.
Yeah.
And then lo and behold, the road is closed.
So you have to turn around and go a different way, which makes you late.
And it's like, but it's that's imagine that.
Are you sure?
Well, well, hey, maybe.
But imagine that mindset sort of transposed onto the kind of person who doesn't care, you know, who thinks that doing a U-turn in a 30-ton semi-truck on a busy motorway is just, yeah, it'd be fine.
Maybe, maybe it'll be fine.
It's just a guideline.
Or just, well, don't drive across this antique bridge with more than six tons, because trust me, it's not going to work, bro.
It's like, well, I've got a 38-ton truck.
I'm going to give it a break.
Let's test that hypothesis.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
Well, he did.
And obviously it collapsed.
Now, you know, luckily in this instant, no one was hurt.
I guess he managed to get out.
It's also like, look, it's made of wood.
Yeah, exactly.
Like, the sign is there for a reason.
It's not just, I don't know, you know, some sort of arbitrary government oppression or something.
This is a it's a description of reality, actually, the sign.
Could be the case, though.
I don't know.
Just I'm going to be extremely uncharitable here.
Extremely uncharitable.
Sometimes people pretend they're stupid and they want to do something really evil.
So the question is, was all the merchandise looted?
No, I have no idea.
It could be the case he says, guys, I'm going to do something incredibly cheap.
There's no reason.
Come and get all of it.
No reason to think it.
I mean, the truck still closes.
Well, I think another take is maybe the guy doesn't speak English.
Possibly, but I suspect he probably does speak English.
It's a weird understanding of time and space.
I think that basically there's just a much lower consideration for other people in the culture in which he comes from, correctly.
And I think that also there's a kind of self-selection bias if you're going to allow illegals to break in.
Well, you're going to get a really high percentage of people in that cohort who just don't care.
Who are just, I mean, literally like psychopaths.
Who are just, look, no, I'm here for me.
You know, I don't care about you.
And you can tell I don't care about you because I broke into your country.
I did things illegally.
And then I got a job illegally.
And then whenever I'm supposed to follow the rules that benefit other people, like not destroying a historic bridge, I don't care about that.
Or like not like, you know, getting three people killed in a fatal crash.
I don't care about that.
That's not my problem.
And you can see it written on his face as it happens.
He's just like, oh, God, this is going to be.
It does make my blood boil.
Just the facial expression.
Maybe we're reading too far into that, but it's just the contempt.
Yeah, honestly, I don't think people are wrong to read into it.
I don't think they are wrong to read into it because I do think it's symptomatic.
And the thing is, this is the least harmful kind of illegal immigrant as well.
He's not a predator.
He's not going around trying to murder people.
He's just cavalier.
He doesn't care.
He's just here to get money to send remittances back to India, probably, right?
That's the least harmful kind of illegal immigrant, frankly.
And you hear, like, in the UK, for example, like people in the Green Party, like Carla Denya, saying, actually, it's a great injustice that we don't allow asylum seekers to work when they come here.
It's like, no, this is what I'm saying.
For good reason.
Yeah, for good reason.
It's illegal because we have standards.
And the standards maintain the safety and dignity of the country.
And if we allow people to flaunt them, then things go horribly wrong and people die.
It really is that simple.
So anyway, the point of this is detain and deport every single illegal.
It's a matter of life and death.
In his mind, he's thinking, this isn't my fault.
They should have stopped.
They killed themselves, not me.
This happens all the time back home and no one cares.
Yeah, honestly, I couldn't say it on the segment because, you know, it's going on YouTube.
But I really do think that this is an attitude in India.
Well, I think, I mean, you know, there's so many factors at play.
I mean, just the sheer population of that country.
I think it probably does.
It does something psychological where human life just has less value.
It's the same in China, where you hear like, you know, people being run over and people just like walking past.
Like, kid gets run over and no one stops to help.
It's like, the hell's wrong with you people?
Yeah.
You know, I can't.
I can't.
I can't help but notice.
I mean, this is my segment, so, you know, a little bit of a precursor, but, you know, it's non-Christian countries that think this way.
They just don't value the individual.
Yeah, that's true.
sanctity and dignity of individual life it's just it's also i think i think it's more than that I think it's about connection to the people and the place.
It's both.
I think it's both.
Yeah, because this guy was basically here to exploit.
And, okay, well, I don't care about you guys.
Obviously, you don't care.
Arch covered this in the archcast last night.
Truly the actions of an esteemed doctor or engineer.
Well, he's an expert truck driver, I've heard.
By the way, you need to get Archer Lucy's one of these days.
Well, if he ever comes over to England, I will.
Matt says, California legally gave out thousands of commercial drivers, illegally gave out thousands of commercial driver licenses.
Car insurance rates have gone through the roof in the US.
There are people on the US roads who can't speak or read English.
Yeah, but the point being as well, this, okay, if that was just staying in California, all right, well, you know, you made your own bed.
You get to get, you know, you lie in it.
But this is something that is handing it out.
Logan says, as a California commercial truck driver, please don't let me in with him.
Well, I'm sure you got yours legally, Logan, right?
I'm sure you actually passed tests.
I'm sure you weren't just given it as an act of charity by the state.
But yeah, you and your co-workers have standards.
Yeah, I totally agree.
Joseph says, I've heard that Canada has a huge problem with Indian commercial truck drivers as well.
Well, again, like, I should have, I wish I'd got the Indian statistics up for the segment.
I didn't even think to do it.
But Habsburg, you're right, the US isn't deporting enough people.
I love the driving in Russia videos.
Oh, I haven't watched the driving in India.
I'll definitely.
They are terrible.
Okay, absolutely terrible.
And you just see these cars.
Literally, you've got like wagons with people hanging on the side.
They're just swerving around on like the edge of a fucking cliff.
And you're just like, how does anyone survive any journey in India?
It's crazy.
But there's no thought for the safety of themselves or others.
It's so weird, man.
And I guess it comes down to the kind of fatalistic reincarnation philosophy, right?
It's like, well, I'm not really happy with this incarnation.
Maybe I'll get reincarnated as something better.
Anyway, let's move on.
On that note.
So a recent YouGov survey has found that 37% of 18 to 24-year-olds now say they believe in a God, compared with just 16% in August 2021.
So you can see this was reported in the Telegraph.
It was a YouGov poll.
And the same poll showed that atheism among that same demographic has dropped sharply from 49% in 2021 to 32% today.
So there's a substantial increase in religiosity among Gen Z, among young people.
A study by the Bible Society, which was published in April of this year, found that last year around 12% of adults attended church at least once a month, which is up from 8% in 2018.
So it's still a relatively small number of people, but it's a substantial increase in terms of percentage.
And at the tip of the spear is young men, with over a fifth of 18 to 24-year-old men attending church at least once a month, which is a huge increase from the 4% in that demographic in 2018.
And women in the same group are sort of following a similar trend of increasing church attendance, with the research identifying Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches as being the most popular among these groups.
And I find that quite interesting because that's, I mean, I'm a Catholic and we're going to get into that.
And it is because of the, you know, I think for a long time, the church, in the face of like the new atheists who were arguing people out of faith, the church tried to hug people back into faith by being a little bit trying to modernize and having a kind of happy-clappy guitar strumming type of Christianity that I think a lot of people, certainly my age, and I'd imagine your age as well, associate Christian faith with.
And so when we encounter a kind of traditional Latin Roman Catholic mass, it's something quite different to that.
It's far more intense.
It's far more profound, deep.
It's kind of got, it's got all the bells and whistles, if you want.
And it doesn't, it doesn't, you don't feel pandered to and you don't feel insulted by how dumbed down it is.
And it's actually that I think a lot of young people are crying out for.
They are crying out for authenticity and depth of experience and not to be insulted by somebody thinking that what they need is a kind of happy-clappy, you know, very superficial form of faith.
Kumbaya form of faith, yeah.
Exactly, exactly.
So there are now over 2 million more people attending church in Britain than there were six years ago.
So this is, you know, because the part of this story is the demographic element of it, because obviously we've had an influx of people from other cultures with other faiths.
This same, well, the census data shows that Britain's Muslim population has increased in the past decade from 2.7 million in 2011 up to 3.9 million in 2021.
So part of this growth in religiosity will certainly be driven by immigration and driven by migrant descended families and this sort of thing.
But in absolute numbers, there is a huge number of people attending Christian churches, which I view as a very good thing as a Christian.
And Carl, I know you went to church yesterday, which I was pleased to see.
Yeah, I might be an atheist, but I don't want my kids to be.
Why is that, if you don't mind me asking?
Well, because honestly, I just think.
So I've told this story before, but basically, when I took my oldest son to be christened and then my others, I noticed that my dad was really enjoying the ceremony.
He was really enjoying singing the hymns and just being in the church.
So I thought about this and I realized what it was.
I mean, he's an atheist, right?
He's like every boomer, basically.
He's an atheist.
But for him, this was now nostalgia.
He's going back to a time in his childhood where his parents would make them go to church every Sunday.
And it reminds him of a time when the world was more simple and more safe and more normal and more wholesome.
And I don't have that.
I don't get any nostalgia for churches because my parents never made me go to church.
And so for me, a church is completely alien.
I don't know any of the hymns.
I don't know anything about it.
And I think that actually the belief in God is less important than the experience of having done the thing to me.
So I'm not going to browbeat my kids to believe in God or anything, but I want them to know that this is the sort of traditional English thing to do on a Sunday.
And I was removed from that tradition, so I don't have any feelings one way or another, actually, towards it.
I should have nostalgic feelings of being bored in church.
If you're bored in church, great.
That's a privilege, frankly, to be bored in the modern era.
So, if you get to be bored for an hour or two on Sunday mornings, not the end of the world.
And then when you're older, you'll at least have really fond memories of that being something you did as a family.
Yeah.
Whereas I just don't have those.
And so I was talking to my wife about this.
She was like, well, maybe we should start going to a church.
I was like, okay, well, maybe we could try it.
And it was quite nice.
I think that's wonderful, though.
I mean, I'm going to get a little bit into, if you'll indulge me, my own lived experience with this question, because I think it is illustrative of the experience of a lot of young people.
Because another statistic that came out of this research was that around a third of 18 to 24-year-olds who do not attend church on a regular basis said that they would go if they were invited by a friend.
And that was my experience.
That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.
It's not about the religiosity necessarily.
It's about the cultural experience of doing it, right?
Because it is a lovely thing.
And another problem I've had is modern churches.
I hate modern churches.
The one I went to, the guys walking around burning incense and singing harmonies with the choir and stuff.
And I was like, okay, well, this is just a really nice experience, even if I don't, you know, get anything religious out of it.
It's just very pleasant to do.
And the echoing of the voices throughout the church because of the way the church is built.
It's very harmonious and it was just very, very pleasant.
And it's that sort of, again, it's kind of a feeling of nostalgia that you're tapping back into.
And like with mine, I just wanted my children to at least say, well, I had to go to church, but then when they get their kids baptized, at least they'll enjoy the thing and they'll understand why they're there.
Sorry, go on.
Yeah, so I went to a Church of England primary school, and the church that was associated with the school at the time was very much the former sort that you were talking about.
It was trying to appeal to us and trying to be kind of cool.
And that always made me cringe.
I mean, yeah, tell me that I'm wrong.
Tell me why I'm a cynic.
Give me the scripture that is the moral instruction that will help me on the day-to-day basis.
That's what I want.
I mean, when I went on Sunday, the guy was like, Yeah, Jesus said I'm here to bring division.
I'm like, okay, I'm listening.
You know, that's not happy-clappy, like, come by our stuff.
Yeah, what's the division?
You know, I'm not going to, but like, between daughter-in-law and mother-in-law.
Yeah, exactly.
And it was like, okay, well, let's, I'm, I'm, I'm listening.
That's at least interesting to hear about.
But that's the point.
It was, it was a pandering, supine, uh, you know, deeply uncool form of Christianity I was raised with at school.
And my parents are, you know, my parents are not church goers, but they're the kind of people that if you ask them, they will say that they're Christians because I think it's a there's a there's a distaste for calling oneself an atheist, I think, among certain people, which I do understand because there is a coldness and a hopelessness to it, I think, in a lot of people's eyes.
But nevertheless, I was an atheist during much of my childhood and teenage years.
I thought religion was stupid.
I think it was, I thought it was a stupid thing for stupid people.
And I basically, my takeaway from school, my religious education at school and my kind of experience of church at school was that the Bible was basically like happy little stories about happy little people doing happy little things in a way that was really like these is just fiction that I and it's just like it's just nonsense basically so I was you know militant atheist big fan of you know your Richard Dawkins Sam Harris yourself actually Carl as well I was never that militant about it yeah it was never really something I thought about that much but I just was yeah and I just wasn't up for any of it I thought I thought it was all really dumb
And then I went to university and about about 19 during lockdown, I was, you know, I was spending a lot of time by myself.
And so there was a lot of sort of, you know, introspection, sort of, you know, contemplation, listening to a lot of people like Jordan Peterson.
And it was around that time I started to think in a somewhat religious way.
Do you think that this is representative of a lot of Zoomers experience?
Well, in this research and in the coverage of it, lockdown is noted as being a very, very as being a real inflection point for this trend.
Yes.
And I don't think it's surprising because, you know, we were, there was nothing else to do.
And I think people were wracked with, many people were wracked with fear, depression, loneliness, anxiety.
And so it's no surprise that people went searching for meaning in other places.
I know I did, you know, and that's largely what led me to faith, basically, because I wouldn't have called myself a Christian at this time.
I was more given to a kind of perennial view, which is like all religions are.
They point towards the existence of the same fundamental reality, and they're all equally valid roots to a kind of transcendent experience, which I don't believe anymore, incidentally, because I was thinking in what I have now come to realize was a very Catholic way.
I was thinking in a very black and white way about reality, morality, beauty, goodness, truth, all of these things.
I felt that I was totally opposed and remained totally opposed to relativism, which was a large part of my university experience because I was educated in that institution by postmodernists, by people who were atheists, didn't believe in objective morality, didn't believe in objective beauty.
Everything was in the eye of the beholder.
Everything is what you make of it.
All lifestyles are equally valid.
All actions are essentially, there's no under foundational reality to any of it.
And that is just a totally disempowering, nihilistic view of the world, which just totally bounced off me.
And I think it's bouncing off of a lot of young people, especially young men, who feel within, you know, within the depths of their soul that there is a fundamental reality that we can interface with if we are open to it.
So I wonder how much of this is actually a revolt against the concept of freedom.
Yes.
Right.
Because everything that you're saying there, the whole purpose of the relativistic universe is to make people maximally free from honestly, normative moral judgments.
And I think that's actually a very unhealthy way to live.
And I think it's the Catholic Church in particular that appeals to a lot of young people because they have strict rules and hierarchy.
You will do this.
There's no grey area.
Exactly.
There's absolutely no grey.
And I really think that this is about there's a kind of, I want to say yearning, but I can't think of a better word for that.
A kind of soul longing for structure and order.
And I really think this is where the right, and this is where all the conservatives have completely left the field.
Because the liberals are going, well, why should we?
It's like, okay, well, without God, the conservative has a very difficult time actually articulating their own argument.
And we're going to get into that because that's, I do want to, I mean, I don't want to get too kind of deep because I realize this is just a daily podcast.
But there's points here that I think need to be made.
So to finish my kind of story, I attended a Latin Catholic Mass with a friend of mine because she was going and I was driving her to the place and she was like, do you want to come in?
And I was like, yeah, why not?
Go on.
I see what this is all about.
And I was somewhat open, open to those ideas at the time anyway.
Attended it and the priest was there banging on the lectern talking about the shifting sands of liberalism being no foundation for our society.
And I was sitting there kind of like, okay.
You know, it really resonated with me.
And so I see why it was.
So I started to pursue this, you know, this sort of tradition and understand more about it.
Started attending a Catholic church.
Had the great pleasure of getting to know my local priest, who is an amazing, you know, deeply wise man who has become something of a mental figure to me.
And my faith has just grown and grown.
And a large part of it is because of what you just said, which is that I, you know, and everybody my age has been educated to believe that the substance of life is to be found in the limitless pursuit of self-expression and individual kind of growth, whatever that means, whether that's the accumulation of wealth or the accumulation of experience, the idea, for example, that you don't start a family until you've lived your life, whatever that means.
I mean, it basically just means like traveling and partying, which sure is maybe fun for a couple of weeks.
If that helps.
But it's not, you know, it's not a real, it's not a deep form of meaning and it gets old very quickly.
And that kind of hedonistic lifestyle, it's just no way to live.
Because that was another thing.
I mean, I sort of, when I was at university, again, as many people do, because this is the lifestyle and the culture that is encouraged at university, you do engage in that kind of thing.
Of course, everyone does.
Yeah.
You do engage in a hedonistic lifestyle.
And I very quickly realized that this is no way to live.
Even Angem Chowdhury did.
Yeah.
Like, unironically, there are pictures of him in university partying.
Yeah.
And it's just, and it's just not, you know, it's not fulfilling.
And it's actually, it's actually quite the opposite.
It makes you feel empty.
And it makes you feel without substance and without rooting.
And that, and, you know, so many people wonder why depression and anxiety and mental illness is so widespread.
I think it is because of this.
It's because of this rootlessness.
And this really, I think, is the sort of end point of the liberal view of freedom.
And so I'm actually not that surprised that Gen Z are like, okay, but I would like some order.
I would like moral order to the universe.
Yes.
Which brings me to this principle here.
And again, I don't want to get too down in the weeds with this.
But I think that this is crucial to understand because this explains, in my view, why Christianity and particularly Catholicism is growing at such a rate in Britain and why young people are so drawn to it.
And that is because the story of the Bible is not just happy little stories about happy little people like I thought it was when I was growing up.
It is actually a description of the structure of the universe, a perfectly accurate description of the structure of the universe.
And as somebody who was already thinking that there clearly is an interconnectedness, a oneness to reality that cannot be explained through the quantitative means and language of science, these ideas really resonated with me.
And especially, you know, rejecting as I was at that time the culture of individual freedom and hedonism and all that sort of thing, when I encountered these ideas, it just makes perfect sense to me.
So I've taken this from a book called A Father Who Keeps His Promises by Scott Hahn, which is a brilliant exploration of the Bible and what the story of the Bible actually is.
And he describes it, well, that's what the title suggests.
It's about a father who makes promises to his children and follows through on those promises.
And so what this diagram here describes is how each of the prophets of the Bible, each of the central figures of the Bible, represent a different level, essentially, of human organization, of civilizational structure.
So in the figure of Adam, you have the covenant of marriage, and his role in that covenant is as the husband, right?
And so, and then in Noah, he is the role of the father, and he institutes the family or the household.
Abraham is essentially representing the father, sort of protective father as well, right?
That's right.
He saves everyone from the flood.
Yes, that's correct.
Abraham is the figure of the chieftain, the leader of the tribe, who God promises a great nation to and promises to spread his seed across the world and bless all people.
Moses is the judge and the leader of the nation in the 12 tribes of Israel come together.
Well, he's the lawgiver who instantiates justice among the Israelites.
That's right.
Then you have David who turns the nation of Israel into the kingdom of Israel under his throne.
And then you have Jesus.
Okay, so in the like I'm so through my philosophy degree, I got really into aesthetics and part of aesthetics is storytelling and archetypes.
And these archetypes really are meaningful, right?
Because in the figure of David in particular, you have not only the king of the nation, it's the politicization of the nation against other nations.
It's not just they are under the heel of Pharaoh or whatever it is.
But from this, David creates an empire.
He creates a great and powerful kingdom.
And so the line of David becomes the prestigious thing that Jesus comes from.
Again, the connection to the prestige, to the political power that is created by the just order of the nation.
So all of these things, like you don't have to look at them religiously.
I know there are going to be a bunch of people watching and go, okay, I'm not really religious.
Okay, what can you get out of this?
The answer is the archetypes, I think, are what you're talking about.
They are real.
Yes.
Whether you're a believer in God.
Regardless of how they come about.
Yes.
But this is the point is I was argued into Christianity.
I was not hugged.
I got to Christianity through rational means.
And I came to believe that a lot of what I thought of as being irrational about religion is actually what I would call post-rational.
It exists in the realm beyond rationality as opposed to before rationality.
It cannot be understood through science.
And so it requires a different type of sense, which is faith.
And so, you know, I was like last year, I was at the point where I was reading these stories and understanding these ideas from a rational, essentially atheistic perspective.
I was what you'd call a cultural Christian, right?
I thought, okay, the ideas work and they seem to be kind of true in a sense.
And so it seems to make sense that we govern our society along these lines.
But what the leap of faith actually is, is not, it's, you know, I believed at that time that these were something like the closest approximation to the truth and that the Bible was kind of the closest we've got to moral reality, to painting a picture of the moral universe.
But what faith is, is recognizing that it's not just the closest to it, it is actually the thing itself.
So Jesus is not just a guy who got it nearly right when it comes to morality.
He was actually literally the Son of God.
And that's, and that's what, and that's, you know, obviously you start to lose people at this point because people think you're talking nonsense.
But that's what faith actually is.
Sure.
And the thing is, there are going to be a bunch of people who aren't going to be prepared to cross that threshold.
Yeah.
But the archetypal structures that you're presenting here, I think, in themselves have a great deal of value.
And even if that's all you take from this, that's better than nothing.
Well, exactly.
Because nothing is what mainstream culture offers us.
Well, exactly.
Exactly.
The liberal order would have that there are no archetypal values.
There is no right difference in right and wrong.
Yes.
But this also provides a good sort of framework as to why Muhammad doesn't fit, why he's obviously a false prophet.
Yes.
Because what does Muhammad, as a barbarian warlord bring to the world?
What's the covenant that God makes with Muhammad?
Exactly.
And it's depraved, frankly.
It's awful.
I'm not going to alliterate it, but it's not good.
And it doesn't fit into the ascendant.
Yeah, the procession of things.
Yeah.
So, you know, like I said, I'm not a religious person, but I can see the value in understanding the world through these kind of archetypal frameworks.
Because they represent what is true about human relationships and the way that we interact with one another.
So the fundamental case here is that these human structures like marriage, family, tribe, nation, kingdom, and church are not arbitrary emergent phenomena with no sort of implicit or fundamental meaning.
They are actually ordained by God, created from a top-down perspective.
And it is in our, you know, it is man's role in the same way that the role of a tree is to grow and all trees follow that, you know, that pathway because they don't have free will.
Man's free will, you know, we have free will, but our role as humans is to follow these structures and to embrace these structures and to recognize that we are part of a divine order that is hierarchical in nature and that we have a kind of unique place in.
And it's that idea that the liberal world order just cannot give.
Yeah, but the thing is, even if you're like, you know, a purely materialistic atheist, you can still come to these conclusions because these are normative aspects of the universe.
Yes.
Whether you think that was created by God or it was brought into being through natural processes or whatever it is, they're still there.
This is what C.S. Lewis is calling the Tao, right?
It's like, look, this is just the structure of the universe in relation to what you are as an objective living being within it.
And so regardless of how you think they get there, there's no doubt that humans are hierarchical in these ways.
So, you know, each hierarchy has a normative component to it.
So you can object to the theology of it all you like, but this as a conceptual schematic, as a description of reality.
It's actually quite good.
Yeah.
It's true.
It's true.
And so what, you know, and then I think the next step to this is to look at this, to recognize that the Bible and the stories of the Bible and the historical figures described in the Bible and the experiences that they had, you know, and the way in which God in the Bible institutes all of these different institutions, I suppose, of marriage, family, tribe, nation, kingdom, and church, is to look at the order beneath which we live today, the moral, political, and economic order that's existed since 1945.
And note the fact that it explicitly takes aim at each and every one of these structures.
And we can name the policies and the ideas and the principles that do so.
So marriage, for example, we have gay marriage, feminism, the idea that the sexes are perfectly equal and should compete with one another.
I mean, that's a direct attack on Adam's moral authority.
Yes, that's exactly right.
And of course, pornography, which debases the marital act, turns it into a product, a sensationalized consumer product.
Then you have marriage, and once again, and then you have family.
So contraception is actively anti-family.
But also, with Noah as the protector, it's interesting how the police will arrest you for interceding in, like, for example, the guy who had his trousers down the other day, and the dudes beat him up and chucked him off the train.
They got arrested, and that's a direct attack on the archetype of Noah.
That's exactly right.
It's a direct attack.
Yeah.
You also have capitalism in its modern form, which forces both men and women to work.
But part of the role of the father is to work, right?
But that's not the role of the mother.
And so motherfuckers.
To earn money anyway.
Yeah.
Well, when I say work, I mean going out of the house and hunting and gathering.
I don't want to suggest that being a housewife isn't a lot of work.
No.
No, but yeah, but I'm using that in a very specific way.
But again, it's forcing men and women to compete with one another, which is not, that's not a good foundation for a family.
And you then, again, have this championing and mainstreaming of what get called alternative lifestyles, LGBT, and all the rest of it, which pushes the notion that...
Immigration is a direct attack on Abraham.
Yeah.
Yeah, we'll get to that.
Don't worry.
Oh, sorry.
The idea that all lifestyles are equal, which they are not.
And if for no other reason, then heterosexual marriage produces children and you need children for a society to continue.
Then you get to the tribe, which is, of course, instituted in the form of the figure of Abraham.
And it's here that you get into the truly, I think, most controversial territory of all of these, which is the concept of racism and the concept of anti-racism as being a moral good.
It's an attack on the notion of tribe, the denial of ethnicity, the denial of in-group preference along those lines, the pushing of diversity.
This is all an attack on the divine structure of the tribe.
And that's why, I think largely, that's why so much of modern politics is so loopy.
We've attacked, we attack these divine structures and we expect things to just be fun.
We expect things to be better, actually, or our leaders do at least.
Then you have the nation, and it's quite obvious what the attack on that is.
It's mass immigration.
It's the deconstruction of the nation.
But also, it's interesting that the laws themselves, notice how everything that Blair did was always contrary to the, and everything Labour has done from the 20th century onwards was contrary to the inherited laws of the English.
Abolish the death penalty, open the borders, have all of these interceding moments where the state intercedes between relationships, hate speech laws, all this sort of stuff.
All of this is just antithetical to how the nation itself should be judged.
Yes.
And then you move on to the kingdom and the primary attack on the kingdom is, of course, liberal democracy.
Yeah, and a system that selects for, selects in favor of liars and those who can most effectively lie to the public and therefore when they're in office continue to behave in a dishonest way, which is what we suffer under today.
And then finally, you have the church as the ultimate universal structure of human civilization.
And the principal attack on that is the entire culture, the entirety of the culture, which is rooted in the worship of the self.
Materialism.
Yeah.
Because really, if you read, for example, St. Augustine's The City of God, you kind of realize that there's basically two things that you can worship in this life.
You can worship God or you can worship yourself.
And worshiping anything other than God tends inevitably towards worshiping the self, whether that's money or fame or a hedonistic lifestyle.
All of it is in pursuit of the worship of the self.
And that, really, the worship of the self, is the principle that underpins the entirety of the modern moral paradigm beneath which we live.
And you can see this most clearly, of course, in the culture of the 60s and in the boomers, in the lifestyles they live.
You don't have to argue for it.
It's completely honest.
Yeah.
And especially, for example, in the figure of John Lennon and in two of his songs, Imagine and God, those are two songs that celebrate the worship of the self as being, you know, and the destruction of these structures.
All left-wing immigration activism these days is the worship of the self.
It's recognize me.
I need representation.
I need recognition.
I need, it has to be me.
And it's not a coincidence.
It's like a black woman saying we need Black Lives Matter.
It's not a coincidence.
Yeah.
And so I will conclude there, because I know we're running out of time.
But the point I'm making here is that the most radical thing that you can do as a young man and as a young person in the 21st century is embrace faith, is embrace Christian faith.
Because all of the power structures that govern our societies since 1945 have taken explicit aim at all of the structures that Christianity seeks to create and to defend.
And what that's led us to is chaos.
There's a question I have here because I'm focusing on what you're saying.
So it's one thing.
I'm going to be very tough, right?
Please.
Okay, so I don't care about what people are saying.
All this could be overcompensating against the new atheist movement.
I care about what people are doing.
Know what people are saying.
I think that's crucial.
I think it's really important to look at how society will fear in the future.
Yeah.
Right?
So we'll see.
And that, Carl, I think.
Because for me, it's mostly about how someone actually unmediated question of how you relate with what you consider to be divine.
Yeah, and I agree with that.
And this is why, in my view, the actual faith itself, the genuine, like authentic belief in God, the idea that there is a creator, that the universe was created, that there is a will that underpins all of reality, that wants us to behave in a certain way.
That's why that is crucial as part of this equation.
Because if you genuinely believe, as I do, that God is essentially watching you at all times and judging every move you make, it does force you to behave in a certain way.
And when you stray that path, when you sin, then you feel very guilty about it and you pray for forgiveness.
But even if you don't have a literal faith, taking this as a metaphorical truth about the universe and human society, I think is valuable in and of itself.
It's better than nothing, as I said before.
Yeah, it's one step on the path, I would say.
I was a big believer in the idea of metaphorical truth again, sort of about a year ago.
But now I just believe in truth, you know, full stop.
So there we go.
We've got any video comments, Samson.
Alex says, let's sum up, going to the Labour Councillor, his defense that he's had mental issues and made him unable to express himself in a responsible way, yet one presumes still has a glittering career ahead of him as a councillor representing locals in his area in an even and calm-handed, calm and even-handed manner.
Yeah, I don't think it's going to stop his career in the Labour Party that he called for people to have their throats slit.
It's just not going to be the case because they just don't care.
Right.
So let's go to the video comments.
Think that Meet Ya Go Clean.
Holding down the power button used to turn off a phone, but on my new phone, it brings up an AI assistant and I have to tell it to turn off the phone, at which point it brings up the power options menu.
I need an AI's permission to turn off my own phone.
Things that make you go clean.
Fleming Way is finally due to open again this year after its closure in 2022 for development.
It was supposed to take two years, instead it's taken three.
Can anyone in the Lotus Eater's office see any improvement?
Woocher Police is being sued for appearing on the Swindon and Wiltshire Pride 2025.
If this is an option, why aren't we all doing it for every event they're at?
There is actually improvement on that bus depot station area.
It looks like it's actually ready now.
So they have it, only took three years.
But then it took two years.
Like, there's nothing to it.
It's just a road that goes around with a bit of pavement.
Like two years.
It's disgraceful.
So let's go to the next one.
Beautiful St. Andrew's Cathedral.
When you look over here, Afghan food truck.
Have a look down here.
Great.
Yeah, that's the Church of England for you.
Yeah, I know.
It's really embarrassing.
Yes, that's an end.
It's an anti-Christian message, that.
Yeah, no, it is an anti-Christian message.
God, I hate that.
I have candy.
The thing is, though, I'm just too racist to become a Catholic.
I just, I just.
The thing is, the idea, because there are those who accuse, like, who say, well, you know, you're a Christian, how can you be opposed to mass immigration and that sort of thing?
I said, well, because it's an attack on the nation, which is a divine structure.
Also, one thing that isn't talked about many times is that one of the first arguments against slavery came from a Catholic after the Treaty of Tor de Sillas about Latin America.
Yeah, well, I mean, Catholicism generally much after because the Portuguese started the slavery trade after 1494.
Yeah, yeah.
And like, all of the arguments in the sort of age of sale against slavery came from the Christians, like long before the liberals.
Yeah.
You know, there's no getting around it.
Sorry, let's go to the next one.
It arrived, and I have the full set.
Very nice.
Yeah, well, I'll be coming to Australia later this year.
Also, thanks, Sophie, for talking about the illustrations for my next kid's book.
It's going to be amazing.
I think you're all going to love it.
And I'm also helping Sophie publish her book as well.
I'm about halfway through editing it for her, and then we're going to get some really nice cover art and gonna blast it out everywhere.
So keep an eye out.
I will get a copy.
But yeah, so I will be coming to Australia at some point this year, unfortunately, because I hate traveling.
But yeah, so come and see me, basically.
Right, Jimbo says, Ricky Jones, the poster boy for the entire critical justice, social justice movement, much like timekeeping and mathematics, expecting him not to incite a baying mob, slip the throats of their enemies, is actually us imposing colonial standards on him.
Thing is, that's probably true.
It's probably literally true.
They're arguing that diversity simply can't cope with living in the Western world because it aspires to basic standards.
That's what they're saying.
Yeah, that is what they're saying.
And that's probably true.
There are a lot of rumble rants about me going to church.
I'm going to ignore them for now.
Sorry, guys.
The videos by Reese Morgan, the Black Belt Barrister, made me realize that Tutta Justice also shows up in the details of exactly what charges are made.
It seems that if you disagree with the agenda or critical of the government, you are likely to be charged differently than if you're a good little lefty.
Yeah, that's another thing as well.
Like, it's not that we can explicitly quantify it, but you can feel the lightness of justice that's applied to them, can't you?
And it's like, look, man, you know, I'm not going to say that this is the most solid argument, but I just don't agree.
You know, I just don't agree that this is a level playing field.
And you're not going to persuade me otherwise, frankly.
Again, the fact that Lucy Connelly is still in jail.
It's like the state has been so intransigent on the issue.
There are so many mitigating factors that a state that wasn't hostile to the native population would just take into account.
And they're the ones complaining.
Oh, the prisons are totally full.
Okay, well, then is she a danger to anyone?
Yeah.
Obviously not.
She's a danger to the ideology of the state.
That's exactly it.
The moral legitimacy of the state, she's a danger to, which makes her more dangerous than the criminals who are not a threat to the ideology of the state.
So, Soviet.
Yeah, and that's a cliche.
No, no, it totally is that.
Jimbo says, according to someone I know, despite the fact that we've seen all the evidence with our own eyes, the jury may have had access to privilege and information, which makes this what we've seen not an offence.
Well, that's, I mean, I think it's actually just interpretive of what has happened, right?
Because they said that it just wasn't inciting violence.
They were passing judgment on the same video that we saw.
I don't think there was anything new.
Roman Observer says, a diverse jury will never work.
The concept of a jury of peers requires a homogenous society.
Yes, correct.
Also, the laws in question only belong to the English, not the immigrant community, so they wouldn't recognize the crime at all.
Well, that's the point, isn't it?
You know, if this is just normal in the society that they come from, which I know that it is, then what are we doing?
I've got to say, I mean, this is pretty controversial, I think, from the from a mainstream perspective.
But this does show you why the entire project of decolonization was just been such a failure.
Because we thought we behaved as if, yeah, we built these structures in these countries.
And now that we've given them, given those peoples, those structures, once we leave, things will just tick along indefinitely and be fine.
Did you see the video of the Indian politician, the really fat one, handing out money for people to vote for him?
Yeah, I know.
Driving around.
He's really fat.
He's just handing out rupees out of the car so people will vote for him.
It's like, listen, man, there's just no point in saying Indian democracy.
This is not how India governed itself prior to the British.
You should team up with a guy selling the food.
You know, the really one.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Sponsorship.
Indian slob.
Yeah, slop in every pot.
Slob masala.
Oh, God.
And it's the same everywhere, though.
It's literally everywhere outside of essentially northwestern Europe.
I was explaining to the people, like, I don't really trust the integrity of Eastern European elections.
You know, I'm sorry, I just don't trust that Ukrainian elections.
We're not dealing with English people.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, maybe in France and Germany, I believe it, you know, maybe in Spain, Portugal, maybe, you know, in Italy, maybe even in Greece.
But like, you know, outside of that, I just don't think that these people consider political power to be negotiated in the way that we do.
You know, they would rather essentially come down to clan structures.
It's like, okay, well, I'm not here to change their minds on that.
No, you know, like natural.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, that's the thing.
I actually feel that the way we live is quite natural to us, actually.
And the incredible low rate of corruption in what was a homogeneous English nation, which was a remarkable thing.
Absolutely remarkable.
I had never heard of people cheating in elections until I was well into my 30s.
And I heard about what was happening in Leicester and Bedford.
Yeah, exactly.
Right.
It was unthinkable.
Unthinkable.
And the idea of bribing a cop.
I remember I used to work for the research councils.
My boss had spent time in Africa setting up computers or something there.
And he told me about just multiple times where they just had to bribe cops to let them go.
Because the cops just pull you over and you've done nothing wrong.
They just went for a bribe.
And I was just like, that's horrific.
That's horrific.
I could never live in a country.
I can't even imagine trying to bribe a British mob.
I mean, offering me money.
I mean, you'd get arrested for it.
Like, I would expect to be arrested for that.
Anyway, Alex says, I won't be able to watch the immigration driver section.
So this in advance, I'm not defending the man, but I've worked with a number of Indians and they tend to clam up when confronted with a serious situation.
Well, maybe if they don't cause serious situations, clamming up won't be such a problem.
They can do illegal things.
Yeah, exactly.
You can come across a lack of concern that the Japanese smiling in an embarrassing situation doesn't mean they're happy with it.
Yeah, I mean, that could well be the case.
Don't get me wrong, but the way that that comes across to the people you're taking advantage of is very negative.
The Ghost of Enoch says, in China, if someone is hit by a car, it's common for the driver to reverse over them to finish them off.
This is because they are liable to pay the victim compensation for the rest of their life if they live.
Jesus Christ.
The penalty for vehicular manslaughter is less.
It's mad.
Kevin says, in 2023 in India.
Oh, yeah, right.
Yeah.
Sorry.
I did look up the stats, right?
So the Indian stats are insane.
So in the UK, we have, say, in 2023, 1,695 road deaths and 28,976 serious injuries with 110,000 slight injuries.
In India, they had 480,000 road accidents, which equates to something like 474 fatalities a day.
And when you put this down to per capita, so per 100,000, in the UK, we have an accident rate of 2.4 to 2.7.
India has 15 to 17.
So again, per 100,000.
So the absolute numbers are insane.
And I mean, literally, like, you know, eight times what ours are.
Absolutely mad.
So he gives the Kevin's in Thailand at the moment.
He says, so in Thailand, there were 20,000 fatalities, and the population of Thailand is 71 million.
So it's roughly on parity with Britain.
Whereas we had 1,600.
So it's absolutely insane.
Again, we just assume that everyone has the same standards as us everywhere.
And we've seen this in healthcare, man.
Like the African nurses who are constantly accidentally killing patients.
All of these things are just, these are not universal things that other countries, you know, they can have a department of motor vehicles or health or whatever.
But the internal structure of this thing and the function of this thing is not the same.
Chance from Canada says, My wife's car got swiped by an immigrant truck driver when she was parked and she wasn't in it.
The driver was delivering to a nearby immigrant-owned restaurant.
We noticed quickly that she spoke to the owner of the restaurant to see if she'd received any deliveries, and he lied to her face about not receiving deliveries that day.
We obtained the security camera footage of the delivery truck dragging her car across the parking lot.
They all must go.
It's like this is just a problem.
Ramshackalotta says, An African nurse got drunk in a park after a shift and drove his Mercedes-Benz down my mum's 30-mile-an-hour speed limit road at 70 miles an hour, crashed into a family home and knocked it an inch off its footings.
He was spared jail because the judge says the amount he gives back to the community is immense.
Such his name, Simba Chimba, apparently.
Mad.
When did that become like a legally acceptable reason?
Yeah, I'm insane.
I know you're from a foreign country.
I know you're insane.
It's not even that.
The amount he gives back to the community is immense.
What does that even mean?
He enriches them with diversity.
Like it was a white community.
He's diverse.
White Rider says, as an atheist myself, personally, I feel the actual faith is less important, but the church is important for cultural and moral reasons.
Without the faith, everything else goes.
Yeah, it's the foundation.
I am sympathetic to that argument as well because, like, essentially, this is an argument that I've heard people say, essentially, why can't we just live a lie?
And it's like, because anyone at any point can say, but aren't we all lying?
Is it the emperor's new clothes?
Yeah.
And, you know, aren't we all lying?
And everyone goes, yeah, we are all lying.
And so the whole thing will just collapse.
It just takes one person to do it.
But this is the fun, you know, this is the leap of faith is moving from it works to it's true.
And again, I think metaphorically and structurally, it's true.
Or maybe it's just true.
Daniel says, modern messages of starting a family after you've lived your life is perverse.
It is starting your family that you discover what it is to truly live.
What does that even mean to live one's life and then settle down and start a family?
Be childish and irresponsible.
That's what it means.
And there's no great advantage to it.
Honestly, it's just wasting money, frankly.
Even if you were the most heartless materialist, you can still look at your own children as an investment.
Even if you're the most sort of cold, callous materialist, you would still have an aspect where you go, oh, my children will at least be something that produces for me later in life.
What a cruel thing to say.
But you could still look at it that way, just to be like, no, I'm just going to piss my money away on alcohol and partying.
It's like, right, so you're going to end up poor with no investment, nothing in life.
Arizona Desert Rat says, My sister has three young adult children who attend church just about every week, and one is getting ready to serve to your mission.
Wow.
Jordan Peterson turned many Zoomers to Christ.
Well, I mean, that's good, I guess.
Well, that's the funny thing about Peterson.
I was actually at an event, a small event in Oxford, I think it was, earlier this year, that he was speaking at.
And it's so funny how he still, to this day, can't bring himself to say that he is a Christian and that he believes in Christ.
And it's funny how I think somebody at that event made the comment that the role of the prophet is to open the door, but never to step through the door himself.
And I think Peterson's an example of that.
Honestly, it's the problem with boomers.
They're just an atheist generation.
Yeah.
Genuinely.
And it's not great.
And Gen X are the consequence of that.
It's in millennials.
This is why I'm like, okay, I personally don't want to go to church on Sunday, right?
You know, I've got no desire to do it.
But I think it will be good for my children to have done it.
So it's not, I'm not doing it for me.
I'm doing it for other people.
And my wife as well is actually a Christian.
Anyway, unfortunately, we are out of time there.
So thank you for joining us, folks.
Charlie, where can people find more from you?
Well, you can go to Restore Britain.
Yeah, go to church.
That's where you can find me.
No, you can go to restorebriton.org.uk forward slash join us to join restore Britain, which I'm part of alongside Rupert Lowe.
Otherwise, you can find me at CF Downs underscore on all platforms.
Great.
Well, thanks for joining us, folks.
▲
Export Selection