The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1270

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 9, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:32

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1270

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of Lot Caesars for uh what are we Thursday?
	Yes, Thursday, the ninth of October.
	My god, time just keeps going, doesn't it?
	Uh and today we are going to be talking about Rupert Lowe announcing the plan for mass deportations, which is superb.
	Uh, how frankly it is absurd to not say that Birmingham has a problem with immigration and integration, and how Gaza is unfortunately our future, our technocratic Blair Run future.
	Uh I'm joined by Ferras, Josh and Harrison Pitt from uh lots of places actually.
	Where do you want me to tell people?
	Policy fellow at Restore Bridge and Fellow at the New Culture Forum and uh uh what am I as a contributing editor at the European Conservative.
	Yeah, lots of things.
	Uh but he he's you did you write this plan?
	I co-authored it with Rupert and of course the other uh members of the Restore Britain team, uh the public-facing ones being mainly sort of Charlie Downs, uh Louis Brackport and Maria Bowtell um made important contributions as well behind the scenes.
	But it's made mainly an effort between Rupert and me uh co-authoring it.
	Yes.
	Excellent.
	But all good folks, and uh so we're gonna be talking about it because it was released today.
	This will be very exciting.
	Um, well, before we begin, uh at six o'clock this evening, there is a free webinar that you can come and join me in Stellias on talking about why we need to restore Aristotle as our moral framework and abandon the liberal framework, the moral framework of liberalism that has replaced him because I can't I don't know whether you've noticed, but everything's a bit crap, isn't it?
	And everything's going a bit badly, and actually I think it's due to our entire moral compass that needs replacing, and that's the reason it needs to be done.
	So anyway, join us at six pm then, uh probably link in the description, but if not good, courses.locceeds.com and join us at six pm tonight.
	It's going to be fun and interesting, highly educational.
	Anyway, right, so uh Rupert Lowe uh tweeted out his policy for mass deportations.
	Now this isn't just a document where they suggest, well, I would like it's not a wish list.
	What this is is a concrete plan on what a government would actually have to do if they wanted to deport millions of illegal immigrants.
	And there's a reason that the Conservatives have done none of these things because they don't actually want to, I think.
	Um but anyway, so what we'll do then uh is we'll look through it.
	But as you can see there, uh Rupert says deporting every legal immigrant within three years likely faster if you follow this brook blueprint.
	And I've read it and I agree.
	I think this probably will.
	Um in fact, that's the conservative estimate as well, isn't it?
	Yes, yes, that is um our conservative estimate.
	You we'll see towards the end when we get to the roadmap, which which uh situated towards the end of the of the policy paper, but we basically uh organise our uh understanding of how quickly it could be done and the scale and all the rest of it uh in that roadmap and we break it down to three categories as I recall,
	conservative estimate with certain with a set of variables built into it, a conservative set of variables built into it, realistic estimate with a realistic set of variables built into it, and uh then uh a daring but plausible uh scenario with some daring but plausible set of variables built into it.
	Because it was estimated that it was between what was it, one point eight to two million illegals and within three years or faster.
	That's quite an achievement.
	Yeah.
	Um particularly because of course the illegal migrants are harder to find than the legal ones because they're here illegally and so they're going to be concealing themselves.
	So if that can be the case, that's actually very, very promising.
	That's right, that's right.
	And um yeah, it's it's obviously very there's a bit of a data vacuum because the government hasn't ordered the sort of modelling into the illegal migrant population that they should have done.
	So we're a little bit in the dark about estimates, but we thought that we would um this so I I think it was the migr uh it was the Pew research about in 2020, as as long ago as 2020, think about how many people are coming across the channel every every day of the week, particularly in summer.
	Put it at around somewhere between 800,000 to 1.2 million.
	That was later revised down, but we thought that uh in order to sort of sort of signal the ambition of our plan that we would assume an illegal migrant population of somewhere between 1.8 and 2 million.
	I think that's honestly probably underselling it.
	But you may as well go for that because that's the upper limit of their own estimates.
	Exactly.
	Um right, so I I thought we'd uh we'd have a a quick browse through this.
	Yeah.
	So uh the f we'll skip the preamble, because of course we don't need to read the preamble.
	We all know why this needs to be done.
	Um we'll get to the public opinion on it, I think.
	It might if sorry, it's it might be worth having a quick look at the the contents page, just a very brief glance to people can see the bits that they're interested in.
	Um to give a sense of the overview, because it's basically just split into two parts.
	One is legal obstacles to mass deportations, as you can see, part that's part one.
	Yeah, And two is uh the practical logistics of mass deportations, and that section crucially is split into two other parts of voluntary returns and involuntary returns.
	Uh so there you go.
	Okay, well, I tell you we'll we'll stay on the uh we'll stay here just so I don't have to keep flicking through.
	Sure thing.
	Uh but I I notice on uh page 15 of the introduction, uh you uh put polling that suggests that in fact everyone agrees that this is the case by a huge number.
	It's probably worth looking at, actually.
	Yeah, probably you're probably right, it probably is.
	Yeah, we we have Charlie Downs to thank for the for for a lot, but these graphics are among them.
	Um very stark and uh Yeah, and it's uh actually kind of mad.
	So uh 52.7% of voters would be more likely to support their MP if they backed mass deportations compared to just 17.8% who would be less likely.
	Uh unsurprisingly, it's most of England.
	No, even London.
	Even London, yeah.
	46.3% for London if you're listening.
	That's ridiculous considering only a third white British.
	Yes.
	It might be partly a function of the Eritreans wanting the Somalis gone and the Somalis wanting the Eritreans gone, but you know, well, diversity is our strength after all.
	And uh and the national support for mass deportations by region, I think is uh one full C Scotland on sixty percent, disappointing, but at least there's still a majority.
	Uh the North East, though, they are the base most based people in the country, 72.6%.
	South West on 70.3% though.
	Yes.
	We're not doing too badly.
	Even London, though, on 55.9%.
	It's very important when you commission these polls.
	This is why I don't always trust Ugov's estimates on these things.
	You need to give people like most people are sensible.
	Most people they have very strong intuitions, but they're not necessarily filled in on all of the relevant minutia of our illegal immigration catastrophe, as we call it in this paper, or indeed the legal immigration catastrophe, which as I say at the beginning, is much greater and will be addressed in future papers.
	Separate issue.
	Um if you give I think before you ask people any questions about immigration, you should give them accurate, like the most accurate up-to-date data on the numbers and the date by which the host population will be a minority in our country.
	Eric Halfman's research, if it's bit it's in his book, White Shift, shows that when you mentioned the demographic cliff edge of uh that the process of replacement migration is taking us to people's restrictionism doubles.
	Uh well, roughly roughly double.
	So it's important that people know what they're answering.
	But this is because the average person thinks that immigration into this country is something in the order of 70,000 a year, mostly illegal.
	Yes, and it's like, no, it's 700,000 a year mostly legal.
	So that's so that is the spread when people are somewhat underinformed, God bless them.
	This is the importance of data.
	Imagine when they find out that it's ten times worse than they're.
	Well, it they're basing their opinions off of media coverage, which is largely about illegals rather than legal migration.
	Which we view as part of our function as at restore Britain, indeed you view it the same way too, new culture forum as well, to try and uh engage in a sort of gentle campaign of public education, not just meeting the public where they are, but trying to tell them what they're not being told.
	Yes, I mean people genuinely do not understand the scale of the problem.
	Yeah.
	Uh and that is due to the media um well, frankly, avoiding giving them accurate information.
	They they could they could publicize this information any time they wanted, and they don't.
	I saw the most UK thing today on my way to work.
	Oh, go on.
	It was uh two West African men.
	Escorting a boy, clearly of Asian descent, heavily disabled.
	One would guess the cause of the disability would be um extreme inbreeding, and there is two men walking him to school.
	And you kind of ask yourself, is this is is this Britain's problem.
	I'll tell you what that is for us.
	That's GDP.
	Right there.
	GDP right there, yeah.
	GDP.
	Future debt is like it.
	Um, so let's begin with part one the legal obstacles to mass deportations.
	Because of course, there are many legal obstacles to mass deportations.
	Yeah.
	And so uh what what I like about this is just comprehensively, these are the acts that are that are currently inhibiting our ability to just get rid of people that we don't want here and who shouldn't be here.
	Uh the first one being the immigration and asylum act of nineteen ninety-nine.
	Thank you, Mr. Blair.
	Uh, which repeal um the ability to give uh for asylum seekers and the dependence to give uh to to request basically unlimited support from the state.
	All the citations are there.
	I recommend that people look in detail at the relevant sections, which I do which I do give in in in in detail.
	Obviously, I've not memorized them off the top of my head.
	Um they I I describe this as a we describe this as a um an important but non-exhaustive list.
	So we don't rule out others being relevant too, particularly ones that are mentioned in the UN refugee convention, because a lot of that is interweaved into our law already.
	Everyone knows that the human rights act is interweaved into our laws.
	But we also know, I know through the Grapevine that there are other sort of uh other uh institutions with friendly to restore Britain, kindred spirits as it were, who are compiling a much more comprehensive list.
	So I didn't see the point in duplication of effort.
	But these are the main pillars of the other.
	Um so the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act from two thousand two, again, thank you, Tony Blair, uh repeal part two and part five of these things, in which we are compelled to provide housing for the asylum seekers and accommodation centres, and uh make sure that we uh respect their protection of human rights claims.
	Uh so elaborate on that for me.
	Well it it's it it is basically the seeds of the whole, as I as I recall.
	Um it might be worth scrolling down to them individually, actually, just so that I can make sure that I'm getting them right, because it's it's it can be a bit squirrely.
	Uh I as I recall this is the sort of setting in motion the whole kind of very exacting tribunals process uh that that enables people to apply for injunctions and all the rest of it.
	So just like getting rid of all of that um bureaucratic processing and making it making things cleaner.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Part five of which sets out Britain's immigration tribunal provisions, including in respect to protection and human rights claims.
	And yeah, the the citations are this and if you go to 14 then you can just look up the parts and the sections and all the rest of it, and it's um it's it all addressed.
	Okay, uh the next one is the UK Borders Act of two thousand seven.
	Now uh repeal section thirty-three that uh overrides automatic deportation for foreign criminals whether removal would breach a person's convention rights or the United Kingdom's obligations under the refugee convention.
	So when someone has done something terrible and we find the judge is like, oh, they can stay for an infinite amount of time and you're gonna pay for the privilege, well you can see how we arrived at that.
	Absolutely.
	And that that's rooted in a in a decision that I believe was made in nineteen ninety seven, which I also cited later on, called the Chahal versus the United Kingdom, and the wording of it is absolutely extraordinary.
	It says something along the lines uh are we gonna go to the ECHR later?
	Uh yeah, but it you can give us a it says something on the lines of uh the behaviour like however monstrous the behaviour of the criminal is uh is irrelevant.
	So like it completely so it completely removes uh any sort of countervailing interest to the to the human rights of that deportee if they fear if they have a plausible fear of refoulement, in other words being removed to a th either a third country or their home country in which they would face a plausible risk of you know have it being mistreated.
	So basically it it is the duty of the British to protect anybody who is a criminal against British people because that person might be able to claim that his rights would be violated.
	That's right.
	I mean I I I I think philosophically the issue here is what are rights and where do they come from and who do you owe rights to um I I've written briefly about this, but the idea is that you are born into a web of obligations to the people around you, first and foremost, because they are the ones who enable you to do anything meaningful with your life.
	These obligations must be delineated because the idea that you owe protection to any criminal who comes from Vietnam or Zimbabwe or Brazil is simply an absurdity.
	You have no relationship to him, therefore you do not owe him the same things.
	But that ruling, the Shahal one that th that you mentioned, sort of inverts that completely and says that it is the duty of Britain to be the guardian of human rights of the most criminal people in the world so long as they commit their crimes in Britain.
	That's right.
	And and I a really important analogy here that I think I use at some point.
	Um no, I don't use that, I might have used it elsewhere.
	Um if someone were to break into you would we don't really believe in that sort of telescopic altruism uh in our own cases.
	Um so if someone were to break into my home at four in the morning and just kind of like squat in my living room, let alone you know start stabbing my f members of my family, it wouldn't be considered intuitively a very good r uh Trump factor on my right to remove that person from my home that it's cold outside and they might and they might have nowhere to live and they might die during the evening.
	Like uh my duty is to protect my family first.
	And it and similarly, Britain cannot reasonably exp be expected to discharge the duty of making sure that nothing bad happens anywhere in the world ever.
	Because of these rules though, there are cases where for I remember one a few years ago, a burglar broke in someone's house, fell through a table or something, broke his leg, and then sued the person that he's whose house was breaking into.
	And it I was honestly it just ruined my day reading it.
	I was furious.
	Quite right, too.
	But you you're absolutely right about the the issue with the morality involved, actually, with the quite the question of human rights.
	And this is actually what we're covering in the webinar this afternoon, actually.
	Because as you point out, the the liberal concept of rights is irrespective of character, right?
	It does not matter what the person is like, what the person has done has done, because a universal human right applies in the liberal framework to all people in all times and all places, regardless of any contingent factors.
	And it is in fact ruining us.
	It is in fact bringing about the destruction of the country.
	But also we are we have giving privileges to criminals and to evildoers, and that's really the main problem, it's got to stop.
	Anyway, so the uh the UK Borders Act Um we need to get rid of that particular section.
	And a lot of that is covered by section two and section three, which deal respectively with ECHR and the UN refugee convention, which which those which that act simply refers to.
	Uh then you have the 2009 Borders and Citizen Citizenship and Immigration Act.
	So uh section 55 of this forces the Home Office to consider the best interest of the dependence of immigrants when making asylums decisions.
	So you remember the uh the chicken nugget Albanian lad.
	Yes.
	I don't like Albanian chicken nuggets, Dad.
	Well, thank God the British government are going to take that into consideration when I get deported for being a criminal.
	Yeah.
	More than the sort of absurdity of the cases, this is the basis for infinite legal migration on that basis.
	Yes.
	As in it's in in his best interest to have a family life, of course, it's in everybody's interest to have a family life, which means that once somebody breaks in, they can then trigger a chain migration that allows everybody in their family to come in.
	And I know of cases sort of Syrians uh who were in Lebanon who who then left to Europe, um, who send a child with a family member so that that child can be an anchor for reunification claims, family reunification claims, based on precisely that sort of reasoning.
	So it it gets abused in a very particular way, it gets abused in a very nasty way.
	There was a particular case of a Pakistani paedophile who was due to be deported, uh, but because he would have it would have violated his right his basically his access to his own children, this Pakistani pedophile uh couldn't be deported, uh which I'm sure really helped his children.
	This this loophole's very well advertised as well.
	Yes.
	It's is known pretty much worldwide at this point and then exploited, and of course it's not Britain's problem to reunite families who are moving for economic reasons when they could be perfectly united in their home country.
	Yes, completely.
	Right.
	So moving on to the Equality Act, I like this, just repeal in full.
	Yeah.
	It might be worth saying very quickly, like this is a good so there's been a lot of talk, and Starkey is of course mainstream this in the main, Dr. David Starkey, the idea of a great repeal bill.
	And of course, as you can tell, it's not as if we're reluctant to repeal legislation, it's very important that we do repeal legislation, often in full, often in part.
	And the equality act is listed there.
	My concern here was more that our concern here was more that the equality act might be used, because technically set provisions are made for exceptions to be made if you're dealing with immigration enforcement, you can actually discriminate on the basis of nationality.
	But the problem is that when you have an act of its judiciary, they will basically seize on any little bit of legal writ they've got and and employing their living instrument doctrine, uh expand upon it and uh extrapolate from it in order to come to just decisions that they like.
	So in my view, repealing is good, you should repeal quite a lot, but it's not enough, which is why in the uh uh judicial section, which I think is section six of part one uh on reforming the judiciary, we actually uh we advocate a pr a novel idea, we we push for a novel idea, something called a Great Clarification Act, which I think in combination with a great repeal bill of some kind would deal a pretty deadly blow to the possibility of judicial activism, and maybe we'll get to that later, but it's important to say here.
	But but the equality act itself, you are absolutely correct.
	It it just has to go because it prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality, which is the point of any kind of border control in the first place.
	Exactly.
	It's the it's the point of having having state and having any kind of border control, so that would have to go.
	Yeah.
	And also it's just horrific legislation that is the the source of making British people second class citizens in their own country.
	So the Equality Act uh rightly just has to go.
	Um so then you have the illegal immigration act of 2023, uh, and then certain parts of section twelve.
	What I like about this is it's not uh it's not excessively heavy-handed, right?
	Because one one critique that uh someone who didn't agree with you might come back with and say, well, but a lot of what's in these is actually reasonably good and we should keep them.
	And so if you were just going to charge in like a bull in a Chinese shop and say repeal, repeal, repeal, they would have you on the hook.
	But actually you've been a lot more surgical than that, which is actually really good.
	Try to be.
	Um so this is uh amending certain parts of section twelve, which is uh which sought to overturn two of the four so-called hardware sing principles while putting the other two on statutory footing.
	Now I don't know what these are.
	Would you like to Well yeah, there you go.
	So if you go I think it's page five of that, because then it gives a neat little summary to people on what these principles are.
	Uh yeah, there you go.
	Page four.
	Um no, oh no, no, it's at the one just down, the four limbs of hard your sing.
	So these are the sort of four principles that in br English common law um uh govern the sort of length of detention and all that sort of thing.
	And the Conservative Party in twenty twenty-three were trying to uh limit the application of these things because in British law, despite the fact that we're very proud of common law, um statutory law does does abrogate it.
	That is a that that's a key principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
	Um that is to say it overrules it for people who don't know what abrogate means in the legal context.
	Um and but the Conservatives what they did is they tried to disapply two of the provisions, I actually forget which ones, while putting the others two on a statutory footing.
	And when reform published their report, Operation Operation Restoring Justice, they just had a kind of one line thing.
	I know you know, I'm not I welcome the move.
	They had a one-line saying we would create new detention powers that don't make reference to hard yellow singh principles.
	If you still got some hard yellow singh principles on the books, which the Conservatives kept in 2023, uh you won't be able to create those detention powers.
	So they should have mentioned that they need to get rid of that little bit of legislation in order to do what they want.
	Okay.
	Uh so moving on, we will uh come to the refu the UN Refugee Convention.
	Uh now explain the issue with that to us.
	I recommend going to the bottom for that.
	Uh just like in the conclusion.
	So the UN Refugee Convention governs like in short, whereas people are constantly complaining about the the operation of the ECHR and the HRA in uh making it very, very difficult to get rid of people.
	The the UN Refugee Convention forces us to take their entry seriously.
	So that's the kind of d distinction.
	In fact, I might just I might just uh uh wheel this out now.
	How about you if you go to the Dominic Cummings uh section?
	Uh no, the uh the bottom of it.
	Oh no, no, on the um the new tab.
	Oh right, yes.
	People ideas, machines, just quickly.
	And then if you go down to keep going down, he he loves to preface his uh blog post with uh fancy fancy keep going, keep going, keep going.
	Oh uh go up.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Uh down going down again.
	Yeah.
	So I went through the boats in great detail in 2020 with both A, the military and B, the best lawyers inside and outside government, and the conclusion was absolutely clear.
	Operationally stopping the boats is very simple and could be done in days.
	But um Cabinet Office legal advice endorsed by external experts is that the PM cannot do the simply thing simple thing lawfully because the courts will stop him using the HRA and the ECHR.
	Uh look who happens to agree with um Dominic Cummings.
	I don't know whether people can see that.
	Yeah, they can definitely Josh, would you do us the honours of reading from unfortunately downwards?
	Sure.
	This is Tony Blair's memoir, 2010.
	Unfortunately, it was completely unrealistic in the late 20th century.
	The presumption was plainly false.
	Most asylum claims were not genuine.
	Disproving them, however, was almost impossible.
	The combination of the courts with their liberal instincts, the European Convention on Human Rights with its absolutist attitude, to the prospect of returning someone to an unsafe community, and the UN Convention of Refugees with its context firmly that of the 1930s convention of um oh no, the 1930s Germany, sorry, meant that in practice, once someone got into Britain and claimed asylum, it was the devil's own job to return them.
	The devil's own job.
	Interesting.
	Uh yes, so uh so that clearly Dominic C Dominic Cummings and Tony Blair are uh at one on that point, uh which is interesting and like a uh probably an unwise moment of candor from from from the Dark Lord in his in his memoir.
	So what the UNRC does, it basically it's basically lies at the root of our asylum system and it forces us to take claims seriously.
	So if you go back to mass the the paper cast, sorry, uh yeah.
	So is that the last is that the last part of the yeah?
	Yeah, so basically we should uh my our view is that we should repeal all reference to its rules and principles in our in our domestic legislation.
	Again, own it uh being tech a signatory to it doesn't really matter that much.
	It's only insofar as it isn't incorporated into our own law, which it has been by a number of statutes, that it uh operates, it has it assumes legal force, active legal force within Britain.
	So I suggest uh we suggest um repealing those.
	Uh reformers just suggested disapplying them for five years.
	I think they should be repealed altogether, and we need to move through a new status quo for the twenty-first century.
	And as I say though, then what we should replace it with in positive terms, then it should be specified in our law that persons seeking asylum from anywhere other than Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, or Iceland, all of which neighbour us to varying degrees will have their claims automatically dismissed.
	In other words, there won't be this sort of farcical idea that they should be taken seriously, which the UN refugee convention context assumes that people are seeking asylum in good faith, that's often not the case, they're passing through multiple safe countries, there's very little in the way of um assurances that allow host countries to just dismiss bogus claims at route.
	Um and given that under Schedule 3 of the asylum and immigration treatment of claimants, etc.
	Act, 2004, all of these countries are already listed as safe.
	Anyone who came from them, so long as they weren't claiming as they would be travelling from them, but if as long as so long as they weren't saying if they they would have to claim that they were seeking asylum from one of those countries.
	Yeah.
	And given that they're all listed as safe in our own law.
	Yeah, and then they'd be given safe to So Marine Le Pen might qualify, but everybody else would not.
	That's basically it.
	The problem of the UN uh convention on refugees anyway, is it's written in a different time.
	In a different era for a different circumstance.
	But it all it also carries that kind of twentieth century liberal romanticism.
	Oh, we can create a universal rule for all times and all places.
	It's like, no, actually, you you weren't expecting millions of third worlders to walk across the world through Europe and come over and break into our country on post.
	You didn't have that in your mind at all.
	That's right.
	And if that that was happening in your day, you would never have agreed to this.
	All it took was um the the basically the modernisation of air cheap air travel in the 1970s to poke a massive hole through that and make it completely redundant.
	Precisely.
	And so the the world has changed, and we shouldn't this this was always one of uh the great points that Scruton made is the the dead hand of treaties.
	Yeah.
	They're made in a different time and don't adapt to the the circumstances.
	Where it gets really funny as far as I'm concerned, is in the idea of this being a living document.
	If it was a living document in you, it should apply it should factor in the changing circumstances.
	So they apply the living document doctrine only in the living instrument.
	The living instrument, sorry, the living instrument doctrine only in as far as it suits their own liberal biases.
	They don't apply it to say, well, this was written for a situation in the 1930s where the Germans were doing these things, therefore the world has changed and the Germans aren't doing them.
	Um it it it's it always leans towards their favoured presumptions.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	And it's also worth paying, we do we do also, I think a little bit above say that we should be thinking about moving towards a new model for the twenty-first century.
	And this is this is an idea that uh we actually got from Rafe Heidelman Ku at the New Culture Forum.
	He's been banging on this drum for a while, and he deserves a lot of credit for doing so.
	The idea that there should be a new status quo globally, an update to the UNRC 1951 context which says, look, if you're applying asylum for asylum, you should seek it in your continent of origin that has lots of virtues, it minimizes cultural frictions because there tends to be more cultural proximity between those sorts of countries, and crucially, it imposes it well it's two, it imposes uh it gives it gives um third world leaders a very serious incentive to look out for the regional stability of their region rather than just palming it off on the West.
	And third, weirdly, and yeah, you feraz, you'll you'll you'll agree with this, but the the rest needs the West quite a lot because the West is the hub of research and innovation.
	If the West went under, the rest would suffer too.
	So the more we make the West less the less we make it like a lifeboat, which is people what people see it as a kind of a a kind of infinite lifeboat, it can no damage to which can ever be done, the less it will look like a lifeboat, and the more it will look like a godforsaken slam, in which case everyone suffers.
	So there are three important reasons to push for that.
	Agreed.
	And also I I just again the w the appeal to these kind of abstract universal laws really bothers me because it undermines the agency of the Western countries and their own governments anyway.
	It's like sorry, I'm bound by a treaty that was signed a hundred years ago when I'm the sovereign of the country, I'm I'm I'm the one with the executive power of the country.
	Well it undermines parliamentary sovereignty for the fact that the government's not.
	Like the the The point being we should essentially not have any rules for this.
	And if we feel that we want to be channeled like for the Ukrainians, for example, I'm completely in favour of us taking the Ukrainian refugees.
	Because they are actual refugees in an actual war zone and we are actually sympathetic to them.
	And we we consider Ukraine part of the West's interests realm of interest.
	And it was women and children, as well and it was and it was women and children, actual refugees.
	We should just be free to say we're not taking anyone from Syria or from Iraq or the m you know the Maghreb or bloody Somalia.
	No, we're just not interested and we don't have an abstract rule that constrains us to do so.
	We make the executive decision because we think that's good for us and we don't really believe you in the fact that you're lying because you're obviously grifters.
	Correct.
	Anyway, so yes moving on.
	So the ECHR related obstacles then.
	Well I mean I I think that's probably the area where people feel best briefed.
	So it might be worth moving on to other sections.
	I do recommend that people read it in full if they're if they're interested.
	But yeah so the the the just very briefly though just uh for anyone who's not aware um the you present basically two options.
	Yeah full withdrawal which I would have what I would think is a good thing.
	I mean this is sort of the Conservatives currently saying at the moment oh we're going to withdraw from it.
	Or uh what I liked about this selective disobedience.
	Yes.
	Which has been proposed uh as a more simple course than full withdrawal um I think that if it's got to the point of selective disobedience just withdraw.
	Yes so the so the the only thing I do and this is probably quite technical again I very I do recommend that people read the two sections that follow this which have to do with the Belfast Agreement and to do with the the European Yeah well we can we can cover those.
	Well we can cover them but the so if we are going to do full withdrawal it will lead to not legal ramifications but political and diplomatic ramifications.
	So I do, we do sketch out ways in which we could resolve the Northern Ireland problem and ways which would be contingent upon full withdrawal.
	Once you do full withdrawal, you have to sort some kind of settlement in Northern Ireland.
	And once you do full withdrawal, there are possibilities that that will have ramifications for the Windsor framework, which sort of governs the post-Brexit settlement in Northern Ireland and indeed the trade and cooperation agreement, which governs our relationship with Europe post-Brexit.
	And those do make rather unfortunate and complex references to the ECHR and to convention rights.
	And so how would you manage all of that?
	It's quite technical.
	We do have this, I mean, how much time do we have?
	actually running out of time so let's let's keep it briefly let's go to the Great Clarification Act I think.
	The point is there are there are uh very detailed arguments made in the plan.
	Yes and but if you if in other words I will say this if a government found itself with a majority and didn't fancy its chances hammering out like expending all of the political capital necessary to sort the Northern Ireland problem and to sort the um the uh Windsor framework problem and the um UK EU trade and cooperation agreement problem we recommend that selective disobedience is probably a simpler yes way of going about things.
	I mean they've got no way of enforcing it by and we have the and this we're crucially with the Great Clarification Act um that would be easier to do.
	Is that this bit or is it so this it's them it's the centrepiece of the our restor restoration of the judicial system.
	We make other recommendations as well but we've come up with a a novel idea the Great Clarification Act because a lot of I'll try and explain it briefly there's a lot of talk about Great Repeal.
	The problem with Great Repeal is that you're trying to anticipate how the judicial behave in advance by taking away tools from them.
	But they'll might they might find other tools.
	Which is always a problem in this another government might provide them with and that's that true too but there's also such a like a m menacingly complex judici uh legal corpus in Britain that they can find something and they'll employ the living instrument doctrine they can just go, no you're not doing that.
	What the Great Clarification Act would be designed to do would be a kind of sort of backstop fail-safe option.
	If if the s in spite of all everything we've repealed activist judges nevertheless find ways of interpreting the law in ways that disrupt a patriotic agenda of mass deportations and many other policies we would pass very early on a Great Clarification Act which would create a new function within Parliament called correction bills which can come into force on a flexible basis in order to shoot down judicial rulings as and when they arise.
	So this gets around the problem of having to anticipate what judges will do in advance.
	You can do some of that but then if they still find ways you've got the Great Clarification Act.
	And while there is no strict category of clarification act in British law there is precedent on this there have been two times that I can think of maybe more in British history when Parliament has passed laws that don't really uh create a new situation but state and reiterate what they already believed to be true.
	A good example would be the 1766 Declaratory act when there was an embarrassing uh climb down from the Stamp Act which the the that Britain tried to impose on America.
	America was very cross.
	Lord Rockingham, who was quite it was Prime Minister of the time, actually a patron to Burke, he came into office and he was quite fond of the Americans, as indeed Burke was, kind of sympathized with them.
	And so he repealed the Stamp Act, but in order to kind of uh uh reassure um people who were not so pro-American, he said, but I'm going to pass the declaratory act with it, which which restates it's quite petty in a way, it just says, by the way, we we have repealed the Stamp Act, but we still have a right to bring it back if we want to.
	Like it's just clarifying that we can do this.
	Uh and similarly, um the the um Nationality Act of 1948, which many of us probably don't like, um, clarified this the immigration status of British subjects around the world in the sort of waning days of empire.
	So the the clarification acts of sorts, you could call them that if you want, have been passed in the four before before.
	This would be a great clarification act, underscoring the right of parliament to shoot down judicial decisions to restate its sovereignty, and in a weird way, in a in a paradoxical way, it would both cause and require a renewal of confidence among MPs who sit in parliament.
	Yes.
	Um and we think that would be very good because then you're not just trying you then you're not trying to second guess the judiciary every turn, you can capture the channel.
	The rule of law is that the rule by judges.
	And at the moment we have rule by judges.
	That is not acceptable.
	Exactly.
	Exactly right.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	I think if you put it on proper philosophical foundations as to what is the purpose of the asylum system and the judiciary and the immigration system, and say that to the extent that these things exist, they are for the benefit of the existing citizens of Britain.
	Yes.
	That would force them to be perhaps less mealy-mouthed and enable you to sort of just slap down dissent without um going too far into it.
	Uh they're currently arguing the case with Robert Jemric at the moment, actually, because he wanted to have some sort of political accountability for the judges.
	And they're of course like, well, no, that'll ruin us.
	Yes.
	Uh but anyway, so I think that is uh one of the strongest points that you're making.
	It's one of the original groundbreaking uh points we make.
	Yeah.
	Um given that we're running out of time, I don't want to I don't want to dictate your segment, but maybe we should I I would recommend people to read so this is the legal obstacles point.
	Then we have a practical logistics section, which is based into voluntary returns, which would basically mean ramping up the hostile environment, making it much stronger than it was last time, very, very detailed, on what we would do on the hostile environment, and then vol involuntary returns, detention and removal processing, like all of the practical logistics is sort of filled in on that.
	And then we can get to the roadmap, which is just a little bit above, which would give people an idea of w how why we think that this could be achieved in as in as optimistic a time frame that we've given.
	I think it's a bit higher up.
	Um could oh gosh, no news.
	Oh sorry, it's way down, way down.
	Oh, okay.
	Forgive me.
	Do control FR roadmap.
	It's just that the the th remember the three um scenarios I was talking about earlier, way down, way down.
	We do recommend that people read it in full, and we and we welcome feedback and and and uh criticism as well.
	It's pretty comprehensive, but you can see uh how much thought you've put into this, frankly.
	Yeah, well it's been uh it's been a very, very formidable team effort, and that is great pr I was very proud to uh I would assume that every time somebody is arrested, their immigration status has to be checked, right?
	Yes, exactly, that sort of thing.
	Um data sharing across departments, all the rest of it reporting.
	One of the first things the government should do is actually come- Oh no, no, keep going, keep going.
	Yeah, well, the tension, certainly, but they should um they should uh goes without saying.
	And we talk also diplomatically visa sanctions, we've got this idea of a deportation NATO, which people can read about as well, which is basically.
	People sign up to have deportation.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And so if you're banned from I did read in about it.
	Good man, good man.
	If you're banned from Sweden, because you've you're in a legal chancellor, you should be automatically banned from Britain if assuming some kind of collective security agreement.
	An attack on one sovereignty is an attack on all sovereignty.
	That's the NATO Article V principle.
	And it can apply it should apply at this level as much as a here we are, though.
	There you go.
	So if you go so first we give our conservative estimate, I will just read this bit.
	Assuming a cautious ratio of three voluntary exits for every forced exit, three to one.
	That's roughly what we have at the moment.
	So is this is conservative, together with a similarly cautious annual average of 150,000 forced deportations, this would remove.
	Which is what the Conservatives are promising.
	Yep, yes.
	This would and what we think we could like would be a co and a cautious estimate on our part as well.
	Three million would be removed within a single parliament.
	Probably aren't even three million here.
	So it would take exactly three years to deport 1.8 million on that conservative estimate.
	Then you've got to keep go down a bit.
	Now it's worth saying that Trump has achieved a ratio of four to one, so better.
	Better.
	So that's uh this is we're gonna we go with that and for our second realistic estimate, which is the one we probably set most stock in.
	So this assumes the same hundred and fifty thousand forced deportations per year, but this time with the Trump-like four to one ratio of voluntary to involuntary.
	Uh, This would see 3.75 million deported within a single parliament.
	Again, there probably aren't that many so that's obvious overkill.
	So suffice it to say then that if you work that out it comes it comes to two uh two years and five months to deport 1.8 million.
	And then the daring estimate which nevertheless is um based on a set of fairly plausible variables Trump's four to one ratio of voluntary to involuntary deportations but this time with a near perfect to detain to deport conversion rate of ninety five per cent.
	That reason why ninety five percent yields 1850 is because 95% 1850 is 95% of 1950 which is annual detention capacity that we aspire to.
	So if you get a 95% conversion rate that would see people um 1.8 million illegals deported which we assume to be roughly around the real number in fewer than two years, one year and 11 months.
	So that's th those are the basis of our estimates on on the roadmap front.
	Excellent and uh just a quick thing I noticed that there are people who have endorsed this.
	They are they are William Klussan of the Social Democrat Party.
	And and a fellow and a um what is he on the advisory board of restore Britain as well.
	Right and uh Sir Gavin Williamson Conservative MP.
	Interesting.
	Well it's good to see the Conservatives actually uh listening to someone so we're we'll we'll have to end that there and uh move on.
	Okay.
	We're gonna do any comments or shall I go straight I'll save them for the end okay just because uh sorry for the length of that section that's alright it was a lot better.
	Interesting yeah it was really good yeah it's really good it's basically talking about political gossip so it's it's fine so recently Robert Genrick made some comments when he went to Birmingham and I'm gonna preface this by saying that I disagree with everything I've included in this segment.
	Everyone is wrong except me and I think uh the panel's probably going to agree here um that the entire discourse is ridiculous and it's quite frustrating it is quite obvious why the Conservative Party is dying and why mainstream uh journalism is also on the wane because they're just missing it.
	So the Guardian obtained a recording of Robert Jenrick when he was in Birmingham and he said the following I went to Hansworth in Birmingham the other day to do a video on litter and it was absolutely appalling.
	It's as close as I've come to a slum in this country but the other thing I noticed was that it was uh one of the worst integrated places I've ever been to in fact in the hour and a half I was filming um news there I didn't see another white face that's not the kind of country I want to live in I want to live in a country where people are probably integrated.
	It's not about the colour of your skin or your faith of course it isn't but I want people to be living alongside each other not parallel lives that's not the right way we want to live as a country.
	Now I don't necessarily agree with all of what Jenric said there.
	So the first part that Birmingham's horrible I do agree with um it's a surprise that he found that a surprise.
	I know has he seen pictures were you not aware of the 2021 census maps or something.
	Oh we'll be getting to that the latter part that um that you know it's even desirable to to have this form of integration I think the the multicultural experiment has failed.
	It's it's quite obvious that it's an aspect of human nature that people seek out people who are similar to them and live in uh sort of enclaves and you know it's not necessarily to criticize ethnic minorities because it's true of Britain's in say Spain as well.
	It's completely it's just how human beings behave when they're a minority in another country and it's perfectly natural that people seek out those who are similar to them.
	But I just the path of least resistance right of course yeah there are people here I understand who are familiar to me and I'm gonna get goods and services from them because I can speak their language and I know they're predictable it's just more pleasant to live around people like you basically even with that added it's still just functionally a lot easier as well.
	It's what Aristotle who merits a restoration I don't know if anyone's working on a such a project I know but they might be it's what Aristotle would have called filial the ide like the idea of strong kinship bonds being natural between human beings.
	And so it's not a an aspect of human nature that that that necessarily carries with it any moral weight.
	So if you go to if if you go to an African country odds are you will find a Lebanese enclave where all of the Lebanese are living next to each other and staying away from everybody else.
	And odds are you will find at least one or two neighborhoods where the Europeans all congregate and Live next to each other.
	And they go to different restaurants and they go to different bars.
	And they try to live separate lives from each other.
	And they establish different schools.
	If you go to the UAE, everybody likes to talk about the UAE.
	There is a British school, there is a French school, there's an Indian school.
	Every single ethnic group has established their own separate bubble while living in a very diverse society.
	They might be neighbours, but they don't interact with each other as neighbours or as people who have common bonds.
	Yes.
	So the West is meant to be the great exception without understanding what makes the West exceptional.
	And it's just completely unrealistic to have this kind of expectation.
	And it's not the um theoretical anymore.
	All of the evidence on the ground attests to this fact.
	Exactly.
	I mean, this is precisely what Jemric got in trouble for.
	Exactly.
	Moreover, the the whole integration thing.
	Sorry, I didn't ask for this.
	Um actually I I want to just live normally in.
	It's not in our interest, is it?
	Well, even whether our interest or not, I didn't ask for this.
	We lived in a nice little place.
	It was just normal, like 95% English in 1991, and then suddenly you're like, no, you're gonna have to live next to a bunch of foreigners.
	I'm not even saying they're bad people, a lot of them are not bad people.
	But revealed preferences, we move away from that, and so okay, well, they can form their ethnic enclave because there's space made available for them.
	And expressed preference and went until it was crushed as well.
	Exactly.
	And and I'm sorry that that's just the case that has happened.
	Well, I I mean i it's entirely obvious if you look at the 2021 census data that many parts of Birmingham are now less than ten percent white.
	This is just a screenshot um because I I I'm gonna go into more specifics in the uh actual census map itself, but you can see here that much of the centre of Birmingham has been.
	Any of the light green is like 10%.
	Yes.
	And so you can see that this is true of many major cities, it's true of even London as well.
	It's true of Swindon.
	This is basically what's happening in Swindon.
	Where you you know, it's all around the edge where it's very dark blue, that's almost a hundred percent English.
	And the English have just been like, okay, well, I won't live in the city centre then.
	And it's exactly the same in Swindon.
	If you look at the outside, it's all just this dark blue ring where the English is just like, okay, well, I'm just gonna move a bit back into the Shire because I didn't ask to live next to a bunch of foreigners.
	I just didn't ask for that.
	I want to live next to people I understand.
	And it's completely normal, it's not prejudicial, it's just the way as you said, it's filial.
	Yeah.
	So what what you understand, you do it without thinking.
	I think that I think you're really right as well, Josh, if I may say to mention that Generick, though of course he deserves credit for putting his head above the parapet in this way and making this comment.
	He is still his implication that integration would be desirable is still wrong because we're talking here, as Carl's just been delineating, but lest you lose use an analogy just to clinch the point.
	It would be like saying, Oh, yeah, no, I know that a family that you never asked to be in your home is now living there and squatting there, but don't worry, like you can put the pictures up that you want to be put up here, and they can have their own little corner of the sitting room, and you you can choose the kitchen table, they can choose the couch.
	No, no, no, no.
	That's the same.
	Why am I giving up any of my house to these people?
	And unc like an unflinching defence of the right of the majority to defend itself, maintain itself, and assert itself nonviolently.
	The conception of a nation as a homeland for its people rather than economic zone.
	Right.
	So crazy.
	Crazy idea.
	Here we can see um individual um areas of Birmingham here, 2.8% uh white English, Welsh, Scottish, or northern Irish.
	So when they when they have white percent British, it's just gonna be English as well, because obviously Burmian being.
	And you can see lots of them are in horrific.
	That the low percentages here, it's not just me cherry picking.
	Some of them are uh slightly above ten percent.
	This is crazy, and we should never have allowed this.
	And it's happened so rapidly, and this is what I think Jenric was actually getting at is that um his notion of integration, which I disagree with, um, is that there's still got to be some English people or British people or whatever there for it to be integrated.
	If they're pushed out, it doesn't count as integration.
	I would say integrating into.
	Yeah, well, there's nothing, they're just supplanting the the native population of but I I would argue that this is inevitable because it's an aspect of human nature that is immutable and you can't change it, and it it's foolish to even try because it it's so deeply rooted in our behaviour, it can't be overcome.
	Yeah, nor should it be.
	Yeah, and even if it could be, why should we have to?
	We shouldn't.
	There was nothing immoral about it.
	There's nothing unusual about it, unnatural about it, wrong about it.
	And every single one of the people who predominates in these areas defends that times ten, not gently as we would want to do, uh, but pretty pretty f thoroughgoingly in say Pakistan or India or wherever it happens to be.
	And th this is what happened with the stabbing in Manchester the other day.
	You had a majority Jewish neighbourhood right next to a majority Muslim neighbourhood.
	They had actually segregated themselves under this very same principle of I want to live around people like me.
	It's a microcosm of the Israel Palestine company, isn't it?
	Precisely.
	We'd recreated it on British soil.
	Why not?
	And we're surprised that it happened.
	So memorise this sort of distribution in Birmingham because we're going to look at economic ac inactivity now.
	And you can see that oh oh I didn't mean to zoom in that far.
	But you can see even in places like London, okay, it's very diverse, perhaps not to the same degree as some other parts.
	It has more white British people in London than in Birmingham.
	No, that's not true.
	London's thirty seven per cent in this census, but as in the the city centre, I mean.
	Yeah.
	I can go back if you want.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I I'll show you.
	Oh what you're doing.
	I'm absolutely certain that Samson, what are you doing, son?
	Oi.
	Oh, it wasn't you.
	No, no, it wasn't, but I wasn't touching it either.
	That's weird.
	So it's a ghost.
	Yeah, even the city centre, like in the few percentage points, though, is it?
	Well, I think I think it depends where you drill down into, right?
	But but anyway, my point being You literally do in some I mean I yeah, okay.
	It's not to the same scale.
	But the the point being that um economically it's still not as uh unproductive as a place like Birmingham, which is even further along.
	And the point being here that you can correlate the displacement of the white British with economic inactivity.
	Uh yeah, go ahead and zoom in, and we can see that the i inactivity mirrors the spread of basically diversity, that the city centre is the most economically inactive and uh is quite significant, over fifty percent in many places, and uh this is is something that is of course an utter disaster because one would presume that a city um the whole economic benefit of having a city is that it's centralized and that it's economically efficient.
	And so if your city centre, which should be the most economically efficient area, is the most economically inefficient, it sort of suggests a massive problem here, doesn't it?
	It suggests that this has failed, maybe.
	Uh, the plan was really, doesn't it?
	You know, if the plan is to destroy Britain, then it's going excellently.
	Yeah, it's it's fantastic.
	So moving on to this, he did double down on what he said.
	Um, unlike many other politicians, he didn't go in and grovel and apologise, which is worth mentioning because there are many people calling for him to do that, and uh there was a a wide range of reactions from the left, and let's have a look at the.
	So just can I just say something?
	The the the problem with him double doubling down on this is he's doubling down on the two thousands colour blind consensus.
	That's the problem.
	He's saying, well, look, you know, if we want integration, if we want multiculturalism, there has to be some of ours and some of theirs, right?
	And it's like, yeah, okay, sure, but why do we have to give up our second city to a bunch of people who are not from this country?
	We should have our own corner of the sitting room.
	Exactly.
	Exactly, yeah.
	That's my chair.
	Yeah, you know, why are you not sat in your chair?
	It's like, sorry, you didn't even live in this house.
	Exactly.
	Uh yeah, sorry.
	So um we had Labour MPs like uh Paul X Hamilton, who uh I think um was grew up in Hansworth.
	Yes, um, said uh represented it for 18 years, and she was basically just inviting him to have a you know have a tour and meet a mum, which is probably the show him a white face, is it?
	What are you doing?
	You're completely wrong.
	She was reacting to the slum comment, which I think is the least controversial of the lot.
	Yeah, that's something that everyone is aware of.
	Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can tell that it's a slum, okay.
	It's still not in strikes going on.
	And uh everyone's favourite dyslexic lot to see to pointed out that um all of the rubbish on the side of the road, this wasn't a problem in Britain beforehand.
	And it's starting to look it it's like if you're uh using Street View and you drop it anywhere in India, you see rubbish everywhere.
	That's fine.
	And it's the same thing, it's become uh just a product of the people who have moved there, which is very unsurprising.
	And um, yes, obviously uh check out channel.
	Um The Guardian accused him of toxic nationalism.
	Um this is the headline they went with.
	It was actually Don't want segregated Lebanese community, thank you.
	It was toxic nationalists.
	Basically uh the Bishop of Birmingham that said this.
	Um he said um these uh the comments have the potential to generate anxiety and stir up division and can feed into harmful narratives that provide fuel for a fire of toxic nationalism.
	what does that even mean like uh anxiety fuel a fire?
	What does that even mean in practical?
	It's don't upset.
	It's it's it's verbiage intended to form part of a war I'm noticing.
	I lived in Whitechapel, a very Bangladeshi area, unfortunately.
	It was very convenient for where I was working.
	And I had first I had a Sharia patrol outside my house.
	Then there was the fact that I had people knocking on my door on a Friday asking me if I was going to mosque.
	And the third was that the amount of rubbish strewn on the street in what should be prime real estate where people want to get to the city was just insane.
	And then there's the sort of Bangladeshi markets where you kind of go, what the hell is that?
	Um the idea that you're not allowed to say any of this stuff is offensive.
	You're meant to apply a permanent filter that prevents you from noticing the transformation that you're seeing.
	Yes.
	And I don't understand it's a defense of the status quo.
	They are happy.
	Their model for the country is Birmingham, is Whitechapel.
	And if you object to that, then you're fueling toxic nationalism.
	As if, I mean, God, if only Robert Jemric was.
	If only he was nearly the the monster they were painting him to be, but no.
	You know, it's pathetic.
	And I hate this argument of oh, you're you're stoking division.
	Yeah, you're damn right I am, right?
	Because there's a conflict going on here.
	There's definitely division whether we like it or not.
	Exactly.
	There's two visions of the world.
	There's ours and there's yours.
	And I want that division because we're gonna win.
	What division means is a conflict that gets resolved through whatever means, you know, for us it'll be at the ballot box, uh, because we are a democracy, whether people like it or not.
	And we're gonna win.
	We're gonna win this easily, in fact.
	Nigel Farage isn't even anywhere near what they're painting him to be, and people are voting for him on those grounds.
	Yeah, right.
	Like they like Keir Starmer said, like he's a war for the soul of the country.
	Nigel Farage represents Little England and all this sort of stuff.
	It's like not really, but free advertising, we mean but that's what they think he represents.
	That's what they think they project it onto him.
	And say, yeah, we're gonna win this.
	A quick word on the war noticing, I think you're absolutely right, Firas.
	But the thing is that they you know this, of course, but they're not starting this war today.
	It's a war that they have been waging for a while.
	Well the race relationship in 1965.
	Wherever you want to date it from, it's in the immediate post-war period.
	That's how you ended up with this.
	Yeah, well quite.
	But the thing is is that people have these patient these taboos ha are the these sort of blunt instruments, toxic nationalism, racism, fascism, and far right, they have grown completely blunt through overuse over a long time period.
	And then you also throw in the fact that social media has just blown this wide open.
	So the idea that you can stop people from seeing the consequences of policy is absurd at this point.
	You can lie Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart and James O'Brien, they can bemoan the fact that they're doing Britain down all they like, but we see the evidence of our own eyes in a way that when you lived in sort of Hugh Grant's 90s Britain and a lot of this wasn't as immediately visible, love actually bring it actually made a bit more sense intuitively for people to say, well, yeah, no, we shouldn't be too judgmental about certain groups and all the rest of it.
	That maybe there aren't group differences because I'm sort of living in this lovely little but now that we don't live in that world, it is just unsustainable for them to have this taboo and for them to expect it to work anymore.
	Have you seen further radicalising people?
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	Sorry.
	And then crucially, this is the last point.
	People feel up against it demographically, with people are increasingly aware of the demographic projections.
	And there will come a point, and I would argue we're already there where people sort of you know that sort of graph, it's like uh say Western civilization, get called racist, don't save Western civilization, still get called racist.
	The more the more that becomes an apparent choice to people, the more they're just going to take these comments on the chin.
	And that's why Nigel Farage is at 35%.
	After Keir Starmer declared him to be the enemy of the regime and that he represents this this horrific nativism, everyone's like, oh, brilliant, okay, I will vote for him then.
	So he could he could be at 50% if you were to sort of take a couple of more steps to the right.
	I agree with you, maybe at 50 or 60%.
	Well, look, it's it's where's the mark in the polls?
	Like it's it's pushing him up in the polls when they call him a racist.
	Anyway.
	So um obviously the usual suspects are calling it racist.
	Um not really that notable.
	Um they're also appealing to local residents, of course, the local residents aren't exactly going to be.
	I don't understand the language you're using.
	Speaks me in this.
	A bit nasty of them to go for a pre azempic picture as well.
	I think Keir Starmer said uh Generich is hard to take seriously, which is not saying much, I think his popularity just boosts.
	That's ridiculous.
	Yeah, I know.
	By insulting someone, he's only making them more popular, so he's foolish to even do this in the first place.
	And uh a former Conservative mayor of Birmingham um said that it's actually a very integrated place not the definition of a slum, which is just denial.
	It's it's worth remembering that the census was done before the Boris wave as well.
	So this was how things were before they decided actually we need millions more.
	And picture and also Birmingham host to a lot of Indians and Pakistanis.
	We're talking about the reality of Philia as an aspect of human nature.
	If I was an Indian and I moved to Britain, I'd despite the fact that India is a bit of a slum, I probably would move there.
	So uh presumably a lot of the Boris Wave in other words has found itself in Birmingham.
	No, no doubt.
	Yeah.
	And uh your sort of quintessential platonic ideal of a woke professor also agrees with this.
	Um, you know, she's even got pink hair.
	This is superb.
	Make them defend Birmingham.
	But that's yeah, no, Birmingham is their model.
	Yeah, that's the professor at the University of Birmingham, I think that's why she's doing it.
	Right.
	She wades through the rubbish on her way to work.
	I know.
	Brilliant, diverse, vibrant city.
	But how is she in to science when her rejection of the evidence is so comprehensive?
	Ah, it's all ideology these days, isn't it?
	Uh yeah, Carl, we were in Birmingham not too long ago.
	Was it a nice place?
	Yeah.
	But on the drive in, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	We were just like, wow, there are no white people around here at all.
	And there was I saw one guy on his bike, and it's like he'd been taken out of time or something.
	He's like wearing all the cycling equipment and it's just like you know, women in burkers pushing wheelchairs, and then this one ginger white guy on his bike, and it's like probably l probably listening to the rest of his politics.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Oh, uh we had a conference.
	Oh, you didn't for some reason they decided to torture us with it.
	Nice venue though.
	It was a lovely venue.
	In the skeleton of former Birmingham.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And um you even get things like this.
	Thank the Tories for keeping Robert Genric out of high office.
	Well done Financial Times.
	See, it was it was Boris trying to placate the Financial Times that brought in the Boris Wave in the first place.
	He literally admitted it.
	And thank you, Financial Times.
	This is why no one reads you anymore.
	And uh here's another one.
	Robert Jenric urged to apologize for disgraceful integration comments.
	Um this is just the usual talking heads trying to make people apologize because it gives them power over them.
	And then you have uh this from the BBC, you don't have to be white to be English when you're gonna be able to do that.
	This was from what's her name there, right there.
	Rani Rauji.
	And it's also written by Tanya Gupta and Ada Fofana.
	Have you actually looked through this article?
	I have, yes.
	I'm gonna get that.
	Okay, okay.
	So first and foremost, I want to point out that uh back in 2015, in in more normal times, the independent will publish things like this, and if we have a better view of this graph, you can see a distinct uh ethnic profile of the English here.
	We can see the borders of the Celtic lands of of Scotland, Wales, and and you know, Devon and Cormore.
	These are distinct from England genetically and culturally, somewhat at least, uh in the case of of Devon at least.
	Um but we can see that the English do exist as a genetic thing, and you can't really define that away.
	I if you can see it in genetics and it's it's on these genetic maps that are perfectly mainstream to the point where the independent was more than happy to publish it, even though it did have um coded headline.
	It does, yes.
	It's obviously left encoded, but it's uh it's also missing the point.
	I I I love the subtitle.
	White English share forty percent of their DNA with the French.
	That alien rays from across the oceans.
	It's not even true either, but we don't share 40% of our DNA with the French.
	It's also not an impressive like 10,000 years makes it look really, really like oh man, this is a huge deal.
	The the continent in Britain at that time, like before then, was frozen over because of because of an ice age.
	So like th there was a sort of uh genetic uh like blank slate if you like, uh that makes it actually easier for geneticists to study the genetic history of the British Isles, and it is just remark a remarkably homogeneous story until 1948.
	I mean the fact is literally our sort of closest like foreign neighbour being the French, and it's only forty percent similarity.
	Yeah.
	Well that's that's crazy.
	You know, the Norman French really had an imprint.
	It's only they're probably amplifying just the similarities like the beaker folk.
	But if you think about the kind of people that have happened to make those nations come about.
	So you've got the Germanic um Franks over the Celtic Gauls, and you've got the Germanic Saxons over the Celtic Britons, and they're only 40% the same.
	That's actually in all of the respects, you would expect these people to basically be identical in every way.
	They probably would have been able to understand one another's language when the two when the tribes were moving into these different areas.
	I'm going to make a much more problematic point.
	Oh good.
	Um I think with chimpanzees, there is a ninety-nine percent overlap in genetics, 97% with gorillas and 94% with Bonobles.
	With Himisipians, yeah.
	Um so tiny differences when the similarity is that like if you're 99% similar DNA to a chimp, that means that that remaining one per cent has insane significance.
	Well, we share 60% of our genes with a banana.
	There you go.
	So small variations here have an enormous impact, but they try to brush over that by saying, Oh, 40% is huge.
	Yeah.
	This is so th there's a level of there's a there's a slight of hand involved, there's a bit of dishonesty and disingenuity involved, because highly differences turn out to be important enough to make you into an entirely different species.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So so like I I hate this manipulation of the numbers.
	I'm a Catholic, I believe we're all created by God, fair enough, but I don't like dishonesty because I'm a Catholic by God, really.
	Usually we there's no such thing as sort of perfect ethnic purity, but that doesn't mean that there aren't very, very consequential degrees of homogeneity.
	An example I like to use is that like technically apples sh uh share quite a lot of quite a bit of genetic overlap with killer whales.
	Right.
	But but that doesn't make app that doesn't make killer whales at home in the fruit bowl, you know.
	Like but there's they're slightly closer to oranges, so oranges do look a bit more at home in the fruit ball.
	So these these degrees do matter and they're extremely significant.
	But then second, just because a population moves in, usually quite a small population, an elite population like the Normans, I think a five percent demographic population shift as a result of the Norman conquest.
	That's about right, yeah.
	He didn't send them all in.
	No.
	We would no one would ever say that India doesn't exist because the British were there in a small proportions, ruling it administratively, not really demographically, for how many centuries, better half of three centuries.
	Um it would be absurd to claim that.
	And similarly, the Normans have actually had very little genetic impact on the British Isles.
	They had more influence on our language than our German.
	Certainly, certainly they did, yes.
	So um yes, you and I have discussed this before, haven't we?
	We have um the sake of time then, let's carry on.
	Sorry, yeah.
	Um this is what you're alluding to.
	It is, yeah, I love this guy.
	Um Marege Khan said the area was a slum, and he was not offended by the comments because they were true.
	There he is, looking very serious.
	Good on him.
	Um, Indian bro.
	Um, said he only saw Asian and black people adding, I never saw a white face around here.
	There were, however, white people living in the area, he said, but they tended not to be British.
	Um it could be inevitable West, come to think of it.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Yeah.
	Um as for the area's appearance, he added there was garbage everywhere, a bit of an American import there, um rubbish please.
	Um with multiple people living in single houses, sometimes three or four families in one property, he claimed that sort of qualifies as a slum in my mind.
	Uh Mr. Khan stated that if there was integration in the area, you would see faces of every other colour, which is you know great point.
	Yeah.
	Mr. Khan is correct.
	Everyone else is lying.
	Very true.
	Like literally.
	So you go back to the headline like, oh, you don't have to be white to be English, says Indian woman.
	It's like, who cares about your opinion on him?
	You're lying.
	You know, Mr. King is telling the truth.
	Can you be white and Indian?
	Like aside from Cashman.
	Yeah, is is Roger Kipling India's greatest poet?
	Yes or no.
	Yes.
	Sorry, I'm being facetious.
	I don't want to give him up, no, he's England's greatest poet.
	Um anyway, the the Tory party, funnily enough, the the the sort of slowly marching skeleton of the Tory party, um, was divided on this.
	Kemi Babnock did defend Generic and said it was just an observation, who who cares really, which is you know fair enough.
	Um but then Mel stride, who is a political non-entity, um slapped it down and uh rebuked it, and this is of course causing a split because she's in the cabinet, which is interesting for Mel is a bloke.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	It's difficult to tell you.
	I don't can't believe you're a level of prejudice.
	How could you judge how do you know?
	How can you judge you even checked?
	Seriously, did you ask did you ask about their pronouns?
	Jokes aside though, there's there shouldn't be a single person of the Conservative Party who should consider this in any way remarkable.
	And if anyone's like, Oh, you can't say that, well that's it, you're not a conservative.
	That's the thing.
	Uh if Generic were to become leader, which seems to be quite probable.
	He needs to kick all those people.
	He has the opportunity to sort of kick out all of these people.
	And if he were to be brilliant, like there is no point in there being that many conservative MPs in Parliament right now.
	He could just remove the whip from a bunch of them.
	And he could purge the party before going into a 2029 election, which would actually improve the party to no end.
	If if if you wanted to do something a little bit creative, a little bit bold.
	Let's see where he goes.
	Okay.
	Well, this did have an article talking about how the party chair um agreed with him, but never mind, it's gone.
	Apparently he doesn't anymore.
	But anyway, my point is that everyone in this story is wrong.
	Um the the this is No, apart from Mr. Khan, who is completely except him.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, base Mr. Khan.
	Yeah, except Mr. Khan and obviously the panel here, us talking about it.
	Um obviously Birmingham's a slum, obviously it's a terrible place to live.
	Obviously, it's not an integration success story if all of the natives have been displaced, as is true of lots of other areas of Britain.
	So even pursuing integration as a goal is foolish because it's against human nature.
	What's the uh billions must die meme again?
	The face.
	Oh, the the chud.
	Yeah, the chud, yeah.
	I love that it's you know Indian Chud who's like, you know, no, Britain has fallen, there are no white people here, they're all foreigners.
	It's like, okay, yeah, good point.
	Anyway, let's let's move on.
	Sorry, we're not gonna read the comments folks.
	I allowed the first segment to go way over time, so it's my fault.
	So um I don't want to talk about the geopolitics of Israel and Gaza.
	Um they've apparently uh agreed to the first phase of a ceasefire.
	Let's see where it goes.
	Um people are celebrating it, they're quite happy, they're celebrating in Tel Aviv, they're celebrating in Gaza.
	Just as a quick thing, this I I've actually seen James O'Brien defending Donald Trump on his show today.
	I need to pinch myself.
	I know, because I think I'm losing my mind.
	I know, but it's because Donald Trump is obviously taking credit for all of this.
	Yes.
	And lots of people on the pro-Palestine side are like, okay, I'm just glad that Israel isn't doing what they're doing now.
	So Donald Trump is actually becoming something of a kind of a hero to the left.
	I thought I'd seen a pig flying.
	I know, right?
	So get on him.
	So leaders from other countries are, and leaders that are very distinguished leaders.
	Is the UK former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, good man, very good man.
	Ignoring the good man detail, uh Tony Blair is going to be a big part of the governance of Gaza and the future.
	And my argument in this segment is that what happens in Gaza if this plan actually is implemented, which is by no means guaranteed, and and we'll see how that plays out.
	But what happens in Gaza is going to be Britain's future, and I'll try to explain why.
	Um Tony Blair's best buddy is Oracle's Larry Ellison, who has second richest man in the world.
	Second richest man of the world, he has given a hundred and thirty million dollars to the Tony Blair initiative in just two years' time, and he's going to give them another 220 million dollars.
	So the sum of money that is being given to Tony Blair is insane.
	Hasn't he also given money to the IDF as well?
	He's the biggest individual donor to the IDF.
	He's given a third of a billion dollars to Tony Blair.
	Yes.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And um here is, I think, an interview between Tony Blair and Larry Ellison.
	I want you to briefly listen to it because it it it really matters.
	Because we record we're constantly recording, watching and recording everything that's going on.
	Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on.
	The first thing a country needs to do is to unify all of their data so it can be consumed and used by the AI model.
	You have to take all of your healthcare data, your diagnostic data, your electronic health records, your genomic data.
	The NHS in the UK has an incredible amount of population data.
	But it's fragmented.
	It's not easily accessible by these AI models.
	We have to take all of this data we have in our country and move it into a single, if you will, unified data platform.
	So that so we provide context when we want to ask a question.
	We've provided that AI model with all the data they need to understand our country.
	So that's the that's the big step.
	That's kind of the missing link.
	We need to unify all of the national data, put it into a database where it's easily consumable by the AI model, and then ask whatever question you like.
	Or else what?
	Yeah.
	What happened to the I like how Tony Blaise in that he was kind of nodding, going interesting set of ideas there, as if he didn't know exactly why Larry Ellison was going to be recommending.
	Yep.
	And here are some leaked emails between Larry Ellison and the Israeli ambassador to Germany, talking about Marco Rubio and whether or not they should support him for his presidential run at the time.
	Rubio, as you know, is the head of the um National Security Council in the United States.
	And he did a good job as well.
	He and he's also the Secretary of State.
	Um Hiron, great meeting with Marco Rubio.
	I set him up to meet with Tony Blair.
	Marco will be a great friend for Israel.
	And this is from Larry Allison saying that he approves of Marco Rubio as as as a supporter of Israel, which is not exactly the point right now.
	The point is Larry Ellison is putting people in touch with Tony Blair, and now Tony Blair is in charge of Gaza.
	And in case you've forgotten, Tony Blair used to be the uh and the sort of leader of the quartet.
	This was a committee by the EU, the UN, Russia, and the United States to bring peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
	At the same time, Tony Blair was getting paid by the UAE, it turns out, for commercial purposes.
	Why does this matter?
	Because not only Tony Blair is still advocating for digital IDs, the Israelis have their own version of ID systems for the Palestinians.
	So there's a Palestinian Authority which is now recognized as the Palestinian state by most countries in the United Nations.
	That authority doesn't control the issuance of IDs.
	It's the Israelis who control them.
	And the Israelis are in the process of imposing um digital IDs on the Palestinians, which will link up to all of their biometric data, and which will then be presumably fed to the cloud at Oracle,
	and which will probably be paired by what Palantir has to offer, meaning that your social media and your interactions with the government and your health status and and and all of those together will form part of one big data pool that the AI sifts through.
	And in case you're wondering what are some of the implications of that, um, for the Palestinians, the Israelis were using AI to exceptional effect to identify anybody tangently linked to Hamas, and they're bombing their houses in the first days of the war.
	So the first days of the Israel-Gaza war, the casualties among the Palestinian civilians were horrific because they had a piece of software that they called uh Where's Daddy or Is Daddy Home, which I can't remember which one is the name for it.
	It's a horrible which worked on identifying when male members of Hamas were back home and then bombing that home.
	And it could be in a building with 50 other people inside of it who had absolutely no relationship to the guy, but the Israelis were happy with that casualties.
	Now we don't expect to get bombed in the United Kingdom, but you can most certainly expect the police to show up at your door using this kind of data, and you can expect that if there are digital IDs that tie together all of your interactions on health,
	interactions on education, interactions, like your school records as well as your current health status, as well as I don't know, and interactions with the police, uh, as well as any kind of tax payment or or whatever, as well as your social media, will be part of one system tying you together to one digital ID, allowing the state to control every movement you make and to police every movement you make.
	As Larry Ellison says aware of it to be completely aware of it.
	Yeah.
	You're you're you're you're in the panopticon.
	Yeah.
	What there if Gaza is rebuilt, what will also be built is a panopticon where you are under permanent surveillance everywhere.
	And if it works in an environment as challenging as Gaza, that will then be used by the state as a proof of concept to say that if it can work in Gaza, it can work anywhere else.
	And it must apply to you in the United Kingdom or France or the United States or any other part of the world.
	Just a very quick question for us.
	That Israeli ID card is that only for the subordinate populations in the Palestinian territories, or do Israeli citizens also come under that law?
	So Jewish citizens also have to have an ID card.
	Okay.
	The state is much less severe towards them because it's a openly ethnonationalist state.
	Yep.
	Uh proudly so.
	Um well to counter that is considered genocidal.
	So it's not to say that it shouldn't be is considered genocidal.
	In their case, weirdly not an ours, but interesting.
	Yes.
	Anyway.
	Yes.
	That that that's a longer conversation that should definitely be had.
	Um but basically they were using this kind of approach to gain total control, and they will be doubling down on this in Gaza using these technology companies.
	And Tony Blair has pretty excellent relationship with all of these tech technology companies.
	Um there's the Tony Blair website that I that I had, which never mind.
	Um but anyway, what was be what you will find if you go to the Tony Blair website is an invitation for any tech companies and any third world government to come and talk to him so that he could implement the Oracle technology and put all of the data of that country on the cloud, and then that gets used to manage all aspects of life.
	And it's really important that Tony Blair was constantly getting paid by the UAE because the most efficient managers of diversity in the world are the UAE, and they do so with a comprehensive police state.
	When you go into the UAE, your cell phone is under surveillance, your movement is under surveillance.
	Everything that you do is perfectly seen at all times by the state, to the extent that in 2012, when the Israelis executed a hit against one of Hamas financiers, um it took the UAE twenty-four hours to identify each and every single member of a 34-man team, Israeli man and woman, Israeli hit team, along with their passports, when they entered, which flights were they on and when did they leave?
	Because the surveillance system is so comprehensive.
	The fact that they have always had Tony Blair on their payroll, and the fact that Tony Blair is still pushing digital IDs in the United Kingdom is extremely relevant because the people who pay him implement these kinds of comprehensive surveillance states, and the people who pick in the UAE and the people who pay him out of Oracle explicitly say that they're trying to build the same system everywhere else.
	I what I think is actually going on here is Tony Blair's almost doing a little pilot study of the neck natural next step um with the Palestinian people for his techno globalist elite faction, that seems like what is going on here.
	Yes.
	Very clearly, in fact.
	It's not not even slightly concealed.
	And the fact that Larry Ellison, I I've heard objections to this.
	Well, the NHS doesn't have the authority to arrest me.
	Precisely just have the authority to kill me.
	Well, no, it doesn't even have that, actually.
	It does that by accident.
	It's being scrutinized in the law.
	Yeah, yeah, that's currently going through the law, just nearly I was like being facetious.
	But that but that's the point.
	Like people don't understand.
	Like the civil liberty argument is actually very pertinent in an era of such hyperpoliticization.
	Yes.
	If if it's this easy for the government to arrest 12,000 people a year for tweets, then having an AI that scrapes all of the data that is available on you, centralizes it in the state, and then can do whatever it wants with that information, is actually terrifying.
	Yes.
	Why would we want this?
	And the answer is, of course, we don't want this.
	They want this, because what this does, I mean, what does this do for them?
	It makes the model of governance that they've been trying to build all the more easy.
	Like this is the final capstone on the pyramid that they are trying to build here.
	And okay, yeah, they'll have a a great panopticon of technology that tells them everything about the civilization so they can manage it as if this was a game of SimCity or something.
	Yes.
	But I don't want to live in that, actually.
	It's in entirely anti-democratic as well, because it it discourages people from engaging in the political system.
	What would be the point of democracy?
	Yeah, well, there's a lot of people.
	Everything is administered.
	The UAE is a model here Any slight descent in the UAE Even if you're a native of the UAE You end up in jail Straight to jail, no discussion.
	So the fact that the paymasters of Tony Blair believe in this kind of stuff.
	The fact that his son, I think, is involved in the Brit ID scheme.
	And the fact that Starmer is pushing this, uh and now they're going to test it out in Gaza, where we know that Blair is very well connected to all of the social media companies.
	He's very big on AI regulation and the need for AI regulation.
	He's very big on this kind of global control, and it can track everything from your carbon footprint to the car that you drive to how much uh energy you consume in your home.
	Any spending you do, any in any spending could be interceded against.
	Any spending can be interceded.
	You know, you've exceeded your meat limit for the week.
	Um the Chinese look like freedom loving Americans in comparison, doesn't it?
	Yeah, exactly.
	C C Ps doesn't seem so bad, man.
	Exactly.
	And then that obviously gets linked to your credit score and to your employment status and to your benefits and to everything that you do.
	So it's a mechanism for total control, and Tony Blair has just been given approving ground for it.
	This is the important part.
	So i Gaza is your future.
	If he builds this banopticon in Gaza, he will then come and say to the British government and to the French and to the Americans and the EU loves Tony Blair.
	Oh yeah.
	Everybody in every Eurocrat is in love with Tony Blair.
	Well, this is the system that they're a part of.
	They they for for the globalist liberal, politics is actually difficult and dangerous.
	It involves risk.
	Yes.
	And the entire philosophy they have to protect human rights means risk minimization.
	Yes.
	So what they're doing is trying to take transcend the notion of politics as we understand it and reduce everything to mere administration.
	Yes.
	And so that and anyone who doesn't fit into this new order will be problematized, stigmatized, and eventually made to conform to the system.
	You've uh expressed enough toxic nationalism.
	Sorry.
	It's been recorded through Palantir, connecting to your social media.
	Now your whatever right to drive a car is going to be revoked.
	Um That's what would you do?
	Exactly.
	What are your options?
	So shall we move to the Yeah, can I have the masks?
	Yes.
	Uh let's go to the video comments, Samson.
	God.
	So awful.
	And it's just happening, it's building itself in our vision.
	Yes.
	I I'm starting to think that our um dystopian fiction writers lacked vision, to be honest.
	Yes.
	I think uh butler and she had is an order.
	The the the the problem the problem they had is they couldn't foresee AI.
	That's true, yeah.
	They they you know they no one knew that it become so powerful so quickly.
	That being said, Stanley Kubrick, nineteen sixty-six, he had a pretty convincing depiction of it.
	Well so what's his name who wrote iRobot?
	Asmouth.
	He did actually predict it.
	Okay, let's go to the video comments.
	Okay, I can dream, right?
	A while ago I figured out how to position all the leg motors for my power armor.
	And now I just got the program working to actually control them.
	It's a long-term project that's been engaged in.
	Alright.
	He's a regular, is he?
	Yeah, let's go to the next one.
	Yeah.
	So well, we're all worried about Starmer saying you simply will not be able to work if you do not have a digital ID.
	The sticky sausage has only gone and passed legislation that if you're a director of a company, you have to go and identify yourself to company's house next month.
	And to do that, you create a one login account and provide your biometric ID through their app.
	Thankfully there is a workaround for now, but it's an awful lot like a digital ID.
	Yeah, I mean you you d you've always had to prov provide your identifying uh identity to company's house to register business.
	But uh to make it biometric ID well.
	if if you're an immigrant, you automatically get a biometric ID.
	Do you?
	Uh yes, you automatically get a biometric ID.
	And the benefit from the state's perspective of having more immigration is that all of the new citizens will already have a biometric ID, and that will make digital IDs a lot smoother.
	So the they're they're they are thinking about this in a nefarious way, it's not just conspiracy theories, guys.
	No, no.
	I mean, is it a conspiracy?
	They're literally there's that John Tron clips like, yeah, what made you believe this?
	Well, they started saying it in front of cameras.
	Yes.
	He just plays the clip.
	Well, it's like Larry Ellison, they're just saying it in front of cameras.
	Everybody will behave better because they're under constant surveillance.
	Yeah, I wonder what he means by that.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Oh, you conspiracy theorists.
	If a bond villain said that in a film, I'd feel like that's poor writing.
	They're not outright.
	Exactly, yeah.
	Um anyway, Michael Gowan says, land is only yours if you can hold and defend it.
	That's true.
	Uh Logan says, uh, Comrade Carl, remember to trust the plan, but always chimp.
	Uh also when we win, can we also deport shiploads too?
	Uh well, that would be exile.
	Uh, but yes.
	Uh FC says, I joined ICE today.
	Let's go, boys.
	Bro, you sent us a two-dollar super chat with that fifty dollar fifty thousand dollar signing bonus.
	Not on.
	Round up the illegal immigrants for us, please.
	Um says, Um Carl, move to colonial Williamsburg.
	The Royal Palace is untouched in 300 years, you will have more rights, clean political asylum, get 300 year old wardrobe fit in.
	I'm never going.
	I'm never I don't care how bad it gets, I'm staying.
	Um because I'm too lazy to move.
	And uh Scott says, they're trying to build a digital tower of Babel, and we all know how that ends.
	Yes.
	Yeah, I mean the the problem is is that they could build a system that lasts for generations.
	Right.
	It will eventually and even if it doesn't, what kind of world do you think they're going to end up with?
	Like I really don't want to live in that kind of environment.
	Like the very nature of it is horrific.
	Yes.
	Honestly, why why people aren't thinking about this, Morris?
	Don't know.
	Um say what you like about Fior Benjamin, but he did make the segments run on time.
	I bloody didn't.
	That's why uh sorry, we've been really slack on the comments today, because I really am not a very good Nazi dictator.
	Uh from the website, James says, uh brilliant work from the Restore team.
	This is proving low correct that forming a movement and not a party is important success.
	Uh sincerely hope this is highlighted to both reform and Tories uh so we can unify the approach.
	Uh well, I mean, uh really it's the tour uh reform at this point, isn't it?
	Hopefully, but there's no reason they wouldn't take this on board other than we'd be happy for them to lift our ideas.
	We don't need uh even need attribution.
	It's just that we're trying to just change the conversation and put some meat on the policy bone, and as I like to say, we'd I don't we don't particularly care who restores Britain so long as someone does.
	Although of course we're we're we're staying in the fight ourselves as well.
	Yep.
	If reform UK are to be taken seriously, they have to form policy around this report.
	It is far too concise and important not to.
	Well, I don't know about concise.
	But it is it is precise and detailed.
	Yes, that's right.
	I agree with you.
	Uh Russian says over a hundred pages of how we've been portrayed over three decades, fairly readable to a layman too.
	I recommend you do.
	Lots of sound bites, quotable legislation in there, you can use the arguments against the left.
	Uh yes.
	Uh Jimbo says a manifesto is missing one key thing, they must pay for their own flights.
	Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen.
	We're gonna be paying for everything, obviously.
	But we'd already cheaper.
	But we would be making money.
	This is another thing we have a costing section as well.
	Uh we believe that the costs of keeping them here the cost of removing them would be offset by the long-term cost of keeping them here.
	Yes.
	So we're already spending money.
	It's a question of how much.
	Billions.
	We already know it's costing us billions.
	Yeah, and it's an indefinite payment rather than this would be a one-off payment.
	Yeah.
	Because it would deter future break-ins.
	Yes.
	Uh Arizona Desert Rat says the head of US Border Patrol is a great solution for the whole uh separating families problem.
	Don't port the whole family, yes indeed.
	Yeah.
	That was uh one of Tom Homan's best moments in my opinion.
	Yes.
	Uh Henry says this is a very good plan from Restore, not least because Isa Lehman can follow along with the wording of the document.
	It's not thousands of pages of legalese, which would be completely incomprehensible to the plebs, which is how the establishment bureaucrats hide their plans from the voting public.
	Yes.
	Whilst Restore aren't a party, they're showing parties how policies should be done.
	Imagine if any every manifesto pledge came with and here's how we'll do it document alongside it.
	Yeah, this this is this is one of the things that Farage and Reform really have to get a handle on.
	The idea that they are so far ahead in the polls and have zero policies to show for it.
	Um sorry, what are you going to do?
	Got a very brief anecdote.
	When I when I was working, I've been working on this for a while, we've been working on this for a while.
	When r I've learned that reform had published their um version of mass deportations, like Operation Restoring Justice, I got I got that headline.
	I thought, oh my god, that's my day, gone, I've got to read this report.
	It's five pages, so only it took me about an hour.
	Um because I read it in detail and criticized it.
	So you know, uh it's important that you put flesh on the bone proposals on their own slogans, not enough.
	Yeah.
	And this this has been a persistent critique from everyone from like the online right to the online left.
	You know, it's like, well, okay, but you're not actually saying anything substantive here.
	You're not actually picking out individual things that need to be done.
	Yes.
	Um Colin says, It struck me a while ago that the proponents of multiculturalism don't actually understand that there's an underlying dichotomy.
	Multicultural means by definition differing cultures with differing values, well, culture.
	Uh some of these cultures will have split from others because of major differences, which in the extremes make them makes them not only incompatible but actively hostile.
	And if you take, for example, the subcontinent, you can see cultures that were that came into existence aggressively against one another.
	For example, Islam came into existence aggressively against polytheistic paganism, and Sikhism came into existence aggressively against Islam itself and the Islamic conquest.
	So, yes, you uh why don't we bring them and then Israel Islam's famous uh relationship with uh Judaism, just get along like the best of friends.
	Why don't we bring them all here and then sit them in Birmingham, sheep by jowl, and nothing will go wrong.
	It's also not a coincidence that um the the the what we might call the political theory of multiculturalism rather than just its historical analogues merged in Canada.
	I mean the two major multicultural theorists of the last century, well one of them still alive, Charles Taylor the philosopher and Will Kimlicker the philosopher, they're the main political theorists of multiculturalism.
	They saw multiculturalism as addressing a diverse situation that already existed.
	It wasn't really a blueprint, it was more sort of managing system for something that was already in place.
	Now people have looked at that, which was supposed to be a sort of mitigating blueprint and have turned it into a utopian theory.
	Which they didn't view it as.
	Even the UN's own replacement migration document document says, well, I mean, this this might work, uh, but it will bring huge cultural consequences with it that will create massive amounts of tensions, and you might want to reconsider doing this.
	Impressively clairvoyant.
	Yeah, and this was written in 2000.
	Indeed.
	Uh so it was it was one of those things where it's like we you just weren't listening to them, right?
	Uh Ben says, sorry, Gemric, but we don't want integration, we want mass deportation.
	Uh luckily we have a document for that.
	Uh well no, the Sally is just illegal, so we're going to be trying to do some stuff on legal immigration as well.
	Yeah, but the the stuff I I'm absolutely convinced that the barometer of how many illegals in this country is vastly underreporting.
	Probably, yeah.
	Uh no doubt, I think.
	Um the problem that we have is the legal communities are a magnet for illegal immigrants.
	Uh, because a lot of them will just be related to and actually know the people in them.
	And they'll be able to find a job.
	Oh, it's so-and-so's cousin who's arrived, he hasn't got a visa, so you're gonna have to let him work cash in hand in your local shop or something like that.
	And that's that's good.
	There are going to be millions of people like that.
	That's true.
	Marry your cousin's daughter, and then you get citizenship, yeah, blah blah blah.
	Citizenship and makes you legal.
	So it's it's the the spillover from one under the other is huge.
	Just to underscore the report, I'm so sorry.
	I just wanted to run things here.
	We want to I just want to make it clear to people that this is we regard this as kind of a first victory in restoring Britain rather than sufficient unto itself.
	Yeah.
	I was just gonna quickly add um that by taking down the illegals, you're also gonna unearth a lot of the legal people doing criminal things, and therefore it will make it easier to remove them as well with criminal conventions.
	That's right.
	Omar says there are no rules, human rights are even friend-enemy distinction, even for allies can be sacrificed for the cause.
	There is only one progressive calculation that holds true, which hurts society more.
	They don't operate off definitions or principles, words are a magic spell to get what they want, your wealth, your country, your birthright, your soul.
	Well, they that that that's that's how it looks from the uh other side of it.
	But on the inside, they do have a plan.
	The problem is the plan is insane.
	Um the the What it is.
	Yes, I agree, I agree, but it's very well put.
	The plan is to literally liberate us from everything that makes us human.
	Um, which not all of your loyalties are all of your sense of belonging.
	Cut off yourself spiritually and sort of your nation, your family, your culture.
	There's no other way to be free.
	Yes.
	That's literally the view.
	There's no other way to be free.
	And I think that's evil.
	South Dakota Pastor says, I'm no longer joking when I say that Tony Blair is either the Antichrist of the book of Revelation of the Book of Revelation or works for him.
	Yeah I mean it's it's hard to see who's above Tony Blair.
	He seems to be like the the prime mover in all of this.
	I would argue that the Antichrist works for Tony Blair.
	Yeah.
	It's it's impossible not to notice in the book of Revelations that the mark of the that the beast we covered it the other day is literally you will not be able to transact without the mark of the beast.
	Exactly.
	Incredible how this is incredible how how how that fits.
	Yeah it's genuinely terrifying.
	Anyway right we are out of time there folks so thank you for joining us.
	Harrison where can people find more from you?
	Uh Restore Britain obviously particularly The Forge which is my monthly um sort of debate and discussion show on YouTube.
	Most recent one was was with Michael Gove.
	Uh yes I know you did yeah we you covered it on the podcast the other day.
	And then the second one coming out on the thirteenth of October which is Thatcher centenary.
	I'd like to plug this very quickly so five days time Monday night next this Monday William Clewstone versus Charles Moore her official biographer debating Thatcher's life and legacy to Marcus centenary.
	Oh okay interesting which might be interesting and then um and then the new culture forum weekly deprogram with Conor Tomlinson.

▲