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

01:31:41

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1270

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of Load Caesars for, what are we, Thursday?
	Yes, we are Thursday, the 9th of October.
	My God, time just keeps going, doesn't it?
	And today we are going to be talking about Rupert Lowe announcing the plan for mass deportations, which is superb.
	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.
	I am joined by Ferras, Josh, and Harrison Pitt from lots of places, actually.
	Where do you want me to tell people?
	Where does it come?
	Policy fellow at Restore Britain Infolle, the New Culture Forum, and as a contributing editor at the European Conservative.
	Did you write this plan?
	I co-authored it with Rupert and of course the other members of the Restore Britain team, the public-facing ones being mainly sort of Charlie Downs, Lewis Brackport, and Maria Boutel made important contributions as well behind the scenes.
	But it's mainly an effort between Rupert and me co-authoring it.
	Yes.
	Excellent.
	But all good folks.
	And so we're going to be talking about it because it was released today.
	This will be very exciting.
	Right.
	Well, before we begin, at six o'clock this evening, there is a free webinar that you can come and join me and Stellius 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 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 him.
	That's the reason it needs to be done.
	So anyway, join us at 6 p.m. then.
	Probably link in the description.
	But if not, go to courses.loadsees.com and join us at 6pm tonight.
	It's going to be fun and interesting, highly educational.
	Anyway, right, so Rupert Lowe 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.
	But anyway, so what we'll do then is we'll look through it.
	But as you can see there, Rupert says deporting every legal immigrant within three years likely faster if you follow this blueprint.
	And I've read it and I agree.
	I think this probably will.
	In fact, that's the conservative estimate as well, isn't it?
	Yes, yes, that is our conservative estimate.
	We'll see towards the end when we get to the roadmap, which is situated towards the end of the policy paper.
	But we basically organize our understanding of how quickly it could be done and the scale and all the rest of it in that roadmap.
	And we break it down to three categories, as I recall.
	Conservative estimate 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 then a daring but plausible scenario with some daring but plausible set of variables built into it.
	Because it was estimated that it was between, what was it, 1.8 to 2 million illegals and within three years or faster.
	That's quite an achievement.
	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 yeah, 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.
	I think it was the Pew Research about in 2020s, as long ago as 2020, think about how many people are coming across the channel 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 in order to 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.
	Maybe.
	But you may as well go for that because that's the upper limit of their own estimates.
	Exactly.
	Right, so I thought we'd have a quick browse through this.
	So 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.
	We'll get to the public opinion on it, I think.
	Sorry, it might be worth having a quick look at the contents page, just a very brief glance to people who can see the bits that they're interested in 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.
	That's part one.
	And two is the practical logistics of mass deportations.
	And that section crucially is split into two other parts, voluntary returns and involuntary returns.
	So there you go.
	Okay, well, we'll stay on the we'll stay here just so I don't have to keep flicking through.
	Sure thing.
	But I noticed on page 15 of the introduction, you put polling that suggests that, in fact, everyone agrees that this is the case by a huge number.
	Probably worth looking at, actually.
	Yeah, you're probably right.
	It probably is.
	We have Charlie Dannis to thank for a lot, but these graphics among them are very stark.
	Yeah, and it's actually kind of mad.
	So 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.
	Unsurprisingly, it's most of England.
	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.
	Oh, well, diversity is our strength after all.
	And the national support for mass deportations by region, I think, is wonderful seats.
	Scotland on 60%.
	Disappointing, but at least there's still a majority.
	The Northeast, though, they are the most based people in the country, 72.6%.
	Southwest 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 YouGov's estimates on these things.
	You need to give people, most people are sensible.
	Most people, they have very strong intuitions, but they're not necessarily filled in on all of the relevant minutiae 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.
	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 a country.
	Eric Halfman's research, it's in his book, White Shift, shows that when you mentioned the demographic cliff edge of that the process of replacement migration is taking us to, people's restrictionism doubles.
	Roughly doubles.
	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.
	It's like, no, it's 700,000 a year, mostly legal.
	And 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 10 times worse than they really are.
	Exactly.
	Well, 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 functions at Restore Britain.
	Indeed, you view it the same way too, New Culture Forum as well, to try and 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.
	And that is due to the media, well, frankly, avoiding giving them accurate information.
	They could publicize this information anytime they wanted, and they don't.
	I saw the most UK thing today on my way to work.
	Oh, go on.
	It was two West African men escorting a boy, clearly of Asian descent, heavily disabled.
	One would guess the cause of the disability would be extreme inbreeding.
	And there is two men walking him to school.
	And you kind of ask yourself, is this Britain's problem?
	I'll tell you what that is for us.
	That's GDP.
	Right there.
	GDP right there, yes.
	GDP.
	Future debt.
	Yeah, like it.
	Correct.
	Anyway, so let's begin with part one.
	The legal obstacles to mass deportations.
	Because, of course, there are many legal obstacles to mass deportations.
	And so what I like about this is just comprehensively, these are the acts that are currently inhibiting our ability to just get rid of people that we don't want here and who shouldn't be here.
	The first one being the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1999.
	Thank you, Mr. Blair.
	Which repeal the ability for asylum seekers and the dependents to give 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 give in detail.
	Obviously, I've not memorized them off the top of my head.
	I describe this as we describe this as 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.
	These are relevant areas too, but they're addressed slightly later.
	But we also know, I know through the grapevine, that there are other sort of institutions 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 efforts.
	But these are the main pillars, I would say.
	Indeed, yes.
	So the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act from 2002, again, thank you, Tony Blair, repealed part two and part five of these things, in which we are compelled to provide housing for the asylum seekers and accommodation centers and make sure that we respect their protection of human rights claims.
	So elaborate on that for me.
	Well, it's basically the seeds of the whole, as I recall.
	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 can be a bit squirrely.
	As I recall, this is the sort of setting in motion the whole kind of very exacting tribunals process that enables people to apply for injunctions and all the rest of it.
	So just getting rid of all of that bureaucratic processing and making things cleaner.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Part five, which sets out Britain's immigration tribunal provisions, including in respect of protection and human rights claims.
	And yeah, the citations are there.
	So if you go to 14, then you can just look up the parts and the sections and all the rest of it.
	It's all addressed.
	Okay, the next one is the UK Borders Act of 2007.
	Now, repeal section 33 that 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 going to pay for the privilege, well, you can see how we arrived at that.
	Absolutely.
	And that's rooted in a decision that I believe was made in 1997, 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.
	Are we going to go to the ECHR later?
	Yeah, but you can give us it.
	It says something along the lines of the behaviour, however monstrous the behaviour of the criminal is irrelevant.
	Really?
	So it completely removes any sort of countervailing interest to the human rights of that deportee if they have a plausible fear of refoulement.
	In other words, being removed to either a third country or their home country in which they would face a plausible risk of being mistreated.
	So basically, 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 think philosophically, the issue here is what are rights and where do they come from?
	And who do you owe rights to?
	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 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 a really important analogy here that I think I use at some point.
	Oh, no, I don't use that.
	might have used it elsewhere um if someone were to break into you we don't really believe in that sort of telescopic altruism in our own cases yes um so
	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 start stabbing members of my family, it wouldn't be considered intuitively a very good trump factor on my right to remove that person from my home that it's cold outside and they might have nowhere to live and they might die during the evening.
	My duty is to protect my family first.
	And similarly, Britain cannot reasonably 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, 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 whose house he was breaking into.
	And honestly, it just ruined my day reading.
	I was furious.
	Quite right, too.
	You're absolutely right about the issue with the morality involved, actually, with 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 liberal concept of rights is irrespective of character.
	It does not matter what the person is like, what the person 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 giving privileges to criminals and to evildoers.
	And that's really the main problem.
	It's got to stop.
	Anyway, so the UK Borders Act, we need to get rid of that particular section.
	And a lot of that is covered by Section 2 and Section 3, which deal respectively with ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention, which that Act simply refers to.
	Then you have the 2009 Borders and Citizenship and Immigration Act.
	So section 55 of this forces the Home Office to consider the best interest of the dependents of immigrants when making asylum decisions.
	So you remember 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.
	More than the sort of absurdity of the cases, this is the basis for infinite legal migration on that basis.
	As in, it's 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 who were in Lebanon, who then left to Europe, 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 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, but because it would have violated his right, basically his access to his own children, this Pakistani paedophile couldn't be deported, which I'm sure really helped his children.
	This loophole is very well advertised as well.
	Yes.
	It's known pretty much worldwide at this point and 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, so there's been a lot of talk, and Starkey has, of course, mainstreamed 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 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 activist judiciary, they will basically seize on any little bit of legal writ they've got and employing their living instrument doctrine, expand upon it and extrapolate from it in order to come to 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 judicial section, which I think is section six of part one on reforming the judiciary, we actually advocate a novel idea.
	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 the Equality Act itself, you are absolutely correct.
	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.
	It's the point of having a state.
	Exactly.
	It's the point of having a state and having any kind of border control.
	So that would have to go.
	And also, it's just horrific legislation that is the source of making British people second-class citizens in their own country.
	So the Equality Act rightly just has to go.
	So then you have the Illegal Immigration Act of 2023.
	Amend certain parts of Section 12.
	What I like about this is it's not excessively heavy-handed.
	Because one critique that 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.
	So this is amending certain parts of section 12, Which sought to overturn two of the four so-called Hardul Singh 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.
	It gives an it gives a neat little summary for to people on what these principles are.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Page four.
	No, no, oh, no, no, it's just the one just down, the four limbs of Hardiel Singh.
	So these are the sort of four principles that in English common law govern the sort of length of detention and all that sort of thing.
	And the Conservative Party in 2023 were trying to limit the application of these things because in British law, despite the fact that we're very proud of common law, statutory law does abrogate it.
	That's a key principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
	That is to say, it overrules it for people who don't know what abrogate means in the legal context.
	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 Restoring Justice, they just had a kind of one line thing.
	I welcome the move.
	They had a one line saying we would create new detention powers that don't make reference to Hardyal Singh principles.
	If you've still got some Hard Yul Singh principles on the books, which the Conservatives kept in 2023, 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, so moving on, we will come to the UN Refugee Convention.
	Now, explain the issue with that to us.
	I recommend going to the bottom for that.
	So just like in the conclusion, so the UN Refugee Convention governs, like in short, whereas people are constantly complaining about the operation of the ECHR and the HRA in making it very, very difficult to get rid of people.
	The UN Refugee Convention forces us to take their entry seriously.
	So that's the kind of distinction.
	In fact, I might just wheel this out.
	Now, how about you?
	If you go to the Dominic Cummings section, no, no, on the new tab.
	Oh, right, yeah.
	People, ideas, machines, just quickly.
	And then if you go down, keep going down, he loves to preface his blog posts with fancy.
	Keep going, keep going, keep going.
	Oh, go up.
	Yeah, there you go.
	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 Cabinet Office legal advice endorsed by external experts is that the PM cannot do the simple thing lawfully because the courts will stop him using the HRA in the ECHR.
	Look who happens to agree with 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 Britain and claimed asylum, it was the devil's own job to return them.
	The devil's own job.
	Interesting.
	Yes, so clearly Dominic Cummings and Tony Blair are at one on that point, which is interesting, like probably an unwise moment of candor from the Dark Lord in his memoir.
	So what the UNRC does, it basically lies at the root of our asylum system and it forces us to take claims seriously.
	So if you go back to the paperclass, sorry.
	Yeah, so is that the last?
	Is that the last part?
	So basically, our view is that we should repeal all reference to its rules and principles in our domestic legislation.
	Again, being a signatory to it doesn't really matter that much.
	It's only insofar as it is incorporated into our own law, which it has been by a number of statutes, that it operates, it assumes legal force, active legal force within Britain.
	So I suggest we suggest repealing those.
	Reformers just suggested disapplying them for five years.
	I think they should be repealed altogether, and we need to move to a new status quo for the 21st century.
	And as I say there, 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 assurances that allow host countries to just dismiss bogus claims at root.
	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, they would be traveling from them.
	But so long as they weren't saying, they would have to claim that they were seeking asylum from one of those countries.
	And given that they're all listed as safe in our own laws.
	They're going to claim that the French government has to kill them.
	And then they'd be given safety.
	So Marine Le Pen might qualify, but everybody else would not.
	You're right.
	That's basically it.
	The problem of the UN Convention on Refugees, anyway, is written in a different time.
	In a different era for a different circumstance.
	But it also carries that kind of 20th century liberal romanticism.
	Oh, we can create a universal rule for all times and all places.
	It's like, no, actually, you weren't expecting millions of third worlders to walk across the world through Europe and come over and break into our country on boats.
	You didn't have that in your mind at all.
	That's right.
	And if that was happening in your day, you would never have agreed to this.
	All it took was basically the modernization of cheap air travel in the 1970s to poke a massive hole through that and make it completely redundant.
	Precisely.
	And so the world has changed, and we shouldn't.
	This was always one of the great points that Scruton made: the dead hand of treaties.
	They're made in a different time.
	They don't adapt to 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 their view, it should factor in the changing circumstances.
	So they apply the living document doctrine only.
	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.
	It always leans towards their favoured presumptions.
	That's right.
	Correct.
	That's right.
	And it's also worth playing.
	We do also, I think, a little bit above, say that we should be thinking about moving towards a new model for the 21st century.
	And this is an idea that we actually got from Rafe Heidelancu 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, well, two, it imposes, it gives 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 Eupharis, you'll agree with this.
	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 what people see it as a kind of infinite lifeboat, 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 Islam, in which case everyone suffers.
	So there are three important reasons to push for that.
	I agree.
	And also, I just, again, 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 100 years ago when I'm the sovereign of the country.
	I'm the one with the executive power of the country.
	It undermines parliamentary sovereignty for that.
	Precisely.
	The point being, we should essentially not have any rules for this.
	And if we feel that we want to be challenged, 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 consider Ukraine part of the West's interests, realm of interest.
	And it was women and children as well.
	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 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 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 interested.
	Yeah, so just very briefly, just for anyone who's not aware, you present basically two options.
	Full withdrawal, which I would have, I would think, is a good thing.
	I mean, this is sort of something that the Conservatives are currently saying.
	Yeah, they are.
	Oh, we're going to withdraw from it.
	Or what I liked about this, selective disobedience, which has been proposed as a more simple course than full withdrawal.
	I think that if it's got to the point of selective disobedience, just withdraw.
	Yes.
	so 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.
	So if we are going to do full withdrawal, it will lead to not legal ramifications, but political and diplomatic ramifications.
	So we do quite a lot of history.
	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 relationships 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?
	We're actually running out of time, so let's keep it briefly.
	Let's go to the Great Clarification Act, I think.
	The point is, there are very detailed arguments made in the plan.
	Yes, but I will say this, if a government found itself with a majority and didn't fancy its chances hammering at expending all of the political capital necessary to sort the Northern Ireland problem and to sort the Windsor framework problem and the UK-EU trade and cooperation agreement problem, we recommend that selective disobedience is probably a simpler way of going about things.
	I mean, they've got no way of enforcing it, but crucially with the Great Clarification Act, that would be easier to do.
	Is that this bit?
	Yeah, yeah, so it's the centerpiece of our restoration of the judicial system.
	We make other recommendations as well, but we've come up with a novel idea, the Great Clarification Act.
	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 judiciary will behave in advance by taking away tools from them.
	But they might find other tools, which is always a problem.
	So the government might provide them with that.
	Exactly.
	And that's true too.
	But there's also such a menacingly complex legal corpus in Britain that they can find something.
	And they can 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 in spite of 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 create a new situation, but state and reiterate what they already believe to be true.
	A good example would be the 1766 Declaratory Act, when there was an embarrassing climb down from the Stamp Act, which Britain tried to impose on America.
	America was very cross.
	Lord Rockingham, who was quite, he was Prime Minister at 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 sympathised with them.
	And so he repealed the Stamp Act, but in order to kind of reassure people who were not so pro-American, he said, but I'm going to pass the Declaratory Act with it, which restates, it's quite petty in a way.
	It just says, by the way, we have repealed the Stamp Pact, but we still have a right to bring it back if we want to.
	It's just clarifying that we can do this.
	And similarly, the Nationality Act of 1948, which many of us probably don't like, clarified the immigration status of British subjects around the world in the sort of waning days of empire.
	So the clarification acts of sorts, you could call them that if you want, have been passed 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 paradoxical way, it would both cause and require a renewal of confidence among MPs who sit in Parliament.
	And we think that would be very good, because then you're not trying to second-guess the judiciary every turn.
	You can catch up with the private sector.
	You just have to write them.
	And this is a genuine question.
	Is it the rule of law is ruled by judges?
	And at the moment, we have rule by judges.
	That is not acceptable.
	Exactly.
	Exactly right.
	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 slap down dissent.
	Without going too far into it, they're currently arguing the case with Robert Jemmerich 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.
	But anyway, so I think that is one of the strongest points that you're making.
	It's one of the original groundbreaking points we make.
	Given that we're running out of time, I don't want to dictate your segment, but maybe we should.
	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 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 why we think that this could be achieved in as optimistic a timeframe that we've given.
	I think it's a bit higher up.
	Oh, gosh, no, no.
	Sorry, it's way down, way down.
	Forgive me.
	If you do control F right roadmap, it's just that.
	Do you remember the three scenarios I was talking about earlier?
	Way down, way down.
	We do recommend that people read it in full.
	And we welcome feedback and criticism as well.
	It's pretty comprehensive, but you can see how much thought you've put into this, frankly.
	Yeah, well, it's been a very, very formidable team effort.
	And I was very proud to.
	I would assume that every time somebody is arrested, their immigration status has to be checked, right?
	Yes, exactly.
	That sort of thing.
	Data sharing across departments, all the rest of it, reporting.
	One of the first things the government should do is actually.
	Oh, no, no, keep going, keep going.
	Yeah, to want detention, certainly, but they should keep saying.
	Also, diplomatically, visa sanctions, we've got this idea of a deportation NATO, which people can read about as well, which is basically to have deportation.
	Exactly.
	So you can get advantages out of it.
	Exactly.
	So if you're banned from Sweden.
	I did read it in a minute.
	Good man, good man.
	If you're banned from Sweden, because you're an illegal chancellor, you should be automatically banned from Britain, assuming some kind of collective security agreement.
	An attack on one sovereignty is an attack on all sovereignty.
	That's the NATO Article 5 principle.
	And it should apply at this level as much as 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 this is conservative.
	Together with a similarly cautious annual average of 150,000 forced deportations, this would remove.
	This is what the conservative is a promising.
	Yep, yes.
	This would, and what we think we could be a cautious estimate on our part as well.
	3 million would be removed within a single parliament, which probably aren't even 3 million here.
	So it would take exactly three years to deport 1.8 million on that conservative estimate.
	Then you've got to go down a bit.
	Now, it's worth saying that Trump has achieved a ratio of 4 to 1, so better.
	Better.
	So 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 150,000 forced deportations per year, but this time with a Trump-like 4-1 ratio of voluntary to involuntary.
	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 to two years and five months to deport 1.8 million.
	And then the daring estimate, which nevertheless is based on a set of fairly plausible variables, Trump's 4 to 1 ratio of voluntary to involuntary deportations, but this time with a near perfect to detain to deport conversion rate of 95%.
	That reason why 95% yields 185,000 is because 185,000 is 95% of 195,000, which is annual detention capacity that we aspire to.
	So if you get a 95% conversion rate, that would see people, 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 those are the basis of our estimates on the roadmap front.
	Excellent.
	And just a quick thing, I noticed that there are people who have endorsed this.
	They are, they are.
	William Clusner of the Social Democrat Party.
	And a fellow and a, what is he, on the advisory board of Restore Britain as well.
	Right.
	And Sir Gavin Williamson, Conservative MP.
	Interesting.
	Well, it's good to see the Conservatives actually listening to someone.
	So we'll have to end that there and move on.
	Okay.
	Are we going to do any comments or shall we go straight?
	I'll save them for the answer.
	Okay.
	Just because.
	Sorry for the length of that segment.
	That's right.
	It was a lot better.
	Oh, it's really interesting.
	Yeah, it was really good.
	Yeah, it was really good.
	It's basically talking about political gossip, so it's fine.
	So recently, Robert Jenrick made some comments when he went to Birmingham.
	And I'm going to preface this by saying that I disagree with everything I've included in this segment.
	Everyone is wrong except me.
	And I think the panel's probably going to agree here that the entire discourse is ridiculous and it's quite frustrating.
	It is quite obvious why the Conservative Party is dying and why mainstream journalism is also on the wane because they're just missing it.
	So The Guardian obtained a recording of Robert Jennerick 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 one of the worst integrated places I've ever been to.
	In fact, in the hour and a half I was filming 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 Jenrik said there.
	So the first part that Birmingham's horrible, I do agree with.
	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.
	Sorry, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But the latter part, that it's even desirable to have this form of integration.
	I think that the multicultural experiment has failed.
	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 sort of enclaves.
	And, you know, it's not necessarily to criticise ethnic minorities because it's true of Britons in, say, Spain as well.
	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.
	The path of least resistance, right?
	Of course.
	Of course, yeah.
	Oh, there are people here who I understand who are familiar to me, and I'm going to get goods and services from them because I can speak their language and I know their predictors.
	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 such a project.
	I don't know.
	But there might be.
	It's what Aristotle would have called filia.
	The idea of strong kinship bonds being natural between human beings.
	And so it's not an aspect of human nature that necessarily carries with it any moral weight.
	It's just something that we do.
	So 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 is an Indian school.
	Every single ethnic group has established their own separate bubble while living in a very diverse society.
	They might be neighbors, but they don't interact with each other as neighbors or as people who have common bonds.
	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 theoretical anymore.
	All of the evidence on the ground attests to this fact.
	Exactly.
	I mean, this is precisely what Jenrik got in trouble for.
	Exactly.
	Moreover, the whole integration thing.
	Sorry, I didn't ask for this.
	Actually, I wanted to just live normally.
	It's not in our interest, is it?
	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 going to 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 I'm sorry that that's just the case that has happened.
	Well, I mean, it's entirely obvious if you look at the 2021 census data that many parts of Birmingham are now less than 10% white.
	This is just a screenshot because I'm going to go into more specifics in the actual census map itself.
	But you can see here that much of the centre of Birmingham has a lot of different things.
	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.
	You know, it's all around the edge where it's very dark blue.
	That's almost 100% 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 are just like, okay, well, I'm just going to 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 filia.
	It's what you understand.
	You do it without thinking.
	I think you're really right as well, Josh, if I may say, to have mentioned that Jenrik, 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 let's 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, 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 can choose the kitchen table, they can choose the couch.
	No, no, no, no.
	Why am I giving up any of my house to these people?
	Like an unflinching defence of the right of the majority to defend itself, maintain itself and assert itself non-violently.
	The conception of a nation as a homeland for its people rather than an economic zone.
	Right.
	Crazy.
	Crazy idea.
	Here we can see individual areas of Birmingham here, 2.8% white English, Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish.
	And most of the, when they have white percentage, it's just going to be English as well, because obviously Birmingham beats.
	And you can see lots of them are in the low percentages here.
	It's not just me cherry-picking.
	Some of them are slightly above 10%.
	85% are not English.
	This is crazy, and we should never have allowed this.
	And it's happened so rapidly.
	And this is what I think Generic was actually getting at, is that his notion of integration, which I disagree with, 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.
	What were these people integrating into?
	Yeah, well, there's nothing.
	They're just supplanting the native population obviously.
	But 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's foolish to even try because it's so deeply rooted in our behavior, it can't be overcome.
	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 was nothing unusual about it, unnatural about it, wrong about it.
	And every single one of the people who predominates in these areas defends that principle.
	Times 10.
	Not gently as we would want to do, but pretty thoroughgoingly in, say, Pakistan or India or wherever it happens to be.
	And 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 conference.
	Basically, precisely.
	We've 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 inactivity now.
	And you can see that, 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 37% in this census.
	Birmingham's 42%.
	As in the city centre, I mean.
	Yeah.
	I can go back if you want.
	I'll show you.
	what are you doing I'm absolutely certain Samson what are you doing Samson Oi.
	Oh, it wasn't you.
	No, no, it wasn't, but I wasn't touching either.
	That's weird.
	So it's a ghost.
	Yeah, even the city centre.
	These are like in the few percentage points, though, is it?
	I think it depends where you drill down into, right?
	But anyway, my point being...
	You literally do in some...
	I mean, yeah, okay.
	It's not the same scale.
	But the point being that economically, it's still not as 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.
	Go ahead and zoom in.
	We can see that the inactivity mirrors the spread of basically diversity.
	That the city centre is the most economically inactive and is quite significant, over 50% in many places.
	And this is something that is, of course, an utter disaster because one would presume that a city, the whole economic benefit of having a city is that it's centralised 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.
	Which is what it has.
	The plan was, really, doesn't it?
	If the plan is to destroy Britain, then it's going excellently.
	Yeah, it's fantastic.
	So moving on to this, he did double down on what he said.
	Unlike many other politicians, he didn't go and grovel and apologise, which is worth mentioning because there were many people calling for him to do that.
	And there was a wide range of reactions from the left.
	And let's have a look.
	So can I just say something?
	The problem with him doubling down on this is he's doubling down on the 2000s colourblind 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.
	You know, why are you not sat in your chair?
	It's like, sorry, you don't even live in this house.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, sorry.
	So we had Labour MPs like Paulette Hamilton, who I think grew up in Handsworth.
	Yes.
	Said 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.
	It's not going to show him a white face, is it?
	That's what you're 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.
	Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can tell that it's a slum.
	Still not in strikes going on.
	And everyone's favourite dyslexic low to see to point it out that 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's like if you're using street view and you drop it anywhere in India, you see rubbish everywhere.
	And it's the same thing.
	It's become just a product of the people who have moved there, which is very unsurprising.
	And yes, obviously, check out Cal's channel.
	So The Guardian accused him of toxic nationalism.
	This is the headline they went with.
	It was actually...
	Don't want a segregated Lebanese community, thank you.
	It was toxic nationalism.
	Basically, the Bishop of Birmingham that said this, he said, the comments have the potential to generate anxiety and stir up division and can feed into harmful narratives that provides fuel for a fire of toxic nationalism.
	What does that even like anxiety fuel a fire?
	What does that even mean in practical?
	It's don't upset that.
	It's verbiage intended to form part of a war I'm noticing.
	I lived in Whitechapel, a very Bangladesh here.
	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 for people who 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?
	And 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 that's a defense.
	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 Jenrick was.
	If only he was nearly the monster they were painting him to be.
	But no, you know, it's pathetic.
	And I hate this argument.
	Oh, you're stoking division.
	Yeah, you're damn right I am, right?
	Because there's a conflict going on here.
	There's two.
	There's 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 going to win.
	What division means is a conflict that gets resolved through whatever means.
	You know, for us, it'll be at the ballot box because we are a democracy whether people like it or not.
	And we're going to win.
	We're going to 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.
	Like Kier Starmer said, it's a war for the soul of the country.
	Nigel Farage represents Little England and all this sort of sound.
	It's like, not really, but free advertising, but that's what they think he represents.
	That what they think they project it onto him.
	And so yeah, we're going to win this.
	A quick word on the war noticing.
	I think you're absolutely right, Firas.
	But the thing is, 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.
	The race relations started a while ago.
	Wherever you want to date it from, 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 are these sort of blunt instruments, toxic nationalism, racism, fascism, 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, Aleister Campbell and Rory Stewart and James O'Brien, they can bemoan the fact that they're 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, 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.
	Then 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's just unsustainable for them to have this taboo and for them to expect it to work anymore.
	And it's just further radicalizing people.
	Have you seen that?
	Further radicalizing people, yeah.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	Sorry.
	And then, crucially, this is the last point.
	People feel up against it demographically.
	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, save Western civilization, get called racist.
	Don't save Western civilization, still get called racist.
	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 horrific nativism.
	And everyone's like, oh, brilliant.
	Okay, I will go from there.
	Yeah, he could be at 50% if you were to sort of take a couple of more steps to the right.
	I agree with you.
	Do you wish your enemies conjure you up to be?
	Well, look, where is the mark in the polls?
	It's pushing him up in the polls when they call him a racist.
	Anyway.
	So obviously, the usual suspects are calling it racist.
	Not really that notable.
	They're also appealing to local residents.
	Of course, the local residents aren't exactly going to displaced native people.
	I don't understand the language you're using.
	Speaks more to this.
	A bit nasty of them to go for a pre-Azempic picture as well.
	And Kier Starmer said Jenneric is hard to take seriously, which is not saying much.
	I think his popularity boosts him.
	That's ridiculous.
	Who takes Kiro Starmer seriously?
	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 a former Conservative mayor of Birmingham said that it's actually a very integrated place, not the definition of a slum, which is just denial.
	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 were talking about the reality of filia as an aspect of human nature.
	If I was an Indian and I moved to Britain, despite the fact that India is a bit of a slum, I probably would move there.
	So presumably a lot of the Boris Wave, in other words, has found itself in Birmingham.
	No doubt.
	And your sort of quintessential platonic ideal of a woke professor also agrees with this.
	You know, she's even got pink hair.
	This is superb.
	Make them defend Birmingham.
	Birmingham is their model.
	Yeah, that's the idea.
	Well, she's the professor at the University of Birmingham, I think.
	That's why she's doing it.
	She wades through the rubbish on her way to work.
	I know.
	Brilliant, diverse, vibrant city.
	But how is she into science when her rejection of the evidence is so comprehensive?
	That's all ideology these days, isn't it?
	Carl, we were in Birmingham not too long ago.
	Was it a nice place?
	Yes.
	But on the drive in, we were just like, wow, there are no white people around here at all.
	And 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 listening to the rest of his politics.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Why were you in Birmingham?
	Just doing.
	Oh, we had a conference.
	Oh, you did the conference then?
	Yeah, for some reason they decided to torture us with it.
	Nice venue, though.
	It was a lovely venue.
	It's just a skeleton of former Birmingham.
	And you even get things like this.
	Thank the Tories for keeping Robert Jenrick out of high office.
	Well done, Financial Times.
	See, 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 here's another one.
	Robert Jenrick urged to apologise for disgraceful integration comments.
	This is just the usual talking heads, trying to make people apologise because it gives them power over them.
	And then you have this from the BBC.
	You don't have to be white to be English, which is, of course.
	This was from, what's her name there?
	Right there.
	Rani Rauji.
	Typical English.
	And it's also written by Tanya Gupta and Ada Fofana.
	Have you actually looked through this article?
	I have, yes.
	I'm going to get back.
	So, first and foremost, I want to point out that back in 2015, in more normal times, the Independent published things like this.
	And if we have a better view of this graph, you can see a distinct ethnic profile of the English here.
	We can see the borders of the Celtic lands of Scotland, Wales, and Devon and Cornwall.
	These are distinct from England genetically and culturally, somewhat at least, in the case of Devon, at least.
	But we can see that the English do exist as a genetic thing, and you can't really define that away.
	If you can see it in genetics and 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 a coded headline.
	It does, yes.
	It's obviously left encoded, but it's also missing a whole point.
	I love the subtitle: White English Share 40% of their DNA with the French.
	That alien race 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 thing, like 10,000 years makes it look really, really like, oh man, this is a huge deal.
	The continent in Britain at that time, like before then, was frozen over because of an ice age.
	So there was a sort of genetic blank slate, if you like, that makes it actually easier for geneticists to study the genetic history of the British Isles.
	And it is just a remarkably homogeneous story until 1948.
	I mean, the fact is literally our sort of closest foreign neighbor being the French, and it's only 40% similarity.
	Well, that's crazy.
	That's a very, very high estimate.
	Like, you know, the Norman French really had an imprint.
	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 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 other respects, you would expect these people to basically be identical in every way.
	Like, they probably would have been able to understand one another's language when the tribes were moving into these different areas.
	I'm going to make a much more problematic point.
	Oh, good.
	I think with chimpanzees, there is a 99% overlap in genetics.
	97% with gorillas and 94% with bonobos.
	With Homo sapiens, yeah.
	So tiny differences when the similarity is that, like, if you're 99% similar DNA to a chimp, that means that that remaining 1% has insane significance.
	Well, we share 60% of our genes with a banana.
	There you go.
	So smaller variations here have an enormous impact, but they try to brush over that by saying, oh, 40% is huge.
	So there's a level of, there's a sleight 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, like, 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.
	My God, clearly.
	Usually, 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 technically apples share quite a bit of genetic overlap with killer whales.
	Right.
	But that doesn't make killer whales at home in the fruit bowl.
	But they're slightly closer to oranges.
	So oranges do look a bit more at home in the fruit bowl.
	So 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 5% demographic population shift as a result of the Norman conquest.
	That's about right.
	They didn't send them all in.
	No one would ever say that India doesn't exist because the British were there in small proportions, ruling it administratively, not really demographically, for however many centuries, better half of three centuries.
	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 genes.
	Certainly, certainly they did, yes.
	Oh, yes, you and I have discussed this before, haven't we?
	We have.
	For the sake of time, no, let's carry on.
	Sorry.
	So, this is what you're alluding to.
	It is, yeah, I love this guy.
	So, Mauraj 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.
	Mr. Khan 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.
	It could be inevitable West, come to think of it.
	Yeah, that's true.
	As for the area's appearance, he added there was garbage everywhere.
	A bit of an American import there.
	Rubbish, please.
	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.
	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.
	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. Khan is telling the truth.
	Can you be white and Indian?
	Like, aside from Kashmir.
	Yeah, is Rodger Kipling India's greatest poet?
	Yes or no?
	Sorry, I'm being facetious.
	I don't want to give him up.
	No, he's England's greatest poet.
	Anyway, the Tory party, funnily enough, the sort of slowly marching skeleton of the Tory party, was divided on this.
	Kemi Bernock did defend Jenrick and said it was just an observation.
	Who cares, really?
	Which is fair enough.
	But then Melstride, who is a political non-entity, slapped it down and rebuked it.
	And this is, of course, causing a split because she's in the cabinet, which is interesting.
	Mel is a book.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	It's difficult to tell you about the Tory party.
	I don't can't believe your level of prejudice.
	How could you judge?
	How do you know?
	How could you judge?
	How did you even check?
	Seriously, did you ask about their pronouns?
	Jokes aside, though, there shouldn't be a single person in 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.
	If Jenerick 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 a hook 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 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 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.
	No, apart from Mr. Khan, who is completely correct?
	Except him.
	Sorry, base Mr. Khan.
	Yeah, except Mr. Khan and obviously the panel here us talking about it.
	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 Billions Must Die meme again?
	The face.
	Oh, the Chud.
	Yeah, the Chud, yeah.
	I love that it's 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 move on.
	Sorry, we're not going to read the comments, folks, because I allowed the first segment to go way over time, so it's my fault.
	It's kind of so.
	I don't want to talk about the geopolitics of Israel and Gaza.
	They've apparently agreed to the first phase of a ceasefire.
	Let's see where it goes.
	People are celebrating it.
	They're quite happy.
	They're celebrating in Tel Aviv.
	They're celebrating in Gaza.
	Just as a quick thing, I've actually seen James O'Brien defending Donald Trump on his show today.
	I need to pinch myself.
	I know, because 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 on, and leaders that are very distinguished leaders will have a board.
	And one of the people that wants to be on the board is the UK former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
	Good man, very good man.
	Ignoring the good man detail, Tony Blair is going to be a big part of the governance of Gaza in 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 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.
	Tony Blair's best buddy is Oracle's Larry Ellison, who has the second richest man in the world.
	He has given $130 million to the Tony Blair Initiative in just two years' time.
	And he's going to give them another $220 million.
	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 here is, I think, an interview between Tony Blair and Larry Ellison.
	I want you to briefly listen to it because it really matters.
	Because 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 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 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?
	I like how Tony Blair's, in that he was kind of nodding, going, interesting set of ideas there, as if he didn't know exactly what Larry Ellison was going to be recommending.
	Yeah.
	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 National Security Council in the United States.
	He did a good job as well.
	And he's also the Secretary of State.
	Hi, Ron.
	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 Ellison saying that he approves of Marco Rubio 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 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 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 Patentir has to offer, meaning that your social media and your interactions with the government and your health status 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, 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 Where is Daddy or Is Daddy Home, which I can't remember which one is the same name for it.
	It's a horrible name.
	Yes.
	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, as well as any kind of tax payment 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, to be completely aware of it.
	You're in the panopticon.
	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 could 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 first.
	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.
	The state is much less severe towards them because it's an openly ethno-nationalist state, proudly so.
	to counter that as considered genocidal so it's not to say that it shouldn't be is considered genocidal in their case, weirdly not in ours interesting Yes.
	Anyway.
	Yes, that's a longer conversation that should definitely be had.
	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 technology companies.
	There's the Tony Blair website that I had, which never mind.
	But anyway, 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 one Hamas financier, it took the UAE 24 hours to identify each and every single member of a 34-man team, Israeli man and woman, Israeli HIIT 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.
	What I think is actually going on here is Tony Blair is almost doing a little pilot study of the natural next step 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 even slightly concealed.
	And the fact that Larry Ellison, I've heard objections to this.
	He was like, well, look, the NHS has got a lot of your data.
	What's the problem?
	It's like, well, the NHS doesn't have the authority to arrest me.
	Precisely.
	It just has the authority to kill me.
	It doesn't even have that, actually.
	It does that by accident.
	It's being scrutinized in the law.
	Yeah, that's currently going through the law.
	I was only being facetious.
	But that's the point.
	People don't understand.
	The civil liberty argument is actually very pertinent in an era of such hyper-politicization.
	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 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 entirely anti-democratic as well, because it discourages people from engaging in the political system.
	What would be the point of democracy?
	Yeah, well, everything is administered.
	Well, the UAE is a model here.
	Any slight dissent 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, 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 system.
	And it can track everything from your carbon footprint to the car that you drive to how much energy you consume in your home.
	Any spending you do, any spending could be interceded against.
	Any spending can be interceded.
	You know, you've exceeded your meat limit for the week.
	The Chinese looks like freedom-loving Americans in comparison, doesn't it?
	CCPs doesn't seem so bad.
	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 a proving ground for it.
	This is the important part.
	So 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.
	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.
	And so what they're doing is trying to 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 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.
	That's what works.
	What would you do?
	Exactly.
	What are your options?
	So shall we move to the.
	Yeah, can I have the mask?
	Yes.
	Let's go to the video comments, Samson.
	God.
	So awful.
	And it's just happening.
	It's building itself in our vision.
	Yes.
	This is just being allowed to happen.
	I'm starting to think that our dystopian fiction writers lacked vision, to be honest.
	Yes, I think Bitler actually had is an order.
	The problem they had is they couldn't foresee AI.
	That's true.
	No one knew that it'd become so powerful so quickly.
	Being said, Stanley Kubrick, 1966, he had a pretty convincing depiction of it.
	Also, what's his name who wrote iRobot?
	Asmov.
	He did actually predict it.
	Okay, let's go to the video comments.
	A guy 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.
	All right.
	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.
	This tiki 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 that app.
	Thankfully, there is a workaround for now, but it's an awful lot like a digital ID.
	Yeah, I mean, you've always had to provide your identifying identity to company's house to register a business.
	But to make it biometric ID, well, if you're an immigrant, you automatically get a biometric ID.
	Do you?
	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 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 clip.
	It's like, yeah, what made you believe this?
	Well, they started saying it in front of cameras.
	He just plays the clip.
	Well, it's like Larry Ellison.
	They just say it in front of cameras.
	Everybody will behave better because they're under constant surveillance.
	Yeah, I wonder what he means by that.
	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.
	Bit on the nose.
	Bit on the nose.
	Exactly, yeah.
	Anyway, Michael Gammon says, land is only yours if you can hold and defend it.
	That's true.
	Logan says, Comrade Carl, remember to trust the plan, but always chimp.
	Also, when we win, can we also deport shiplibs too?
	Well, that would be exile.
	But yes.
	FC says, I joined ICE today.
	Let's go, boys.
	Bro, you sent us a $2 super chat with that $50,000 signing bonus.
	Not on.
	Round out of legal immigrants for us, please.
	Supermaster Mine says, Carl moved to Colonial Williamsburg.
	The Royal Palace is untouched in 300 years.
	You will have more rights, claim political asylum, get a 300-year-old wardrobe to fit in.
	I'm never going.
	I'm never going to.
	I don't care how bad it gets.
	I'm staying because I'm too lazy to move.
	And Scott says, they're trying to build a digital tower of Babel, and we'll know how that ends.
	Yeah, I mean, the problem is, is that they could build a system that lasts for generations.
	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 people aren't thinking about this more?
	I just don't know.
	Say what you like about Fiora Benjamin, but he did make the segments run on time.
	I bloody didn't.
	That's why, sorry, we've been really slack on the comments today because I really am not a very good Nazi dictator.
	From the website, James says, brilliant work from the Restore team.
	This is proving low correct that forming a movement and not a party is important success.
	Sincerely hope this is highlighted to both reform and Tories so we can unify the approach.
	Well, I mean, really, it's the Tory 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 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 don't particularly care who restores Britain so long as someone does.
	Although, of course, we're staying in the fight ourselves as well.
	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.
	It's 115 pages, but it is precise and detailed.
	Yes, that's right.
	I agree with you.
	Russian says, over 100 pages of how we've been betrayed over three decades.
	Fairly readable to a layman, too.
	I recommend you do.
	Lots of soundbites, quotable legislation in there.
	You can use the arguments against the left.
	Yes.
	Jimbo says, a manifesto is missing one key thing.
	They must pay for their own flights.
	Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.
	We're going to be paying for everything, obviously.
	But we'll still be cheaper.
	But we would be making money.
	This is another thing we have a costing section as well.
	We believe that the costs of keeping them, the cost of removing them would be offset by the long-term cost of keeping them here.
	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.
	Arizona Desert Rat says, the head of U.S. Border Patrol is a great solution for the whole separating families problem.
	Deport the whole family.
	Yes, indeed.
	That was one of Tom Homan's best moments, in my opinion.
	Yes.
	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.
	Whilst Restore aren't a party, they're showing parties how policies should be done.
	Imagine if every manifesto pledge came with, and here's how we'll do it document alongside it.
	Yeah, 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.
	Sorry, what are you going to do?
	Got a very brief anecdote.
	When I was working, I've been working on this for a while.
	We've been working on this for a while.
	When I learned that Reform had published their version of mass deportations, Operation Restoring Justice, 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.
	It only took me about an hour.
	Because I read it in detail and criticized it.
	So, you know, it's important that you put flesh on the bone.
	Proposals on their own, slogans, not enough.
	Yeah.
	And this has been a persistent critique from everyone from the online right to the online left.
	You know, they're saying, well, okay, well, you're not actually saying anything substantive here.
	You're not actually picking out individual things that need to be done.
	Yes.
	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.
	Some of these cultures will have split from others because of major differences, which in the extremes makes them not only incompatible but actively hostile.
	And if you take, for example, the subcontinent, you can see cultures 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, why don't we bring them and then Islam's famous relationship with Judaism?
	Just get along like the best of friends.
	Why don't we bring them all here and then sit them in Birmingham, chic by jowl, and nothing will go wrong.
	It's also not a coincidence that what we might call the political theory of multiculturalism rather than just its historical analogues emerged in Canada.
	I mean, the two major multicultural theorists of the last century, well, one of them is 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 says, well, I mean, this might work, 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.
	So it was one of those things where it's like, you just weren't listening to them, was it?
	Ben says, sorry, Jenrick, but we don't want integration.
	We want mass deportation.
	Luckily, we have a document for that.
	Well, no, Sally, it's just illegal, so we're going to be trying to do some stuff on legal immigration as well.
	Yeah, but the thing is, I'm absolutely convinced that the barometer of how many illegals in this country is vastly underreporting.
	No doubt, I think.
	And the problem that we have is the legal communities are a magnet for illegal immigrants 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 just going to have to let him work cash in hand in your local shop or something like that.
	And there are going to be millions of people like that.
	That's true.
	And then you could marry your cousin's daughter and then you get citizenship.
	I just see citizenship and makes you legal.
	So it's the spillover from one to the other is huge.
	Just to underscore the report, I'm so sorry.
	I just wanted to say that I just want to make it clear to people that we regard this as kind of a first victory in restoring Britain rather than sufficient unto itself.
	I was just going to quickly add that by taking down the illegals, you're also going to 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, that's how it looks from the other side of it.
	But on the inside, they do have a plan.
	The problem is the plan is insane.
	What it is.
	Yes, I agree.
	I agree.
	Very well put.
	The plan is to literally liberate us from everything that makes us human, which is not all of your loyalties.
	I'm not all of your sense of belonging, cut off yourself spiritually, and sort of a number on an Excel sheet.
	There's no other way to be free.
	Yes.
	That's literally their view.
	There's no other way to be free.
	And I think that's evil.
	South Coat's 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 hard to see who's above Tony Blair.
	He seems to be like the prime mover in all this.
	I would argue that the Antichrist works for Tony Blair.
	Yeah.
	It's impossible not to notice in the book of Revelations that the mark of the beast the other day is literally, you will not be able to transact without the mark of the beast.
	Exactly.
	Incredible how this is.
	It is incredible 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?
	Restore Britain, obviously.
	The European Conservative, particularly The Forge, which is my monthly sort of debate and discussion show on YouTube.
	Most recent one was with Michael Gove.
	Yes, I know you did.
	Yeah, you covered it on the podcast the other day.
	And then the second one, coming out on the 13th of October, which is Thatcher Centenary.
	I'd like to plug this very quickly.
	So five days' time, Monday night, this Monday.
	William Clouston versus Charles Moore, her official biographer debating Thatcher's life and legacy to Marko Centenary.
	Oh, okay, interesting.
	Which might be interesting.
	And then the New Culture Forum weekly deprogramme with Connor Tomlinson.
	Well, thanks for joining us, folks.
	And we will see you at 6 p.m.
	Go to courses.loses.com, sign up for the webinar, and you'll be sent a link.

▲