The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1292

Nov. 10, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:55

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1292

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast The Load Seat is for Monday, the 10th of November, 2025.
	I'm joined by Stelios and Farras, and today we're going to be talking about how the BBC effed around and has now found out how Farage finally gets it on business, small business in particular, and how the future of Britain and the West more generally is ethnic enclaves and what this might look like.
	No particular announcements today, so let's just begin.
	Right.
	So last week we did this segment, The Scandal That Will Shake the BBC, and the title was true.
	This scandal has shaken the BBC, and we already have the first resignations, the Director General and also the Chief Executive of the News, Deborah Turnus.
	And we are at the stage where the BBC is finding out.
	Yeah, that's pretty impressive.
	And not only this, we are at the center of a narrative war where people are trying to spin the news in order to, you know, make this thing as a sort of event that suits their narrative and their purposes.
	But also, I want to say that I think that a large number of people are reacting in the same way that the Democrats reacted over the non-cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel.
	So they constantly, out of nowhere, you had the Democrats who were attacking free speech and the First Amendment for years, perhaps a decade, and then suddenly they became the defenders of the First Amendment.
	And they suddenly said that Trump is trying to deprive us of free speech.
	And Jimmy Kimmel wasn't canceled.
	Absolutely necessary and critical voice of Jimmy Kimmel, who adds nothing to conversation.
	And the issue is that when you're creating problems out of nowhere and you're convincing people out of nowhere that there are such problems, you can have easy wins.
	Right, so let's see what happened.
	In a nutshell, we have an internal report by Michael Prescott, who was a sort of member of the standards committee of the BBC for many years.
	He resigned, I think, earlier this year.
	June.
	In June 2025, who was a bit unhappy with how things were going.
	And he asked people within the BBC to do an internal investigation.
	And so they did.
	And they found out that there were several problems with the way things were running.
	Now, this is not a surprise for you if you're watching us for more than two or three weeks, I'd say.
	Right, the most important thing here is the fabrication of the speech Trump gave on January 6th, 2021, which the BBC Panorama program made and also aired a week before the 2024 US elections.
	And it's basically altered so it gives the impression that Trump incited people to the riot.
	Let's listen to what it says.
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you.
	And we fight.
	We fight like hell.
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol.
	And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.
	Right.
	So what happened was basically that in the first clip, the Panorama program took something that Trump said 54 minutes after the first sentence and they put it together and they created this impression that Trump basically said, we're going to go there and we're going to fight.
	Right.
	So I'd say that this is a shameless fabrication.
	I mean, there's no other way of putting it.
	It couldn't be more cut and dried.
	Right.
	And there are also other considerations that people have had.
	You say that it couldn't be more cut and dry.
	I'm seeing an insane number of people on X saying that actually this is an accurate reflection of the spirit of Trump's speech.
	Oh.
	And that there is nothing wrong with making changes along these lines.
	And that it didn't mislead anybody because it correctly captured the spirit of what Trump was saying.
	Now, he actually says we're going to the capital peacefully.
	Yes, to peace.
	And it's going to be a peaceful protest.
	Yes.
	And he repeats that.
	But they insist that they did nothing wrong.
	Yeah, but these people are what we call journalists.
	Yeah.
	They're known for professionally lying.
	So I don't take them terribly seriously.
	But it is worrying that they have a constituency that will defend flagrant lies.
	Yep.
	Right.
	We also have reports about the BBC Arabic program having a bias towards Hamas.
	Can you really?
	Yeah, and one thing that I should have said- It's the first I'm hearing of it.
	I should have said in the previous segment, but I forgot to mention is that BBC Arabic is partly funded by the Foreign Office.
	Right.
	So basically, they say that the broadcaster's Arabic service has had to make 215 corrections over the past two years.
	And let me just give you an example.
	They're saying that one of its complaints involved a BBC Arabic report in January this year about the treatment of hostages by the Al-Qassam Brigade, in which the Hamas unit was described as guarding the hostages and being responsible for securing the hostages rather than holding them captive.
	I remember also we need to fact-check Kiestama who was speaking about sausages.
	The one that always sticks with me is when the BBC translated a Gaza children's Palestinian children's cartoon.
	And in the children's cartoon, the translation said, oh, well, we need to make sure the Israelis do this or we need to get the Israelis or whatever.
	And actually, it was just the Arabic word for Jews.
	And this report had several extra mentions of problems, such as the BBC's biased coverage of all sorts of topics, such as the trans issue, reporting on racial issues, and also on migration.
	Or a data to dartboard.
	Yes, but as Firas has completely, correctly, I think, reported, most people tend to silence the migration issue when they're reporting on the report.
	So when you look at the media reporting, it seems like it's about Trump, Israel, and the LGBT stuff.
	And it's happening in a coordinated way where the two other very big issues of criticism, immigration and race, are completely missed from the conversation.
	And so it becomes a bit of a bait.
	Get the Americans involved with the Trump stuff.
	Get the right wing involved with the LGBT stuff and also focus on the Israel side.
	Now, BBC Arabic is a cesspit.
	And Arabic media in general is pretty bad.
	The UAE media is less bad than the others, but even they are, you know, at least they're very careful not to get people who are supportive of Hamas and present them as journalists.
	If they interview somebody who wants to present Hamas's perspective, they get somebody from Hamas.
	What the other Arabic media do is present people who are very pro-Hamas and pretend that they're neutral.
	And this is a huge problem and it's a problem with the BBC as well.
	And it's deeply ingrained in the culture, deeply ingrained.
	Yeah, that's one of the questions that are being asked now, because there is a debate as to whether this is an isolated incident or a culture.
	Now, we do know that the left does have a sort of disposition to try to minimize blame for themselves and maximize blame for the other side, which is interesting because they do the same thing here for the BBC while simultaneously claiming that the BBC isn't biased towards them.
	I'm not even like, you know, upset about that.
	Obviously, both sides do exactly that, obviously.
	It's just so obvious.
	It's so self-evident that the BBC is just a bastion of globalist liberalism.
	Yes.
	The most extreme version of it.
	And it is constantly making these mistakes, as you said before the podcast.
	These mistakes, only a mistake, only overgoes in one direction.
	It's so self-evident.
	So, like, I'm tired that we're not having an honest conversation about what happens.
	Well, let's talk about bias.
	Let's talk about what are you talking about?
	What this is, is the BBC is a castle in a culture war, and it is sending out troops whenever it makes these kinds of lies, whenever it publishes these kinds of lies.
	And they've been, they've fallen into a round trap and been completely crushed.
	They've been completely destroyed.
	And so the director general is like, well, I've got to resign then because I'm the one who's responsible for this.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we have here from the, this is a BBC article.
	BBC Director General Tim Davy and CEO of News Deborah Turnas have resigned after a newspaper report suggested the BBC Panorma documentary, blah, blah, blah, misled viewers by editing a speech about President Trump.
	Even here it's the same exact problem.
	The content of the report wasn't just that they misled viewers with that speech.
	It's that they were consistently biased on all of the left-wing culture issues to the extent that they made, I think, 12 notifications on their sort of notification service about Russell Brand, but almost none about illegal immigration.
	Like in one month, Russell Brand gets 12 notifications and illegal immigration gets next to nothing.
	And the thing is, well, sorry, can we get back to that?
	Yes, of course.
	Saying, oh, it misled viewers.
	That's such a soft way of approaching things.
	Because you could say, well, you know, you were factually incorrect about a claim and that misled viewers.
	You know, it turns out that immigration was not 750,000 net.
	It was 900,000 because it got revised up last July or whatever, right?
	And you just left that out.
	And so actually, you'd misled them by just not being factually correct.
	Fair enough.
	Bit of a mistake.
	Sorry.
	No.
	The BBC Director General and the CEO of News don't resign over accidentally misleading people.
	Suggested that they misled people.
	Exactly.
	After a suggestion that someone has been misled.
	You don't resign at those levels over those things.
	No, this is because you deliberately fabricated lies.
	You fabricated lies for partisan reasons about the leader, the president of our closest and most important ally, as if you were trying to damage the relationship between Britain and America itself over a partisan objection to who the president is.
	Like this is really serious.
	And the report goes into more detail than that.
	It wasn't just that they doctored this video to make it appear this way.
	It's that they insist on calling abortion reproductive health care.
	Yes.
	Or reproductive rights.
	It's that they fully sided with pretty much every Democrat talking point.
	It's that they gave no critical coverage of Kamala Harris.
	It's very extensive bias that's being documented.
	And it's not in a newspaper report.
	It's in an internal memo from somebody whose job is to do this.
	And that memo details a litany of failings, including about race, including about immigration, including about everything else.
	Although my view is that the report is too soft and doesn't focus anywhere near enough on the racism issue and the immigration issue.
	But they present it as a newspaper report suggested.
	But no, no, it's another, it's another, it's a cover-up of the feelings.
	It's a lie within the lie.
	So, like, I mean, technically, and this is how the media lies all the time.
	They're professionals of this.
	This is what journalists do, right?
	After a newspaper sport suggested, not because a newspaper sport suggested, and technically, that's true.
	It is technically true that after it was published in the Telegraph forever, then this happened.
	That is completely correct.
	But it's not because it was published in the Telegraph.
	It's because of the report that the BBC had commissioned itself to do internally.
	That's why this happened.
	They are lying to you.
	They are constantly lying.
	And they're experts at lying as well.
	And I mean, this is again, I mentioned it's a BBC article.
	So they are trying to minimize damage and minimize blame and obfuscate the issue that it's a culture.
	Short lying.
	Whoa, short on us lying.
	Right.
	So we have the Telegraph live stories, and I want to show you some statements.
	And I want to ask you what you think about them.
	So saying they're risking great risk to the future, whatever warrants form a director.
	Gordon Brown rejects claims of BBC bias.
	So like the great risk of the future thing.
	They're probably worried that Nigel Farage will come on and do something, right?
	Because he should.
	He should just turn the BBC into a subscription service.
	If you want to pay for people who are left-wing, openly biased, and will lie to your face repeatedly and lie about the lies afterwards, then that should at least be voluntary.
	But then it shouldn't be called the BBC.
	Call it whatever you like.
	I don't care.
	But as long as I don't have to pay for it, you know, I don't want to have to pay for the TV license.
	I think it's £181 per year.
	And they also send you, if you don't pay, they send you this ridiculous, ridiculous mail saying that the army is going to come in if you don't pay the license.
	Sorry, what did the most relevant prime minister in British history say?
	He rejects claims of BBC bias.
	He's a comic.
	Gordon Brown.
	Yeah.
	They just made a mistake.
	I like how they're trying to portray the deliberate fabrication of something as a mere mistake.
	So I just want to go back to the video.
	Can we get this video up again just so you can see it?
	Yep.
	Just reload it.
	Yeah, reload it.
	Just to the beginning, right?
	So what they have done here is actually a really smooth transition.
	Like when you watch it, you can't see the fact that it's edited.
	Yes.
	There's no sort of like flash on the screen or obvious jump cut or anything.
	It was an incredibly smooth transition.
	And as someone who has edited many a video and is terrible at video editing, that's a skill.
	Like that's a talent.
	You need a particular kind of software.
	You need to know how to use the software.
	You need to actually spend some time actually splicing those things together and erasing the evidence that that wasn't just one contiguous sentence.
	Like this is not an accident.
	That took work to do.
	Just FYI.
	We have another statement here that I'm sure is going to be Carl's favorite.
	Horrant.
	Internal right-wing by Alastair Campbell.
	Internal right-wing forces working to undermine BBC.
	So the right has secretly infiltrated the BBC and is trying to capture the institution.
	Yeah.
	God, give me the right of the left's imagination, please.
	Yes, exactly.
	That's all I ask for.
	And he says the real weakness of the BBC, as exemplified by recent events, is its failure to stand up to ludicrous claims from the right, that it is somehow hugely biased to the left.
	I just think Alex the Campbell is a clown.
	I just wouldn't take any of his analysis.
	I think it's worse than that.
	I think that they are genuine believers.
	Like they truly believe the BS that they spew.
	I mean, in the full memo that covers the BBC's biases, they mention stories about when they report that a woman raped a woman.
	Yes.
	You know, what they actually mean is that a man who pretends to be a woman or who yesterday began pretending to be a woman after he was jailed raped a woman and was convicted.
	And so this is bias.
	Not mentioning that he's a man is obvious bias.
	But as far as Alistair Campbell is concerned, they insist on doubling down, which I want to make a point here.
	It shows an issue with the difference between the left and the right.
	The right is constantly self-policing and self-critiquing and making sure that it's really playing by these nice liberal norms and that it's not saying anything offensive.
	The left doesn't care.
	They take no prisoners.
	They do not compromise.
	They will give you nothing.
	I will say, I mean, I'm happy that we have standards.
	That's good.
	But I mean, quick thing to remember is Alistair Campbell was Tony Blair's spin doctor.
	He was just a professional liar to Tony Blair throughout the Blair government, then became the head of communications for the government.
	Also, if it's ridiculous to claim that the institution has a left-wing bias and it's good or has a right-wing bias, why should the right-wing do a coup inside the BBC?
	Not just that.
	Yeah, that's a great question.
	Was there a single story where the BBC had to apologize for a mistake because it leaned too right-wing?
	It was too overbearing on immigration or something like that.
	Was there a single story where the mistake went in favor of the right?
	The mistake bias went in favor of the right.
	Never.
	Just a quick thing on Alice Campbell.
	How conspiratorial is this as well?
	This is genuinely a conspiracy theory that right-wing forces exist in the BBC and are working to undermine the corporation.
	I wish.
	Yeah, but what are you talking about?
	This sounds like David Icke levels of nonsense.
	Like, right-wing thought, lizard men, what are you on?
	Name someone in the BBC who could be plausibly described as right-wing.
	Just one person, I would like to see.
	Sorry.
	It's just the hologram that is created that tells you that there are no right-wing.
	It's so ridiculous.
	It's just right-wing lizards.
	Alistair Kimberley.
	Reptilian right.
	Are lizards naturally right-wing or left-wing?
	That's a great lad's hour.
	Yeah, we should.
	Reptilian rights should totally be a thing.
	Anyway, let's carry on.
	Right, okay.
	So we have all sorts of ministers saying that.
	Their heads should roll.
	That's correct.
	Trump was enraged by BBC bias.
	I want to show you the statement by Trump.
	He said the top people in the BBC, including Tim Davey, the boss, are all quitting, fired because they were caught doctoring my very good, perfect speech on January 6th.
	Thank you to the Telegraph for exposing these corrupt journalists.
	These are very dishonest people who try to step on the scales of a presidential election on top of everything else.
	They're from a foreign country, one that many consider a number one ally.
	What a terrible thing for democracy.
	So lots of people are trying to take this entirely fair critique, and they're trying to say that Trump is attacking British democracy.
	What British democracy?
	Sorry, just sorry to keep pausing on everything.
	But how does this attack democracy?
	The BBC lied about me.
	Oh my God, that's an attack on our.
	Sorry, is our democracy predicated on being able to publicly lie about Donald Trump?
	Is that genuinely what they're saying?
	Yes.
	Because that seems to be the only inference you can reasonably take from that.
	That's exactly what they mean.
	Exactly.
	What else could you draw from that?
	It's not just that.
	It's Samir Shah, who is the chair of the BBC, who is talking to the MPs right now with the letter.
	He basically characterized what happened as an error of judgment.
	I mean, it is an error of judgment to lie.
	But what is it based on?
	I'm not interested in the description.
	What is it based on?
	It's based on a culture.
	Right.
	So it's based on a worldview.
	Ed Davies writing to Keistama, Kemi Badenok, and Nigel Farage, urging them to condemn Trump's attack on the BBC.
	Is this guy the dancing videos guy?
	Yes, he is.
	Yes.
	This is the crown.
	No, no, the thing that's important about this is it gets to Stelios' point.
	If the BBC is somehow not a left-wing bastion, why our left-wing is coming out and claiming we must defend the BBC?
	Because it's ours, exactly.
	The evil right-wing who are trying to assault it by using evidence of us lying about them as somehow a way of delegitimizing us.
	If that wasn't the case, it's so transparent.
	I'm so tired of the pretense.
	Or maybe he wants to say that it is impartial and it's the right-wingers who want to capture it to make it impartial, partial.
	Which is why no one takes Ed Davy seriously.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So Ed Davey again says it's easy to see why Trump wants to destroy the world's number one news source.
	We can't let him.
	The BBC belongs to all of us here in the UK.
	The PM and leaders from across the spectrum should be united in telling Trump to keep his hands off of it.
	He's not buying the BBC, Ed.
	The BBC is not being privatized, you do.
	What it is, it's a lying institution that you're forced to pay for.
	Like, good God, this is.
	Sorry, I'm so annoying.
	They're trying to create a problem that doesn't exist.
	It's open partisanship.
	Now it's just like BBC ours, therefore good.
	Trump not ours, therefore bad, regardless of what the truth of the matter is.
	So Ed Davy is more supportive of the BBC than people right now, some people right now on the BBC.
	And the people in the BBC.
	Yeah.
	And here we have someone else, Oliver Ryan, who says so many new media influencers, journalists, presenters, populists, and funders of the political extremes completely despise the BBC, are jealous of the BBC, want to see the end of the BBC for their own benefit.
	If we want the BBC to survive, we have to be prepared to defend it.
	Don't want it to survive.
	It's a legacy institution of empire that needs to go.
	It's time has passed.
	That's the thing.
	The claim of credibility for the BBC was from third world countries who thought at least these guys either don't hate us or hate us all equally and therefore will be neutral.
	Yeah.
	And therefore they relied on the BBC at a time when there was only state media as an alternative.
	Like who are you going to trust?
	The BBC or the Egyptian government media?
	No, obviously the BBC.
	So for us, I don't know what you're going to make of it, but the first response has 666 likes.
	He's right.
	We don't want the BBC to survive as it is.
	But this is the problem, though.
	This is just another problem of the end of empire and the lack of reformed institutions that Britain is currently saddled by.
	We are burdened by institutions that still think it's 1920.
	And things have changed.
	Things have to change.
	We have, again, David Yelland, who I think was an editor of The Sun, who says, What has happened today at the BBC is nothing short of a coup, a national disgrace.
	The corporation's board has effectively been undermined, and elements close to it have worked with hostile newspapers.
	Editor, former MP, blah, blah, blah.
	If you look at the only honorable players are Tim Davy and Deborah Turner.
	So again, just never getting any accountability, never showing any.
	If you look at the details of the report, the memo that's involved here, the guy repeatedly mentions how him and a journalist called David Grossman, whose job was to write reports about this stuff, continuously communicated with the editorial guidance and standards committee and highlighted to them the bias.
	And the response that they got constantly was dismissal.
	No, no, no, no, it's not happening.
	You will never get anything else.
	It's beautiful to see that the whole left shares the exact same mindset, but they're a herd who don't know that they're a herd.
	Yep, that's their problem.
	And I think that's the as if cattle thought that they were journalists and genuinely believe.
	That's more of the useful idiot diagnosis of the situation.
	I think that there's another bit that is a bit more conscious.
	And essentially, the way that they are talking and throwing messages and quantity of messaging shows to me that basically what they want to do is to create this image yet again that Trump is creating WIMA conditions and that they are threatened and they aren't threatened, at least in such a way.
	Because when they convince people that there is such a massive threat, which there isn't, when people see that no such threat comes to be realized, they will say, right, it didn't happen because Ed Davy spoke against it, because Harriet Harmon, because David Yellen spoke against it.
	I don't know, man.
	I agree.
	They're creating a problem out of nowhere.
	They're creating a problem out of nowhere to claim a victory that won't exist.
	I mean, I just.
	Quite possibly, but it's so frustrating that they don't.
	I mean, I don't think it is the cattle herd that doesn't realize it's a herd.
	I think they're conscious of it.
	I agree with Stellis.
	I think they're self-conscious.
	And we can see this in the way that they characterize political people.
	As in, Tommy Robinson is the far-right populist agitator.
	And, you know, here's just a person from Navarra Media.
	Yes.
	Sorry, if you're going to characterize anyone, characterize everyone or don't characterize anyone.
	That would be the neutral thing to do.
	That's not what the BBC does.
	Anyway, would you want backing from Harriet Harmon?
	She backed the paedophile information exchange.
	Yes, she did.
	But then the BBC covered up Jimmy Saville and What's His Face, the Australian guy, the didgeridoo guy.
	I can't remember the name.
	There are many.
	It's not just one.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, there are many.
	And then they've got the pedo statue outside of it that was vandalized recently.
	It's just, what are we doing here, folks?
	Like, there's something clearly rotten in the BBC.
	And it's because of the untouchable and impenetrable nature of it and the institutional support against politicians.
	Like, it's obvious that this is going to be a vector for corruption.
	Yes.
	Anyway, should we leave that there?
	Yeah, of course.
	I hate the BBC so much.
	It's because it's trading on such a good reputation that it earned when it was actually worthy of earning it.
	Anyway, TD3K says, can't send your DM to a relevant post.
	Thanks.
	I'll look at that.
	Malcolm Tucker was based on Alistair Campbell.
	Yep.
	Yes.
	I expect the BBC to edit to start having the Command and Conquer Redlet Hellmarch start playing after the cut.
	Well, I mean, honestly, that would have made it based on badass.
	But thank you, Santa Carl Legion.
	I hope the BBC website will perhaps use stock photos and actually proportionally represent the whole UK demographics, not just London demographics.
	Well, they can't do that because those things probably don't exist.
	This will come as a very little surprise, but the BBC can't even mention proper figures when it comes to debt, deficit, and migration.
	Yep.
	Say no to digital ID protest in Birmingham Senitentiary Square, 10m, 20th of December.
	I think that's 10 a.m. 20th December.
	Please join us if you're able to.
	Yep, if you absolutely support Digital ID protest.
	From John O'Roats to Lands End, British Culture We Must Defend.
	I'd also like to take this opportunity to say I'm trying hard to show you all.
	Well, thank you very much.
	G'day, everyone.
	Hope you're doing well.
	While it's not the least the BBC have two of their members, resigned Wishmore would too.
	Yeah, I mean, the thing is, the okay, so the heads have been chopped off the hydra, but there are all sorts of layers of bureaucracy in which the decision was signed off.
	So all of those people are culpable too.
	And so, okay, the two people at the top might go, but they'll just get replaced with people who are not tremendously different, and nothing will change.
	Yep, very much so.
	So let's talk about economics again and talk about being a small business in Britain.
	Oh, I know something about that.
	Yes, you might know something about this.
	Napoleon called Britain a nation of shopkeepers, and it's worth sort of understanding how these small businesses are doing.
	One indication is the IPO market.
	IPOs are when companies make their initial public offering, that is list on a stock exchange.
	That is, they go public, they raise capital from the markets, and that allows them to grow their businesses.
	And these fell by 40% in 2023 in the good old days of the Conservatives.
	We don't have figures for 2024, but it seems like another big catastrophic drop.
	And I think a total of a billion pounds only was raised on the IPO market, meaning that companies aren't listing in Britain.
	They're not coming to Britain, and they're not raising money from Britain.
	And meaning that small British businesses aren't growing to become big enough to go on the stock market.
	This is important because small businesses, there's around 4.5 million of them, and they represent something like 99% of all businesses and something between 35% to 50% of total GDP, depending on how you count it, plus around 60% of all jobs.
	So it really matters what is happening to small businesses.
	If anything, you might wonder, why would you ever do anything to inhibit a small business?
	Exactly.
	If you're going to have a corporation tax, for example, wouldn't you exempt small businesses from it?
	Exactly.
	Things like this.
	You would do everything in your power because this is where innovation comes from.
	Unless you're a commie.
	Unless you're a communist.
	So if you're a small business, this is obviously the first step towards becoming a big business.
	You have to go through this step first.
	And just as a quick aside as well, if you're somebody who works and doesn't own a business, which kind of business would you rather work for?
	Exactly.
	A business where you're, in fact, a large cog and a small machine or a tiny cog and gargantuan machine that can just be replaced like that.
	Which one would you rather work for?
	Exactly.
	And I went through that transition.
	I started off in a very small company.
	I could just kick in the CEO's door, tell him what I thought, and he will tell me yes or piss off.
	Went to a giant mega corp and it was hell on earth.
	Yes.
	And thankfully, now I'm working for myself and for small businesses.
	So it really, really matters what happens here.
	Now, the businesses themselves, when you ask them, they are miserable.
	Q1 2025 was a disaster the first quarter of the year.
	There is no uptick in performance and the sentiment is down at negative 44.
	The way that these work is that I think 50 is neutral.
	And so the lower the reading is, the worse the businesses are.
	But we had so much immigration.
	But it was absolutely terrible, it seems, because growth is under 1%, something like that.
	And this isn't big enough for small businesses to thrive.
	And weirdly enough, the consumer-facing sectors of wholesale and retail and accommodation were especially downbeat in the second quarter of this year.
	You'd think that with all of the migrants being placed in hotels, this would be positive.
	But no, it's been obviously terrible because people are so squeezed that they're only spending on the basics.
	The Small Business Federation explains, the Federation of Small Business explains that these sectors are labor-intensive and they are especially hard hit by hikes in national insurance.
	Thank you, Rachel Reeves, and in the national living wage, higher minimum wages.
	So, what they're trying to do is basically impose equality.
	Dan has a very good segment of that explaining how the objective of the state is to keep everybody between 30 and 40,000 pounds a year.
	Yes.
	There's benefits or you get taxed.
	Exactly.
	There's an extra layer into this because the left has a hatred for small businesses, especially.
	Yes.
	Because they think that there is the proletariat and then the bourgeois.
	And those who are in the low bourgeois, they look at them as the trade-offs.
	You should have been ours.
	So they hate them especially.
	And also, there's the fact that most of them are rich.
	Some of them are rich.
	I'm talking about the leftists, Champagne socialists.
	The petty bourgeoisie are essentially a repudiation of the entire left-wing project.
	Yes.
	Because what it suggests is actually, even if you're in a system that is not equal, you can prosper if you work hard and you work for yourself.
	Exactly.
	And this is honestly, being a petty bourgeois business owner is probably the best kind of life the average person can expect to live.
	Yes.
	Because it comes with independence.
	It comes with freedom.
	It comes with the ability to set your own working hours.
	You become a service.
	You're free.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You're free.
	This is as close.
	This is the English view of freedom.
	Yes.
	This is what it is.
	So it's not about the amount of wealth.
	It's about the fact that your income is independent of everybody else and is reliant on your own efforts, meaning that nasty HR ladies can't impose anything on you, meaning that you're left alone by most people, meaning that nobody can pressure you because you're independent.
	So it's really, even from a social perspective, it's really important to have small businesses thrive because they build a functioning society.
	That's why the small villages look so good.
	Exactly.
	It's because they're full of small business owners who care about the place in which they work.
	Exactly.
	And so the Forum of Private Businesses, another association for small businesses, say that current policy and regulation are too rigid, don't take into account the impact of small businesses.
	And policymakers seem to view small businesses like a big business, only smaller.
	And this is a perennial problem.
	It's a particular problem with the European Union.
	And this is a very strong argument that was made during Brexit.
	And for some reason, the Conservative government did nothing with it.
	There's a kind of homogenizing effect that is far easier to bear if you're a big business.
	So, for example, if you have 10,000 pages of regulations, which I don't know how much it is, but it's going to be a huge number of regulations.
	As a small business, it's actually very difficult to overcome that hurdle just on administrative burden alone.
	Exactly.
	If you're a big business, you can employ an entire department of people to do that for you.
	Exactly.
	So it's a way of essentially cutting out the competition and the market by reducing the amount of potential competition in small businesses that might innovate in ways that you don't and therefore grow and essentially become the sort of creative destruction that Hayek would constantly go on about is necessary for a healthy functioning economy.
	This is the bureaucrat's dream and the normal person's nightmare that small businesses live under at the moment, just FYI.
	So a big business can afford a massive HR department and can afford a massive compliance department and give them jobs and pay them and still be profitable.
	If you're a small business, ha ha, good luck.
	There's no chance you can do that.
	You've got to do it yourself.
	You've got to do it yourself because you are the CEO, the chief technology officer, the chief compliance officer, the chief legal counsel, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
	You are everything in your company if you own it yourself.
	You have to do all of these different jobs.
	Whereas if you're a big business, you can afford to hire departments and departments for this.
	And this is why professionals who know exactly what they're doing and only do this thing.
	Exactly.
	This is why the Forum of Private Businesses says you need to turn regulation on its head.
	Instead of first thinking about big businesses, what you ought to be doing is thinking about the impact on small businesses, then deciding whether or not to impose the regulation.
	Alternatively, you can scale things.
	You can be very nationalistic and interventionist on very mega businesses like energy, things of that nature, but you can be very libertarian when it comes to shops and shopkeepers.
	You can leave them alone.
	If they get big enough to pose systemic risks, then, yeah, fair enough, the state needs to intervene.
	But to treat every business as a big business is insane.
	And that's what small businesses are calling for.
	We wonder why we're not getting growth.
	Exactly.
	We wonder why the economy has just been persistently hamstrung by regulation.
	Exactly.
	This kind of overburdensome and indiscriminate regulation.
	Exactly.
	And now the ghost of Angela Rayner is going to impose the employment rights bill, which limits private businesses further and imposes new restrictions on them and has all kinds of reporting requirements intended to create absolute equality between everybody everywhere, which is, again, communism.
	And 92% of businesses are terrified about it.
	Weirdly enough, weirdly enough, big businesses, I think, are only maybe 1 or 2% of all businesses.
	So this is basically some very small individual businesses, one-man shows, who think I don't care about employment rights bills because I don't hire anybody, and big businesses because they have the giant compliance departments.
	But also, what problem is this solving?
	Is the problem in Britain a lack of employment rights?
	Yep.
	That was not the problem.
	Exactly.
	And you see this constant attempt by the state to deal with the problem of companies being registered improperly, all kinds of fraud, all kinds of schemes, all kinds of nasty activities that are coming directly from immigration.
	I think there was a link there for a BBC article covering how you had this huge addition of basically people working illegally by refusing to comply with any of the laws because they're migrant, right?
	Sorry, this is another insane and a very annoying point: is that all of this is done by consent.
	So the people who want to follow the rules and want to follow the laws, they will get punished for doing this, whereas the average Turkish barbershop doesn't probably isn't even registered.
	They don't matter.
	Like the slave labor that was going on in the factories in Leicester, you think they're applying the employment rights bill?
	No, because they don't cooperate.
	And so the government just ignores it.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	So the good news here is that Nigel Farar seems to understand this.
	And so what he has announced now is a small businesses for reform forum, this new outfit that is intended to address the fact that businesses in Britain are over-regulated.
	Because in case we didn't convince you that small businesses are under enormous pressure, here are some of the things that they have to worry about.
	Firstly, HR and everything to do with equalities law and things of that nature.
	So if you hire a laborer who is of a non-British ethnicity, well, they can at any point come up with some kind of inequality claim or come up with some kind of discrimination claim keeping you in absolute terror.
	I'm looking at Stellius carefully.
	And me.
	You have statutory sick pay.
	So if your staff gets sick and you're a small shopkeeper, you still have to pay them.
	You're looking at the fact that you can't get contractors because there are regulations intended to prevent you from working with people as contractors.
	You're looking at business rates.
	For our American audience, British businesses that rent a premises have to pay half of that rent in a tax.
	Yes, we do.
	Which is insane.
	It's absolutely mad.
	It's just crazy.
	And that's not talking about the normal tax you have to pay, of course.
	Exactly.
	And so corporation tax, it's 19%.
	It's high.
	But then everything that you actually take out of the corporation on dividends and so on, you have to pay taxes on them.
	You have ridiculous approvals and regulations for pretty much everything.
	Interest rates for small businesses reach as high as 29%.
	Yeah.
	For some small businesses, they reach as high as 29%, which is...
	Is that on loans that they take, is it?
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	I'm lucky I've not had to take a loan.
	Yeah.
	And to not only high minimum wages and so on and so forth, to make it all worse, when you die, you have to give the government 40% of your business in inheritance tax.
	So the level of insanity here, the level of extremism here, of egalitarianism reaching full-scale communism is crazy.
	And Farage seems to get this, finally.
	On the plus side, at least, I mean, we know who Farage is.
	He's been a public figure for 30 years.
	And at least he, it's self-evident that Farage has this deeply embedded in his DNA.
	Yes, he has this libertarian streak.
	Yeah, where he obviously.
	Exactly.
	He wants small business owners to prosper.
	He's always thought this.
	And this is something that's very, it's a very easy win for him.
	It's very reliable.
	I mean, this is the sort of thing that actually might help him in the Southwest.
	Because the Southwest is full of independent entrepreneurs who run small businesses.
	And we're a Brexit voting area.
	There's no reason we should be governed by the Lid Dems.
	This is actually something that reform might be able to make some progress here on.
	Yes, exactly.
	So he seems to get this problem.
	He seems to get that the burden on small businesses is enormous.
	And more importantly, that this is a vote winner.
	Because 60% of workers, exactly, 60% of workers work for small businesses.
	And if these businesses do better, well, guess what?
	They can pay you higher wages because there's going to be more employment, more competition.
	I mean, seriously, though, right?
	Like, we would be about 25 to 30% bigger as an operation if we didn't have to pay such exorbitant taxes.
	Yeah.
	If we didn't have to pay all of that, we would just have more staff.
	And they'd be doing more things.
	This is the thing.
	The government, I mean, we spoke about this last week when we had Pete North here.
	The government doesn't seem to understand the Laffer curve, that the higher you raise taxes, the less revenue you get.
	There is a point after which higher taxes means less revenue, and you have to get this right.
	Yeah, but also they may be doing it deliberately.
	They probably are.
	You know, they probably are.
	I suspect it's actually not deliberate.
	I suspect it's actually that none of them have any experience in this realm whatsoever.
	That's also very true.
	If you look at them, look at any of the past few governments.
	What have these people actually done?
	Boris Johnson, professional politician.
	Keir Starmer, a human rights lawyer.
	Don't know anything about this.
	The only person who did would have been someone like Rishi Sinek.
	Yes.
	Weirdly enough.
	Yeah.
	Who was only involved in big finance, so he doesn't even get it.
	So he doesn't even get the difference.
	He doesn't even get the difference.
	He still thinks that, you know, it's the same thing.
	If small business is just a big business, but it's small, instead of understanding this.
	So the good news is that he's gotten somebody called Kevin Barn to be involved in this.
	And this guy founded something called Checkatrade, which is a website where you can find people to do small jobs for you and to do trading jobs.
	And it's really good.
	It's a review website as well.
	So it's genuinely a kind of self-policing network that you use if you want to get your bathroom restored or something like that.
	Think about it this way.
	It's guilds in the modern age.
	Yes, it is.
	It's what guilds would be like in the modern age.
	So somebody who understands this, being heavily involved with reform and having a say in this, is actually very good news.
	Yeah, it's excellent.
	You can't wait until Farage kicks him out for saying something about immigration.
	Here's.
	Yes.
	I don't mean to be cynical.
	That possibility.
	I've seen it so many times.
	Next link, this guy cancel.
	That possibility is there.
	But there seems to be an understanding that supply-side economics are necessary here.
	Yes.
	That you need to release businesses and stop being a Keynesian lunatic.
	Wasn't Keynes a pedophile as well, by the way?
	I have heard that he might have been.
	Yes.
	So there is this need to actually do something to get the economy growing.
	And the only way to do that is to get small businesses involved.
	And if you consider the fact that this is a very clear vote winner, if you consider the fact that this is really necessary, well, then, yeah, there's hope now, and there's hope that we will see something better.
	Farage went as far as to say that we're living in an age where big businesses virtually control and own the political arena.
	Completely true.
	This is absolutely true because they're the ones who can afford to invite Kirstarmer to go watch the footy.
	They can afford to lobby the lounges.
	They have.
	They can afford the lobbying.
	Yeah, we can't afford lobbying, obviously.
	Exactly.
	So he seems to get this right.
	And this got him into a bit of trouble from the journalists who were very keen to defend the big businesses, weirdly enough.
	They were.
	But he seems to understand that this thing is happening and that it's important.
	And this realization could be transformational.
	It's really necessary.
	As with everything involving reform, the issue is implementation.
	Because while Farage declared that he's going to have this big new initiative and he promised that there is going to be this upgrade here, he didn't actually say what he's going to do.
	He didn't actually identify the policies that would have to be implemented and what these would look like.
	This is important and this is always an issue.
	But somebody like Kevin Byron is the kind of person who can sit on parliamentary committees and who can ask intelligent questions and have the experience of having owned and ran a very successful business and be able to contribute.
	So it's not enough because the economy is collapsing.
	And as we've said in previous episodes, at any point, Britain could face a major financial crisis as well as the rest of Europe.
	But it's really good that Farage seems to get this.
	What's needed is really more of the same.
	You need somebody deeply involved in farming to also be running for MP.
	You need people who really know the fishing industry to be involved in your new endeavor if you're going to govern.
	So the key here is not just to get the policies right.
	This is one big part of it.
	The other key is to get people with the right experience in business and bring them back into parliament and end the careers of these career politicians.
	Because look around in parliament, nobody knows what the hell they're doing.
	Nobody's run a business.
	Nobody's managed anything.
	Nobody's had to deal with anything except political backstabbing.
	So I'm optimistic that we're beginning to see this change.
	It's a bit overdue considering that this government could sort of collapse at any moment under the next scandal.
	But it's a positive step.
	And so we want to thank Nigel for this.
	And we want to say, yes, please, more of the same.
	Yes, definitely more of this, please.
	Yeah.
	Sigilstone asks, Tyler Oliviero video frame by frame breakdown men.
	I don't know what that is.
	No idea.
	Anyway, let's move on.
	So it looks to me as if the future of Britain is pretty much set.
	Whether we like it or not, we have embarked on a crusade of mass immigration.
	And I doubt that any government in the near future is actually going to do anything significant about that.
	And so there are certain consequences that we can extrapolate from this.
	Now, I have here the 2019 British Office of National Statistics information on financial benefits and taxes paid by household.
	And the reason I've got the 2019 one and not a more recent one is because this was the last year that they produced.
	Is it this one?
	Yeah, this.
	For some reason, it's coming up black, so it's hard to read.
	But as you can see, this is the summary of effects of taxes and benefits by ethnic group.
	On more recent ones, they literally say we don't want to publish this because people will infer things from it.
	Now we know what it says without even having to look.
	Yes, we do.
	And I can't even make that.
	I can't get that to make to be more readable.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, if you can turn that dark mode off.
	There we go.
	Right.
	So this, as you can see, has a position of zero.
	So this would be where everyone was net neutral.
	And then you have the taxes broken down.
	You've got in dark blue here, benefits in kind.
	So these are benefits of services and things like that.
	Then you have cash benefits.
	So that's literally the government giving you money.
	And then you have direct taxes that you are paying, as in from your wages.
	And then you have indirect taxes, such as VAT and things like that.
	And as you can see, this produces a number at the bottom, which is the net position.
	So, for example, they say white people are minus 4,149 pounds per year in beneficiaries to the state.
	And so if that means they give to the state and not take from the state.
	And as you can see, basically no one else apart from Asians, but that's a very broad category.
	So that includes Chinese and Indian and Bangladeshis.
	So you could split that out quite a lot.
	But nobody else.
	And then the real horror show would begin.
	And then the real, which is why they don't do it.
	And so that's barely scraping in at minus 503.
	So slightly net contributor.
	You have other, which is a net position of 913, which is negative.
	So they're just taking 913 pounds.
	Or the mixed, which is 1,232.
	Or the ethnic minorities.
	I don't even know what that's supposed to categorize.
	I think that's just, you know, whatever that is.
	The net position of minus 125.
	And then the black community, which is minus 6,370.
	6,000.
	No.
	The net position is they take from the state 6,000.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So that's actually the negative from our perspective.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	They take from the state that much.
	You give to the state 4,149 on average.
	So this, you can.
	So clearly, Windrush is basically the net result of Windrush is a subsidy to black people.
	Yeah.
	That's literally what it is.
	Yes.
	And it's not just the Windrush.
	It's also the MENA countries from the Middle East and North Africa.
	I think across Europe, it has been proven that they represent a net drain.
	So diversity is not working to function to raise the GDP in that respect.
	Yes.
	Somehow.
	Yes.
	So the Asian category would include Chinese and Indians who do actually generally work and contribute.
	And it will also include Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, the Middle East, things like that, who don't, which is what's dragging them down.
	Because otherwise, they probably would be a net beneficiary on par or above the white population of Britain.
	So the reason that I point this out is because, okay, well, we have a fairly crystal clear demonstration of who is actually supporting the country, who is actually making the things who?
	Yeah, well, who's supporting it?
	But who actually makes this country affordable?
	As in the money for the NHS, the money for the services, the money for this, the money for that.
	We all know who this producing.
	Now, what happens when that population goes down as a percentage of the overall country?
	Well, there's a face fairly straightforward and everyone can tell that that means there are going to be more dependents than there are people paying into the system.
	In fact, that's how it is now, 53%.
	But how much worse can it get?
	Well, a lot worse, actually.
	And so this is a bit of an issue.
	As you can see, the projected demographics are not great.
	But we are currently about here, and it's just going to get worse and worse and worse and worse.
	So bring this back to the amount of money that people are paying.
	You can see that we have an unsustainable system on our hands because it turns out that people are not, in fact, universal, fungible, interchangeable widgets who all operate in the same way.
	That's strange.
	Different cultures matter.
	So anyway, moving on to the census.
	Now, one thing you can see here, this is just me taking the Asian, Asian British, or Asian Welsh Pakistanis.
	What does that mean?
	What does Asian Welsh mean?
	You can see that they're actually really quite segregated.
	The areas of zero are literally zero.
	Right.
	Right.
	Literally, there are no Pakistanis in these areas.
	Like there's like one or two running a corner shop or something in the occasional small town.
	But there are literally areas where there's just zero because this is where the English live.
	This is England, right?
	Then you have the Indians.
	Now, what did you notice about that?
	They don't live in the same place.
	No.
	They live in different areas.
	The Indians are much more concentrated in London and Birmingham.
	And if you look at the Birmingham, it's different areas of Birmingham in which they're concentrated.
	The Pakistanis are much more in the north there.
	You'll notice these different.
	Okay, what about the Chinese?
	I mean, the Chinese are much smaller, but like Bangladeshis are the same.
	But the Bangladeshis and the Pakistanis actually live in different areas of London.
	But people this similar self-segregate.
	Yep.
	They used to be one country.
	What about the blacks?
	Oh, they're in a different area.
	What about the black Africans?
	Look at the London one here.
	You'll notice that the Black Africans and the Black Caribbeans are in different areas of London.
	The dark blue bit flipping around.
	Really?
	Yes.
	Well, you can see in London, this area here, there in Parking and Dagenham.
	And then what's that flip?
	Yep.
	Yeah.
	These areas are self-selecting and self-segregating.
	So the minorities themselves are creating their own little segregated enclaves.
	And you know what?
	That's normal.
	That's completely normal, especially as they don't all play nice.
	I mean, you'll have seen this going around recently.
	I'm just going to play it so you can hear it from the your party event.
	These events, these activities, this unity must grow and continue and take over not just parts of Birmingham, but the whole of Birmingham, the whole of the West England, that was an independent Gaza MP called Iqbal Mohammed for your party.
	The guy who defended cousin marriages in parliament.
	Yes.
	The guy who was chosen to defend cousin marriages in parliament.
	And I think he's married to his cousin as well.
	And is probably the product of.
	Okay, fine.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you know, literally coming out and saying we want to take over not just the whole of Birmingham, the whole of the West Midlands, but the whole of the UK.
	So, well, yeah, I bet he is thinking that.
	But, like, why would he say, why would he say Birmingham?
	Because that's where the colony is.
	That's where this colony is.
	And so it's one of those things where it's like, right, okay.
	This is the future of the country, segregated ethnic enclaves.
	And they're, of course, going, well, what does that mean?
	Well, we have examples going into the future of when everyone does that.
	For example, in South Africa, you have Irania.
	Now, this was established in 1991 on the Orange River in South Africa.
	And it was created with the goal of having a literal town, a city that was just for Afrikaners as a minority group in South Africa.
	And so they have a very controversial position of just not allowing non-Afrikaners to live there.
	Now, this, of course, flies in the face of the Rainbow Nation, but in every other way is massively on the decline.
	I mean, I don't, do I need to persuade anyone that South Africa is a totally fixed state?
	I've had the misfortune of actually.
	Do I need to enunciate how the problems have carried on?
	And the population of this is growing faster than anywhere else.
	There's 10% annual growth rate in this town.
	Wow.
	It's absolutely booming.
	Wow.
	Because people have a desire to live amongst people that they recognize and are familiar to themselves and they understand how the community operates, especially if you want a high standard of living in a high trust community.
	For example, I doubt they have rolling blackouts in Irania.
	I doubt there are very many random farm murders in Irania.
	Of course, this is described by The Guardian as extremism.
	This white Sony town in South Africa was difficult.
	Even sadder was the racist backlash in the UK.
	And this Adi Adi Ade Pitan.
	I can't pronounce that.
	He made a documentary about Irania.
	And he says, quote, I want to understand why these people held such extreme views, what the consequences were, and what lessons could be learned.
	Well, the consequences of thriving, prosperous town, in the extreme view of I'd like to live around people who are like me.
	Crazy.
	Completely normal, as you can see from the British census.
	This is what all people do everywhere.
	And so there are some concrete reasons for that.
	Have you ever heard of the particular name for this monument?
	I can't remember.
	So Wit Brewis Monument.
	The White Cross Monument.
	Yeah.
	The White Cross Monument.
	Yeah.
	And so this is a monument to people who have been brutally murdered in random home invasions.
	So, white Afrikaners farmers, but it's not limited to Afrikaners farmers, of course, and it's targeted because they're white, have their farmsteads broken into by black South Africans, and they're brutally murdered in some of the most horrific things you've ever read in your life.
	Yeah, like boiling children alive and various other things.
	It's just the most horrific things you've ever heard.
	And unsurprisingly, there are some people in South Africa who are like, I don't want that to happen.
	And I don't think actually the Rainbow Nation is functioning quite as beautifully as everyone's making out.
	That's just crazy.
	And the Guardian would, of course, platform the craziest view.
	Yeah, and this is being regarded as an extremist position.
	So, I mean, we have examples of this in Birmingham, right?
	This is two men who shot a man and then just went and bought themselves fried chicken.
	These are them walking away from having point blank shot a man in the head in Birmingham.
	And they're just like, Yeah, we'll just go get some fried chicken.
	So, are you mental?
	Like, I don't, I don't want to live around people who don't care about this sort of thing.
	And obviously, they don't know how to use guns, which is why he managed to injure himself in the process.
	But anyway, I'm not going to show anymore.
	I don't think it actually shows anything in this, but like, it's just insane, right?
	And so, unsurprisingly, when you get, and this is just this is just one thing, right?
	I mean, in fact, um, Harry, can you just do this favor in the search, just type in Birmingham machete?
	I just because it's no, no, just yeah, just in the search, just Birmingham machete, right?
	Because there, this, this Birmingham is an I, not an R, uh, are you.
	Um, the point being, this happens all the time, there's constant street violence going on, and it's totally sociopathic.
	And don't worry about it, I'll just carry on.
	And people, um, people don't want this, and so anyway, you get this sort of attitude expanding.
	Now, this is another town in South Africa called Kleinfontein that they're complaining about is a gated community for whites.
	Why does it need gates?
	Why does it need gates indeed?
	Um, same reason.
	Uh, 30 minutes from Johannesburg.
	Uh, there's a link at the end that you haven't loaded up either, uh, Harry, uh, that I need as well at the end, please.
	Um, but this is uh a town that was founded in 1991 around the same sort of time as Irania, and it's because they want to know that they can feel secure, they want to feel safe, and this is more easily done through homogeneity, which is again the precise reason that all of the ethnic minority communities in this country segregate themselves by design, they do normally naturally.
	It's a thing that is just what they do when they're given the freedom to do this.
	And then you have another one in America, which is uh this is um in Arkansas.
	What's the name of it?
	Doesn't actually say, does it?
	I'm sure I actually got the name of it anyway.
	This is run by a guy called Eric Orwell, who is ideological, right?
	So, in the previous ones, I don't think it was specifically ideological, I think it was more sort of communal and instinctive, right?
	We were just like these sort of towns where we don't get murdered by angry people in the Rainbow Nation.
	But this one's more ideological because this chap's the leader of an organization called Return to the Land.
	And so, this subverts and gets around America's civil rights civil rights laws by operating as a private club.
	And so, this private club has bought land and then it sells some of the land or a title to some of the land to people who then build houses on it, which is exempt from civil rights legislation because it's a private members' association.
	And so, they can pick and choose who they want joining their private members' association as they want.
	And why are they doing this?
	Well, if you actually, I mean, you can see, like throughout this, it's a constant refrain of Nazis, right?
	Nazis.
	And, but what you can do is actually ignore the sort of anti-these guys propaganda and just pick out some of the actual bits that are substantive.
	Orwell insists that what he's doing is entirely legal because it's a private club, so it's exempt for equality legislation.
	Experts I spoke to doubt that.
	But the group has invested tens of thousands of dollars in legal research and believes it's created a viable framework for many more communities, both in the US and worldwide, to begin this way.
	This is a worldview that is shared with everyone I speak to, a reaction against what they see as left-wing politics pushed too far.
	But many of the opinions that we hear have become relatively mainstream, that mass immigration is out of control, that Western societies are in danger of losing their fundamental character as a result.
	Yes, everyone thinks that.
	And that's why these ethnic groups all congregate together.
	Part of it is identity.
	It's only bad when you do it.
	Exactly.
	A part of it is a feeling of sameness and togetherness and identity.
	These are all true things about these.
	And so they can complain that this is something that is happening, but it is a direct result to the policy of mass immigration that has been imposed on Western populations in the last 30 years that nobody ever voted for.
	And before the last 30 years, it's also the question of freedoms without responsibility because you can't want to be treated as an equal without also having your fair share of responsibilities.
	So what we have is we have the woke left that is constantly saying, right, you need to treat everyone as an equal, but not as an equal in respect of responsibilities.
	Well, here's the answer.
	This is exactly, exactly right.
	Like, I'm sorry, but the point is, this shouldn't have been possible for them to do.
	It shouldn't be possible for them to draw out more than they're taking in.
	And it's exactly your point.
	There's an equality of, in fact, an inequality of obligation and an inequality of duty.
	And so, yeah, we're at this point where people are like, well, actually, we're going to have to make what is actually a rational response to this.
	And so the question for one chap who visited a white Sony town and thinks it could happen here.
	Well, I mean, I don't know, man.
	Like, the thing is, right?
	All of Britain was like that until mass immigration.
	All of Britain was ethnically homogenous.
	It's the dishonesty involved in defining Nigeria as naturally African, but Britain as not naturally European.
	Sorry, I can't help but notice that it says here 0.0% of people in Eden are Pakistani.
	That's true.
	That was an accident.
	I didn't mean to land on that.
	What a strange coincidence.
	But the point is, he's like, oh my God, it could be in Britain that we have areas that are just essentially 100% white British.
	It's like, that was the whole country.
	The entire country prior to about 1990.
	And it was 95% English in England.
	So you had these areas in the cities, but almost nowhere else would you see non-English people?
	It was completely normal.
	And yet this guy is like, well, this could happen in Britain.
	So it was in Britain.
	Josie Copson.
	Well, it's not actually her.
	She's just writing about, ah, this chaps.
	Ben Zand went to Klein Fonteen.
	And while it's not unusual for him to cover subjects that may make people uncomfortable, even for him, a mixed-race British Iranian man, it was a difficult but necessary story to tell.
	Why does it make him uncomfortable to go to an area that is ethnically homogenous for white people?
	Do you feel uncomfortable in China?
	No.
	Do you feel uncomfortable?
	I mean, like, do you feel uncomfortable when you go and visit Cornwall?
	Like, just out of interest?
	How many Pakistani?
	Zero Pakistanis in the 21 census.
	Does that make you uncomfortable?
	Does it?
	And if we go down, we can actually just get the actual white British population.
	If it would pop up, 93, 96, 94, like this is totally normal.
	It's completely normal.
	All the dark blue areas are going to be around 90 plus percent English because this was all of England.
	Why would you be uncomfortable with this?
	This is normal.
	This is what a normal country looks like.
	And this is the weird anomaly where this is where the colonization has been happening.
	So why is he like, well, I mean, this is a difficult but necessary story to tell.
	Okay, well, let's tell it then.
	He says, I think people are becoming increasingly small-minded around identity and want to live in countries that are specifically white-British.
	Well, I mean, the thing is, we go back to the Pakistani ones or the Indian ones.
	These people are not living in countries that are specifically white-British.
	They're trying to live in India.
	They're trying to live in Bangladesh.
	I saw, I remember an article on the BBC that was praising little Bangladesh here.
	And there was a chap there, didn't speak English.
	He was like, Yeah, it's just like being in Bangladesh, but in Britain.
	It's like, yeah, that's normal.
	That's what people want.
	What is familiar, what they understand, what is homely to them.
	And so, is it any wonder that British people like, I would like that too, actually?
	Is it any wonder?
	The extremism involved, the extreme one-sidedness.
	Again, going back to the extremism of the BBC, going back to the extremism of the left in general, they can never see the world through anybody else's eyes except their own.
	The fundamental point: if you're going to be an analyst, if you're going to sort of think about things, the duty that you have is to try to see the world through the eyes of other people in order to understand their perspective, get their worldview, see where they're coming from, see why they want things in a certain way.
	And so, when you see Bangladeshis congregating, Pakistanis, Chinese, blacks, whatever it is, what do they want?
	They want familiarity, they want to live in a world that they know and understand.
	The basic definition of home for me is this: when you walk down the street and you meet a random person, is there a very high chance that you and him share the same values?
	You may not agree on much, but do you share the same frame of reference?
	See, the issue with that definition is that values are something rational that you think about.
	It's something that could be picked up and put down.
	Not in the sense of British values, not in the sense of British values.
	Well, that's the more deeply ingrained.
	It's not values, is it?
	It's more the sort of worldview, reflexive worldview.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Call it reflexive worldview.
	Yeah, fine.
	That you're brought up in and that you can't really change.
	But do you have a compatible understanding of the world?
	Yeah.
	And what is right and what is wrong?
	And what do you enjoy and what is good and what is bad?
	Do you have an understanding of the world that is common and shared?
	Everybody says through voting with their feet.
	Everybody says through their feet That I want to live next to people who share my worldview.
	Yes.
	And I want that familiarity to be part of my life.
	And I want my children to grow up in it.
	And I want my children to know the values of their ancestors and to still practice them long after I'm gone.
	This is your aim when you raise your children.
	You want your values to be passed down.
	This is a part of you.
	This is part of who you are.
	Worldview, values.
	We're using them interchangeably.
	As far as the left is concerned, no, no, no, no.
	In reality, you're all wrong.
	And everybody wants to be in a rainbow nation.
	But in the rainbow nation, the black Africans go around murdering the Zimbabweans and attacking the Nigerians because they think that they're stealing their jobs and taking away from them and they're not contributing on this and that and the other.
	I mean, look at Leicester in 2022 with the riots between the Muslims and the Indians, the Hindus.
	Yep.
	There was an amazing video of this Muslim couple in a car watching the Hindu chance walking past.
	And the woman was like, what's this?
	And he was like, well, this is our equivalent of yelling Alau Akbar, but in Hindu.
	And it's like, but they had no idea.
	Yeah.
	Because they live in segregated communities.
	They don't know each other.
	Exactly.
	And so, but this, this, this guy's thought process tells you everything you need to know about the remoteness of these people to reality, right?
	Yes.
	Because this is the world we live in.
	The world we live in is the world in which there is essentially a kind of racial tax on the majority population of this country.
	There is just de facto segregation in this country.
	And a racial subsidy for everybody else.
	And a racial subsidy for everyone else.
	But de facto segregation between different communities.
	And everybody else's segregation is good.
	It's just normal.
	It's not even common.
	But yours is bad.
	This guy then says, and I'm quoting directly: what does it practically look like to live somewhere where there's actually only one type of person?
	Well, pre-World War II.
	It looks like the world from...
	No, no, it's not even pre-World War II.
	Like, it's anywhere.
	Anywhere in Britain.
	Outside of this scarred area of our country, like you can, you can go to, you know, where's Great Yarmouth?
	There we are.
	It's like 88%.
	Like, that's basically that.
	Like, North Norfolk, 95.6%.
	Areas in the southwest, where it's like 96%.
	Like, I know.
	I used to live in Cornwall.
	Like, it just looks normal.
	It's just normal.
	Nothing very interesting happens, actually.
	Which I think one summary of what the left is, is the war on normal.
	Yes.
	It's just normal.
	And so what happens when there's only one type of person?
	Well, life carries on unimpeded by the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism.
	Like very few murders happen, very few thefts.
	People go out drinking.
	I used to go to like the bars in Newquay, and it was like a two-mile walk home at like three in the morning.
	And every Saturday or Friday or whatever, I just walk two, three miles home, drunk, and nothing ever happened.
	I just walk home and women would walk home.
	Like, you know, friends of mine would go out drinking and they'd all just walk home and nothing would ever happen because everyone knew what the place was like and behaved appropriately.
	The next question, he says, is this a realistic way of life?
	Is it a realistic way of life?
	I think I mentioned this.
	It's how it's spontaneously, it has spontaneously arisen.
	What are we talking about?
	Exactly.
	Like, how is it that these people can just live in homogenous communities?
	Would we be happier if we just lived with our own race?
	It's more an issue of the left trying to problematize everything.
	Everything they problematize is what they try to control.
	Again, it's just one of the, yeah, that's correct.
	It's just one of the things.
	Would we be happier?
	It's like, well, everyone does it by revealed preference.
	Like everyone lives in different areas through revealed preference.
	Why are these colors flicking around every time I click on a different ethnic group?
	Because through revealed preference, it's clear that people are happier when they live among people who are more like themselves.
	It's self-evident.
	And he explains, you know, well, as a mixed race dude, my conclusion is probably not.
	It's like, well, I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's correct.
	And I think that actually, when people live among people who are like themselves, people prefer it.
	And this seems to be, again, the revealed preference of everything that's happening.
	And so he notes in his column that there's nothing offensive about the place he visited either, Klein Fontein.
	The funny thing is, this guy is half Iranian.
	If you were to look at Iran outside of Iran, it's deeply segregated.
	Like the Azeris live in one part of Iran, the Kurds live in another part, the Persians live in another part, the Arabs live in their own part.
	Outside of a few big cities, it's very deeply segregated.
	And that's how people like it.
	Nobody problematizes it about Iran.
	In Saudi Arabia, the Shia have their own part.
	The genuinely mixed part of Saudi Arabia is the western part of the country.
	And the center is the tribes.
	And it's just sort of very normal everywhere you go.
	And Lebanon, the only Catholic city in the country, is also the only Catholic city.
	There's also the only city with 24 hours electricity.
	So, no, it goes to show you.
	I mean, he says here, like he's been to lots of different places, like a nudist retreat and legal Brothen and Nevada and various other things.
	And they're easy because they're not really hurting everyone.
	But being exclusively one race is massively problematic.
	To who?
	Not to the people living in these areas.
	Not to the Iranians.
	But not even the Iranians.
	It's not to the Pakistanis who live in this very densely congregated areas, who have decided, yeah, no, we're going to live in these areas.
	Or these are Caribbeans, but whoever.
	It's not a problem to them.
	And if we zoom in, you see that it's even more segregated.
	Yes.
	Right.
	It's just this is hiding the levels of segregation in Bradford.
	We've got areas that are just almost literally overwhelming majority Pakistani.
	It's like, sorry, people.
	Why isn't he saying that to these people?
	It's like, by the way, did you know it's highly problematic that you have self-segregated in this way?
	No.
	Well, it's problematic to everyone who wants to project might on that area but can't yet.
	That's exactly what it is.
	But it's also problematic to the liberal ideological sense of what a community is.
	Yeah, they're useful idiots of these people.
	Yeah, but it's the liberal morality, as in this was an unchosen fact about the person.
	You didn't choose your race or your ethnicity or anything like this.
	And organizing on this denies other people a choice.
	And this is really what's at the heart of the problem.
	Yeah, that's the idealism of it.
	It's that they, They can't accept that we live in a realistic world.
	No, we live in a world where we have to be realistic.
	And just look at what Zach Polanski said yesterday about nukes.
	He just convinced Putin to throw his nukes away.
	What do you reckon?
	I think he hypnotizes them.
	I think he hypnotizes.
	But that's what I'm saying.
	No, he'll offer him a double skin.
	He'll grow and get him off the body.
	What he says was entirely deliberate because the consequence of this ideology tells to people in the Western world, basically, you need to give away your identity and banding together, but we are going to do it.
	You need to be like Estau.
	It's like having a cat in a world of other cats with nails and cutting its nails.
	The thing I want to highlight here is the ideology of the thing, right?
	Because you'll notice he says it, there's nothing offensive about the aesthetics of the place.
	There are well-structured lightstone houses, plenty of green space in which residents can ride their horses and a brightly colored playground for children to enjoy.
	It's nice, right?
	So it's not that the community it has created is a bad community.
	It's a very happy, wholesome, thriving community, just like Irania.
	These are perfectly good places.
	But it's problematic ideologically because there are people who didn't get the option to live there.
	Yeah.
	I have to read this section.
	Sorry, Carl, give me a second.
	There you go.
	Even when I hate somebody's views, I want to try to chat with them.
	There's an element of me that's a bit hippie.
	I just love love.
	And I believe in being nice.
	I'm sure he'll find it there no matter what.
	I hope that I make the case that it's possible to talk softly about difficult things and still challenge them.
	He's put himself on an insane moral pedestal.
	He's seen a successful society.
	He's decided that it's immoral.
	He's put himself.
	Exactly.
	He's put himself on a moral pedestal and he's talking down to these people and they were polite enough to him while I assume thinking that he's an absolute lunatic when he's not.
	He says they were nice to me.
	Exactly.
	Like he doesn't know anything about living in Johannesburg or something like that.
	South African.
	But he's decided that he's more moral than they are.
	And this is the concealment of liberalism, that it conceals the reality and problematizes things that are otherwise good.
	I'm running over a bit on this.
	He comes down and he gets to this.
	Again, they're not really hurting anybody.
	They really define people by their cultural heritage.
	Strange that.
	Yeah, weird.
	Can you imagine?
	I define myself by my cultural heritage.
	Same here.
	He says, humans are so tribalistic.
	And it reminded me that the other thing that makes us fantastic is that we create communities and love each other.
	That is a function of tribalism.
	That is a consequence of the tribalism.
	When you don't have tribalism, when you don't have this kind of homogeneity in a community, regardless of the axis around which it revolves, then you have a low trust, suspicious place that people aren't comfortable living in.
	So he's saying, look, I like the good thing, but I'm a liberal.
	I'm a radical globalist liberal who can't accept the things you have to do to make that thing come into existence.
	In Clemfonte, they were so protective and kind to each other.
	Yeah, I bet.
	They've created a well-functioning area, and the collectivism is such that they all contribute money to fund the schools and hospitals.
	But I want diversity, and that will destroy this.
	I wonder where he actually lives.
	Somebody asked him, I didn't look it up, actually.
	Somebody asked him if they could become Persian.
	That's a brilliant question.
	Yeah, exactly.
	What do you think, Stellius?
	You guys have a history with the Persians.
	Could you just become Persian?
	It's okay.
	I think after a while, it's okay.
	I don't have such an issue with Persians.
	I mean, I can't be Persian.
	I'm Greek.
	Well, I don't have an issue with Persians.
	It's a bygone.
	It's a water under the bridge.
	Yeah, no, no, no.
	I'm Lebanese.
	It's not.
	It's all for respectable foes as well, isn't it?
	You know, Persians respect.
	And you won.
	So you can't be salty about it.
	Anyway, he says there's a lot to be learned.
	Like, if you work together, you can do great things.
	But that has a darker side as by caring for themselves, they've banded together against other people whom they hate.
	We need a, I don't think they hate anyone.
	They didn't seem very hateful.
	We need a sense of identity that goes beyond our race and culture as people on earth.
	It's like, sorry.
	It's called Christianity, and Christianity recognizes nations.
	Move on.
	But hang on a second.
	Why do we need that?
	Because they seem to have a perfectly functioning society.
	So we need something that goes beyond race.
	Why?
	If the society that they have isn't very nice, very aesthetically pleasing, everyone's very polite, and it's growing really nicely, why do we need something else?
	And it's because he's like, I feel excluded.
	That's too bad.
	Go start your own community.
	Like, you don't just get to destroy someone else's community because of your arbitrary liberal bullshit.
	Like, what are you doing?
	Do you even listen to yourself?
	And what would a sense of identity that goes beyond like parochialism even mean?
	Oh, well, I mean, we all have an identity of human, but it's actually, because it includes everyone, is not very useful.
	It doesn't bond us together because it doesn't mean anything because it's all-inclusive.
	It doesn't help.
	There is no such thing as an all-inclusive identity.
	You can't make sense out of it.
	Well, even if you can, it's all identity is exclusive.
	But even necessarily.
	The identity of human, I think, is an all-inclusive identity, but it doesn't mean anything.
	It doesn't, no, you can understand it in distinction to things that aren't human.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	Yeah.
	Otherwise, like, you know, being with a capital B.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	No, no, but you're not going to be able to do that.
	Which you can understand in distinction with nothingness.
	But that's that's the point.
	And that's what he's asking for.
	He's asking for essentially the obliteration of a collective identity that people have.
	Yeah.
	He's saying actually everyone should just be an atomic idiot.
	And that's basically an attempt that there is an alliance between useful idiots and people who hate that identity because they fully intend to keep their own identity and they have the doors that are open.
	That's the Trojan horse.
	And the useful idiots are playing their game.
	The point that I liked your point about him ascribing to himself kind of moral superiority.
	It's like he's like everyone who's living in this town who is like he said, you know, they're being sort of collectivists in that they donate money to the church or to the schools or whatever.
	They've got safe spaces.
	They've got a nice place.
	You know, it's beautiful houses, et cetera, et cetera.
	They are all moral people, as in they are doing things that are moral.
	More so than him.
	Way more so than him.
	Because they're actually building a community that is prosperous and beneficial to their children.
	Exactly.
	He's attacking them for that.
	Yes, he is immoral.
	What without focusing on empirical data?
	Because, I mean, from my perspective, everyone who judges morally does this.
	So yeah, I mean, I've no problem with occupying that position.
	The point is that when you do this, you do your homework.
	Yep.
	And these people routinely don't do their homework because it's what you're saying.
	They just say, right, flat out, abstract human, that's it.
	Full skill.
	But the thing is, this kind of appeal to abstraction as the essence of morality, I just think is completely wrong.
	Right.
	It's in he's got a rule in his head.
	There have to be a certain percentage of browns in this community or else the community is immoral.
	Which is literally what he's arguing.
	That's the brown standard.
	You know, we have the gold standard, the civil, the brown standard.
	It's literally what he's arguing.
	And it's like, but the community is thriving.
	Everyone seems healthy and happy and good.
	And they like you said they are living moral lives.
	And the product of that is self-evident.
	And he has to admit that.
	And yet still, he's like, well, this needs to be destroyed.
	And it's like, no, that's evil.
	What you're doing is evil to these people.
	You're trying to bring evil to them.
	And good for them for saying no, frankly.
	Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	Luke says, uh, fatigue, uh, I'm going to try and be cute.
	Uh, the, the concept of the character by flight from Syracuse, uh, talked from, uh, talked about some of the, uh, look, man, we're on YouTube.
	I can't say a lot of those things.
	His ideology tries to fix.
	Thank you, Luke.
	Thank you, Luke.
	Yeah, I can't say a lot of that though.
	His ideology tries to fix what isn't broken while refusing to fix what is broken.
	Well, the thing is, the thing is about the ideology is because it's rules focused, if the thing isn't in violation of the rule, it doesn't see it as a problem, right?
	And so if a low trust society is not in violation of liberal rules, so it doesn't recognize that there is a problem with a low trust society.
	What you feel isn't rules-based.
	What you feel is affirmative and relational.
	And so you're looking around at the place you live going, wow, my relation to this place and its relation to me is making me feel unsafe.
	But the liberals like, okay, but what rule has been broken?
	None.
	So it's blind to it.
	It doesn't see it at all.
	So it isn't even that it thinks that it's broken.
	That's the thing.
	But anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	Today is the five-year anniversary of episode one of the podcast of The Lotus Eaters.
	It has been a tremendous journey and man, has it been fun watching the team grow, procedures polished and content flourish.
	I hope for many, many more years of holding our rulers accountable through intellectual discussion and most importantly, shit posting.
	My thanks to everyone in the office.
	You do a fantastic job and I hope you all have a great day.
	Thank you.
	Well, that was wholesome.
	I completely forgot that this was the five-year anniversary.
	And yeah, everyone is doing a great job, obviously, and is incredible.
	And I think that, you know, thank you for everything for signing up to the website, basically, guys.
	We wouldn't have anything without you.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Breaking news from Swindon.
	The beloved comedy page, IRL, Loading Screen Tips, is having a normal woman crashing out massively over a certain interview that the rest of the world has already moved on from.
	Did you know if you're depressed you'd come outside?
	You need to touch some glass.
	I do enjoy how much they're upset by that Sydney Sweeney stuff.
	Now let's go to the next one.
	Yananda's only fans for a tenor.
	I like how that's some kind of insult as well.
	It's not even Yanamda's OnlyFans.
	This actually does it for a tenor.
	Maybe if she did it for 20 quid, it would be respectable or something.
	Also, not many people know this about me, guys.
	But my name is actually Leah.
	Wow.
	That is funny.
	The kinds of things you see there.
	It's funny.
	Yeah.
	Really funny.
	You're telling me that the same people who protected the pedo statue, Jimmy Saville, Islamic Grooming Gangs, and numerous other pedophiles have been lying to us?
	Imagine my shock.
	Yeah, it's kind of shocking with the BBC, isn't it?
	Omar says they're all in too deep.
	They can't stop lying because acknowledging it brings certainty of consequences.
	Even without the righteous backlash, breaking the mass charade will bring down the wrath of other blood-sucking vermin behind the scenes.
	Yeah, I mean, this is the thing, isn't it?
	Like, they're all in so deep.
	What are you going to do?
	It's impossible to reach them.
	It's very difficult to reach them.
	Charles says, Trump should extradite the responsible editor and prosecute for electoral interference.
	Well, it's after the election, so he can't do that.
	And I doubt they'd do that either.
	But I'm glad that Trump made a big stink about it, to be honest, because, you know, deserve a few scalps from the BBC.
	Kanis Familiaris says, recently moved to Germany.
	And I can feel what you say about the EU smashing small business.
	The amount of stuff you can only find on Amazon here is wild.
	Yeah, and it's a real tragedy as well, because when you go visit somewhere, visiting the local small businesses that have products that are only available in that area is what makes traveling interesting.
	Yes.
	And that's the fun bit of traveling.
	Yep.
	And the modernization of everything is terrible.
	Yeah, okay.
	No, no, I want to say that when the prices are too high it's not that great.
	But what I want to say about it is that the EU is absolutely against business.
	Oh, yeah, because the thing is, would you rather regulate and administer like, you know, two dozen international corporations who have professional bodies within them to deal with you and interface with you?
	Or would you rather, like, I mean, if there are, you know, how many small businesses were there in the UK?
	Four and a half million.
	Right.
	And that's, so let's assume that's one.
	And there are, what, 26 member states of the EU.
	So you've got 100 million or so small businesses you've got to regulate all across the European continent.
	I'd rather not deal with that.
	I'd rather deal with the giant corporations.
	Doesn't matter what the consequence is.
	So you can see from a bureaucrat's perspective, the natural bias towards big business, just from a practical day-to-day administrative position is inevitable.
	But anyway, the last one will be Baron von Moorhawk.
	The British state welfare state has become the new white man's burden.
	I mean, the thing is, that's what the numbers are saying, right?
	That is what the numbers are telling us.
	Ewan says, my area on that shows 88% white British, and that stat is definitely a lot lower now.
	Which, again, the 2021 census doesn't include the Boris wave.
	So thanks, Boris, for bringing another 4 plus million people who we didn't ask for and that you campaigned on getting not brought in.
	Anyway, thank you everyone for joining us.
	Thanks for the donations.
	Go and sign up on the website for £5 a month because I'm going to be doing how to describe it, something quite spicy in the next few days because there's thoughts on what a civil war would actually look like.
	And I'm going to record a podcast examining that, the actual details of what might happen if there was a kind of civic breakdown.
	So go sign up and that'll be out very soon.

▲