The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1300

Nov. 20, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:37:49

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1300

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 1300 on the 20th of November 2025.
	I'm your host Harry joined today by part-timer Josh and part-timer Firaz.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about how calling people racist will backfire.
	I'm going to be talking about Elon Musk's AI Tower of Babel and his utopian dreams, which definitely are just memes and will stay that way.
	And you're going to be telling us what socialists get right.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	It's going to be a very short segment.
	It's going to be a bit of an involved segment, actually.
	It's about industrial policy.
	Okay.
	It should be interesting, what with a libertarian on the panel.
	I'm not that libertarian these days.
	When it comes to paying taxes, I become very libertarian.
	But when it comes to use of government power, I'm not.
	That's the same with me these days.
	I did a little bit last week on the whole trad tax, and then it got me thinking about all of the taxes and the way that they're built to screw you over.
	Income tax, national insurance, the way the student loan repayments work.
	And it really does make my blood boil.
	You rake me over the coals, but we broadly agree with each other.
	Basically.
	But it's fun to poke fun at you, Josh.
	It is.
	It's fun.
	It's what bros do.
	It's what bros do.
	But outside of all of that, we might as well get into the news.
	Actually, I had an announcement before.
	All right.
	It's five years since I first joined Lotus Eaters today.
	I joined on the 20th of November 2020.
	And that was five years ago.
	Well, happy Lotus Eaters' birthday.
	Thank you very much.
	It's such a shame you're no longer employed by us.
	It sort of takes the wind out of the sales a little bit, doesn't it?
	Although people will point out in the comments, he's back just as much.
	And I was like, no, I'm not.
	I'm definitely not.
	I'm doing a lot less work.
	It's great.
	Anyway, I should get on with what I'm actually here for, shall I?
	Must you?
	I can if you want.
	We can just have a chat.
	Sounds nice.
	We can reminisce those.
	Well, I've known you for four years, but those past five years, no, we're not going to do that.
	People are generally ignoring accusations of racism these days.
	And that's because it's pretty much an oversaturated word.
	It's been used too much.
	It's like currency.
	If you inflate it too much, then it becomes devalued.
	It doesn't hold any weight.
	It's not a social reputational weapon anymore.
	And amongst the right, the more someone is called racist, the more we think they're our guy, which is a sort of backfire thing because it's going to backfire both for the left and the right.
	For the left, by calling everything racist and saying caring about immigration is racist, they're going to marginalize themselves because people are concerned about immigration and they're willing to put up with being called racist because as we can see from the US and both the UK and many other European countries, people calling these parties racist isn't putting people off voting for them and vocally supporting them.
	So it's sort of backfiring a little bit.
	But it also backfires for the right as well because we think that someone who gets called racist every day makes them sort of our guy.
	Just like, yes, this person must be on our side because the left's giving them a hard time.
	And that's not necessarily true because both Trump and Farage in Britain get this in abundance.
	And pretty much Farage is a Thatcherite neoliberal.
	No one really looks at Margaret Thatcher and says, you know what her legacy is?
	It was racism.
	Well, very few people anyway.
	He's not really breaking out of the paradigm, and it's pretty standard, colour-blind, meritocratic stuff.
	Whereas Trump...
	A lot of normies don't know that, though, because a lot of normies do perceive the world through a mainstream media lens.
	Last Friday after I got back home, I went to the pub to meet up with a mate and we were talking to some guy, half Irish, half English, who, as he was leaving the table, he was very drunk.
	He started screeching about how, you know, like, because somebody brought up Remembrance Day.
	He started screeching about how, oh, you're not allowed to support Remembrance Day or remember all of those people who died to fight fascism when fascism's rising in the UK.
	If you're going to go and vote for Nigel Farage, you should go and kill yourself.
	And I was not enough pints down and had a banging headache, so I did not want to start an argument over it, but I was just like face palming, going, please go away.
	He was on his way out at the time he started screeching about it anyway.
	So I was like, just get out.
	It is very prevalent, isn't it?
	Normies do still perceive the world through this lens.
	But it's not really true, is it?
	Objectively, if you look at the policies and you look at the actual evidence rather than hearsay and what is said in the media, which are the two best ways to control people, is low information, fast-paced saturation.
	Exactly.
	I mean, this guy was not the most intelligent person that I've ever met.
	Normally a nice guy, but...
	And Donald Trump, to pivot as a sort of parallel, is basically a 1990s New York Democrat, you know.
	A lot of his policies are similar to that of Bill Clinton.
	Barack Obama did more deportations than Trump, although, of course, they do face different situations as a sort of caveat.
	They counted differently.
	Everybody turned away at the border as a deportation under Obama.
	Which is sort of cheating a little bit.
	Yes.
	But it's still fair to say that lots of people are disappointed at the rate of deportations.
	And also that the U-turn on H-1Bs and bringing in more legal migration, these sorts of things.
	To that, they'll point to the lack of border crossings since Trump came in office, which is fair, but I think we have to accept easily reversible by the next administration if you get a Democrat in who's just going to open the floodgates again.
	And if you are not deporting the 10 million plus illegals who are already in the country at a rate that is going to reverse their entry into the country, then you're not even making a dent because all of those illegals are going to have children and you're going to face the same birth rate problems that everywhere else in the West is experiencing.
	I'm not on the Elon birth rates train, but I do admit and accept, because you have to recognize if white birth rates are what they are, as opposed to non-white birth rates, that is where, even with closed borders, the demographic change is going to happen.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	And I think that there are lots of other things as well that are points of concern.
	But just because the Democrats would be worse doesn't mean that you should just be perfectly happy with the alternative.
	You can still have expectations and hold people you otherwise support to account.
	And I think that that's fair.
	But people don't necessarily do that.
	And it's a shame because, and I think that this is sort of playing a part in it by calling both of them, you know, racist and fascist.
	It doesn't really defame their reputations anymore.
	If anything, it makes them more popular with their base because it legitimizes them as an authority by attacking them, doesn't it?
	And, you know, the worst consequence is that it contains the genuine right-wing movements because people think they're much more radical than they really are.
	Like Trump and Farage, not really that radical in the grand scheme of things.
	Perfect example, Maloney.
	Yep, exactly.
	The rise of fascism in Italy all over again.
	And people got really hyped up for it because they're saying if she's that bad, she must be willing to make the difficult decisions that are going to turn Italy's situation around.
	She gets in, what do you get?
	More Blairite neoliberal.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Which is basically a continuation of Thatcherite neoliberalism anyway.
	And that's what I see these sorts of public accusations of.
	These people are racist.
	Going to use examples from Farage because there's been a recent story that I find interesting.
	But it could apply just as much to Maloney or Trump or any political leader that is described as a controversial right-winger when actually the reality is they're not actually that controversial.
	And all of these accusations actually serve to legitimize them to their own base when perhaps people could afford to be a little bit more critical towards these people because they do deserve it.
	And you shouldn't just take people for granted and be a cheerleader for them.
	You can drag these leaders to the right if you employ the right strategy.
	So here's a recent example from only a month ago.
	Shubana Mahmoud, a Pakistani lady who currently occupies the position of home secretary, called Nigel Farage worse than racist over dog whistle politics.
	She's claiming that he's not actually a virtually racist, but he dog whistles, which makes him worse.
	So we'd be the dogs in this case.
	I guess so.
	Right.
	And we pick up on it.
	But except for the fact that many people on the right are actually critical of Farage for not being right-wing enough.
	Yes.
	And so I don't understand what these dog whistles are.
	In fact, many of the people who they're worried about are critical of him for not being radical enough.
	So what is the dog whistle?
	This only serves to legitimize the notion that he is radical and makes people support him from the right.
	And this is the one that I think is perhaps the most egregious.
	So this is a story about smoke coming out of his mouth because he said something that is that on fire.
	They're just making him look cool.
	Deeply shocking.
	Nigel Farage faces fresh claims of racism and anti-Semitism at school.
	When was Nigel Farage in school?
	I mean, he's 70?
	I think it was in the early 80s, maybe the late 70s.
	And lots of these claims are coming from when he was like 13.
	Ah.
	Which is interesting.
	I'm going to read some of this because it's funny how they frame him.
	Like, they make him just sound like a schoolboy, even from sort of our era, Harry, where he's just saying controversial things to wind people up.
	Well, you would have been at the right age.
	You're only a little bit older than me.
	Do you remember Psychopedia?
	Yeah, of course.
	Yeah, everybody who's around our age should remember Psychopedia.
	It's exactly what it sounds like.
	It was an encyclopedia of really terrible, unfunny jokes, but they were as offensive and disgusting as possible.
	And me and my friends on the school grounds during breaks would take turns looking through and finding the most gross out jokes possible to tell, or offensive jokes as possible to tell one another.
	That's what schoolboys do.
	Because at the time, it's funny.
	So anyone who's had normal schooling, particularly if they were, you know, once a boy, and I don't mean that in the modern sense, I mean, they have grown up to be a man, will understand that this is how schools sort of work, even if lots of this is true.
	And we're also relying on the account of a couple of people remembering something from, what, 50 years ago?
	So it's just ridiculous.
	So all his years in UKIP, all his years in frontline politics, this was not an issue.
	It wasn't an issue in the Brexit.
	And then all of a sudden, when he's on the cusp of being prime minister, all of a sudden it's just like, oh, it comes back to me.
	Man, modern memory drugs or something like that.
	I don't understand it, but okay.
	Yeah, the latest revelations come from someone called Peter Ettad Gui, Ettard Guy, I don't know.
	And he says he would sidle up to me and growl, Hitler was right, or gas them, sometimes adding a long hiss to simulate the sound of the gas showers.
	If this even is true, right?
	If this guy was acting super triggered and getting really upset at it, you just can do that more.
	You're going to find worse and worse ways.
	Anyone that's been to school knows that if you react by going, oh no, you can't say that.
	That's terrible.
	Oh, no, I'm so offended.
	In a school, to school children, what you're going to do is invite more of it and you're going to make yourself more of a target and you're going to gain a reputation.
	More of it.
	Because you're being a little bitch.
	What he said.
	And apparently, Ettard Guy, 61, is a BAFTA and Emmy-winning director and producer whose credits include Kinky Boots and McQueen and Super Slash Man.
	Sounds terrible.
	But anyway, back then he was a 13-year-old boy at a loss as how to handle what he described as a sudden and inexplicable intrusion of anti-Semitism into his life.
	I like how they're talking about anti-believing.
	Is he?
	13-year-olds being edgy to one another and being a bit mean.
	Don't feed the trolls.
	Nobody ever learned this.
	I know.
	It's so silly, but all this is...
	As if this even is true.
	But in the current political landscape, all this does is make people think, oh, 13-year-old Farage was a bit of a laugh, wasn't he?
	You know, sidling up to people and just saying the worst thing he could possibly do.
	I can admit to doing that sort of thing to people all of the time in school.
	In Lebanon, in a diverse society, your only friends were people who you could make nasty, obscene jokes with about their religious background.
	And if you crossed that barrier, you were friends.
	And you could joke about each other's religions and make fun of each other, and that was it.
	I have no idea about British schoolboy culture.
	I very much know.
	Similar, except it's just more general, just abuse.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	It's not as sectarian, unless you're maybe in Scotland.
	So basically, you're normal boys.
	Yes.
	This.
	I have no idea whether or not this is true.
	I don't have any reason to believe it now.
	But, okay, somebody said something 50 years ago.
	Moving on.
	I know.
	It's pretty desperate, isn't it?
	And it carries on to say: in recent weeks, The Guardian has heard allegations from more than a dozen school contemporaries of Farage who recount incidents of deeply offensive behaviour throughout his teenage years.
	Okay.
	This is so silly, isn't it?
	Because not only are they sort of making him out to normal people as he was once a schoolboy who did, you know, offensive things that, you know, I didn't, you know, there weren't any Jewish people in my school, so, you know, I couldn't have possibly done this.
	But there were many equivalents of things that I did that were edgy.
	And at the time, no one really battered an eye.
	I don't think anyone's going to come out and speak to the Guardian and say, Josh was, you know, teasing me for my various heritages or something.
	Are you running for parliament?
	No.
	Oh, okay.
	It's funny that it comes out then, isn't it?
	Yeah, they're happy to sit on it until it's the most opportune moment.
	It is clearly weaponized, right?
	Whatever this is, true or false, this is clearly weaponized.
	I'm sorry, but I can see what you mean as well, Josh, because this is very clearly could be aimed at people like us to try and rehabilitate Farage as a bit of a laugh, someone who had a great time in school, somebody who was known for being a bit of a leader.
	He wasn't afraid to go there and make jokes that other people wouldn't.
	There's absolutely an element to this whole story, especially at a time when Zoomers are starting to invert the boomer morality, that this could be an attempt to try and win people over.
	Now, that might be conspiratorial thinking forward.
	It wouldn't be necessarily deliberate, but it's going to have that effect, I think.
	Whether it's deliberate or not, it's still going to have that effect.
	And I think it isn't deliberate in this case.
	I think it is the Guardian, you know, having a little tantrum.
	And the funny thing is that this happened all the way back in 2013.
	There was another school days letter.
	And this time they were trying to call him a fascist instead of a racist.
	And it's talking about he was recommended to be a prefect, basically, to give you the TLDR.
	And to read a little bit of it, I'm going to scroll down.
	It says, the letter says when one teacher said Farage was a fascist, but that was no reason why he would not make a good prefect, which I thought was a funny line in and of itself.
	He's an ideal candidate.
	There was considerable reaction from colleagues.
	It's a bit weird to call a school child a fascist anyway, isn't it?
	Isn't it really weird to just be that extreme?
	I know.
	And then the funny thing is, it carries on to say further on down the line, it talks about him, you know, getting a group of boys to march through a small town singing Hitler Youth songs, apparently, which just sounds like a bit of a troll.
	I don't actually think Nigel Farage is a national socialist, and nor does pretty much anyone.
	Well, I mean, on GB News the other day, he was fantasizing about if we'd just basically gone in after the First World War and genocided the Germans to avoid the Second World War.
	So he's about as far from being a National Socialist as possible, even despite his German wife.
	So this part I found the most funny.
	Terry Walsh, who was the deputy master at Dulich, the school he was at, i.e. deputy head, says Farage was well known for provoking people, especially left-wing English teachers who had no sense of humour.
	The former master of Dulich, the man who appointed Farage and received Chloe Deacon's letter, says he has no memory of the meeting or the letter, but he agrees with his former deputy it was naughtiness, not racism.
	I didn't probe too closely into that naughtiness, but the staff were fed up with his cheekiness and rudeness.
	They wanted me to expel him, but I saw his potential, made him a prefect, and I was proved right.
	And then it carries on to say, but several Dulich old boys have told me they recall Farage making racist remarks as a pupil and voicing support for right-wing groups, though none have been willing to say so publicly.
	It's interesting, isn't it?
	It's just silly.
	This is just the same sort of thing that they're employing.
	It's not going to work.
	And I would also like to point out this, that his deputy leader, Richard Tice, was meeting people in Israel.
	So I don't know about these accusations of anti-Semitism.
	Confirming that we at Reform Party UK stand strong with Israel and look forward to working closely together after we win the next general election.
	And this is a sentiment that Farage himself has echoed many times.
	And yeah, Nigel Farage denies the Gaza genocide and backs weapons exports to Israel.
	I don't know.
	These don't seem like the actions of someone who's truly anti-Semitic to me.
	Maybe he's just playing the long game.
	He's going to stab old Nettie in the back.
	Who knows?
	And then what's happened here is obviously the Labour Party have seen an opportunity.
	This is a recent story again now from just yesterday where their number 10, i.e. Keir Starmer and his government, is calling on Farage to urgently address the disturbing allegations of past racist behaviour when he was 13.
	Really?
	I mean, everything that I've done and I mean everybody has some things, some skeletons in their closets.
	If they have to go this far back, my goodness.
	Yeah.
	This is really desperate.
	I mean, if I went back to my school days, I'd have much worse things than this.
	Putting people headfirst in bins and, you know, forever.
	Oh, you went head first.
	That's pretty brutal.
	I know.
	That's going pretty far.
	It was pretty mean.
	I mean, it's all meant in good fun.
	We had a rotation.
	The way to effectively bully is not to pick on any one person too much because then it becomes actually mean-spirited and nasty.
	You pick on people in a rotation and you also do it to your friends and you also accept and be a good sport when it's you.
	You know, what goes around comes around and you sort of accept the cycle.
	That's the way you should view it.
	That's the healthy way of viewing it.
	But yes, they're obviously trying to jump on this and try.
	And all this is doing is legitimizing him as this really bad man.
	If you vote for him, he's going to be bad.
	He's going to deport every foreign person.
	All of you people across the country who support mass deportations, oh, look at how evil and racist Nigel Farage is.
	I bet he actually would do mass deportations.
	I don't want to vote for him, do you?
	The Stephen Edgington interview where he says it's a political impossibility.
	And although he's been a bit more willing to agree to stuff recently, talking about the Boris wave and how they need to reverse it, I don't know how I feel about believing that necessarily.
	I'll believe it when I see it.
	And I think it comes across like political calculation.
	It does.
	And in the wake of the Conservative Party betrayal, I don't think believing any politician at their word, even if they're proven to be trustworthy, is a good idea.
	Josh, you're suggesting something absolutely revolutionary here, which is that we should judge people based on their actions.
	Yes, rather than their words.
	Yes, and that's absolutely incredible.
	I've never heard of that before.
	But unfortunately, most of politics is judging people on their words and not their actions.
	Because most people have to actually look at their actions.
	It is a bit of a flaw of democracy, isn't it?
	And the Labour Party was throwing the baby out the pram.
	These are deeply disturbing allegations.
	Nigel Farage must urgently explain himself.
	And as Nick Dixon rightfully points out, this rubbish was already in Crick's biography.
	It's absolutely not urgent.
	So this is a biography from ages ago, which he himself posted about only yesterday, saying today's Guardian feature on Farage is anti-Semitism and Racism at Dulich.
	It's largely based on my book, which came out ages ago.
	So it's also old news as well.
	So it's all a bit absurd.
	And here's the sort of cookie-cutter leftist response.
	Remarkable thing about this story is not that Farage is the repulsive, open racist he is, but that so much energy is spent on debating this fact and saying, well, some people didn't have racist experience with him, so it's all very complicated.
	It's not.
	Yeah, it doesn't matter to them.
	They're going to think what they think regardless.
	They don't need any actual tangible evidence.
	And even if, you know, it is true, is it really fair to hold him accountable for when he's 13?
	Also, who cares?
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	He made some jokes.
	I learned some words when I was 13.
	And if people were filming me when I was learning those words, oh, they'd have a field day as well.
	And one of the final things is Kier Starmer clearly has been briefed that this isn't a good idea, that saying Farage is racist only legitimizes him.
	Someone must understand the read of the country that when in 2024 the entire country erupted in riots against immigration, maybe that's free PR.
	Maybe saying Farage is a racist and he's going to get rid of everyone.
	And people are like, yes, I like this.
	And I'm not just saying that hyperbolically.
	There's a recent poll from the 1st of October, so not too long ago, asking about do Britons think Reform UK are racist?
	And even some reform supporters were like, yes, we are.
	I mean.
	4% of.
	Yes.
	8% of them are unsure.
	I don't know.
	Well, sometimes I am, but not everyone.
	Depends on the group of people.
	We let ourselves have a cheeky bit of racism on the weekends.
	But the thing is, if what you're saying here, the most important thing about it is really about reading the room.
	As in, Britain is now at a stage where saying somebody is racist makes them more popular because the experiment of multiracialism, multiculturalism has failed so spectacularly and has really gone so badly for the native British that now they're willing to say, actually, yes, I want to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.
	I want to be racist and that's fine.
	And that will make me support somebody even more.
	And that's going to happen more and more as this goes.
	And that's going to happen more and more.
	And then you see people like the Gaza MPs and their associates saying, oh, no, we're just as British as you are.
	And then the next day, no, I'm Pakistani.
	And then the day after, well, there's going to be a war.
	No, I'm not going to fight for Britain.
	Okay.
	This is completely devalued currency, exactly as you said at the beginning.
	And it's so entirely pointless to follow this line of argument or even to be interested in it when we know that every single policy under DEI is explicitly targeting white people.
	And so it seems to me that the conclusion is everybody is racist and always was, and always unnaturally and always will be, because everybody's going to have an in-group preference unless they're an insane leftist.
	Well, it's just denying an aspect of human nature that is because our in-group preferences are tied to basically our preference for our own flesh and blood and family.
	And because there are visual cues that tell you if somebody is your flesh and blood and family or isn't, it sort of leads to that conclusion.
	So the whole discussion about race and racism is so entirely pointless and empty.
	I just don't want to be involved in it.
	I don't care.
	It's as simple as do they look more like me than not.
	And even on juries in America, they apply this rule that if there is a member of the jury who looks a lot like the defendant who's going to be, you know, have the trial against them, they will take them off of the jury.
	Because they must have forgot about that with the Derek Chauvin trial, didn't they?
	Yeah, they must have.
	But because they might see themselves in that person.
	It's as simple as that.
	It's how OJ was acquitted.
	It's very much how OJ Simpson was acquitted.
	Blacks on juries always say a black person is innocent, even if they're not.
	Yes.
	Well, like the Derek Chauvin trial when there was an actual BLM activist.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But it's okay when they do it.
	But I think it's interesting here that basically the people who are trying to frame themselves as opponents to the right, you know, of course, the Conservatives pretend they're right wing and so do their supporters.
	But they're not really.
	They're of the left just like the rest, but they don't think they are.
	So you can see this split where in the case of the Greens, Labour, and the Lib Dems, the majority think they are racist, whereas the Conservatives and reform generally think they're not.
	I think you shouldn't care.
	It shouldn't be a big deal.
	Or just say, actually, reform's policies are.
	Yes, and I'm going to vote for them.
	You know, if by racist, you mean they favour the native British.
	You would be insane not to vote for them.
	Yeah, of course.
	It's silly.
	And that is really now the definition of racist.
	Do you favour your own group over others?
	Well, everybody else does.
	What are you going to do about it?
	Be normal.
	Well, it's like the prisoner's dilemma, isn't it?
	Where if you don't stick up for yourself.
	If you don't stick up for yourself, you're just putting yourself on the chopping block for someone to betray you.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	It's ridiculous.
	It's irrational.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	But there are lots of other polls where it's just like, do you think the party, or do you think Keir Starmer thinks they are?
	Do you think Keir Starmer thinks reform voters are racist?
	So they're asking random people on YouGov to psychically analyse what they think Keir Starmer is.
	The funny thing is Keir Starmer publicly said he's not.
	He just said that the closest you could say is that the immigration policies were.
	What a worthless To get a perception of what people think is Kier Starmer's perception.
	But the most interesting tidbit here is this.
	Generally, most reform voters don't think that the party is racist, but they accept that the left believe that they are.
	So, again, they have an awareness of how they're perceived.
	And that kind of confirms your point, that the more they use the term racist, the more it is devalued.
	Because the people who support the conservatives and reform here seem to accept that, yes, you're going to be called racist no matter what.
	So you might as well live with it and move on.
	And, you know, there's also the argument that, well, you may as well embrace it as well.
	Exactly.
	Like, why, if you're going to be called racist anyway, why should you moderate your actions?
	Yes.
	And that's what I've said about reform the whole time: is that they're going to say these things anyway, so you may as well be as radical as you like and actually solve the problems, right?
	Exactly.
	And that's what the left is unwittingly doing by using this.
	But also, of course, it does backfire for the right as well because it allows people to accept less radical politicians when actually they want radical ones.
	Yes.
	All right, we've got a few Rumble Rants and super chats.
	If you'd like to read through them, of course.
	If I can see them.
	Jake Taylor says on YouTube for £5, thank you.
	Keep up the great work, boys.
	I sometimes see some of you in town, but too pussy to say hello.
	Well, if you see me, you can say hello to me.
	I'm always happy to say hello to people.
	And it actually usually Josh on street corners, so if you're a child, rattling or tinging change, make sure it's not.
	If you've got some coppers, pass them my way.
	But no, I've never had an interaction with someone from the audience that hasn't made my day better.
	So always come and say hello.
	I'm always happy for it.
	JM for $20, thank you very much, says, idea, asking migrant advocates to legally act as guarantors for migrants and accept civil liabilities for all harms they cause can be collective advocates as a class taking hiccup sorry, personal responsibility for migrants as a class.
	I thought about this before, but it's still conceding too much ground, I think, in that you're still conceding that they should be let in at all.
	I say, don't even do that.
	You're also you're also suggesting that they have the ability to take personal responsibility for the actions of their own groups, when the grooming gangs alone should have shown that they won't.
	Yeah, I mean, I like the thinking, but I think the realities of the situation will make this impossible.
	After the second whatever 50,000 pound fine, that that somebody has to pay, people will sort of say ah, I'm not taking that risk, that there is some merit to it, but it's too late in the game.
	Yeah, I'd say so.
	That's random name says, blessing my Thursday morning with my favorite eaters of the Lotus.
	Also, the real reason Harry was annoyed by the Irish guy is because he said to him, aren't you a bit tall for a leprechaun?
	That's true, this is true.
	You were there.
	Clearly you were fly on the wall, exactly how it went down also.
	Thank you very much anyway.
	So I've spoken about AI a bit recently.
	I was going over in a Segment a while back about the anti-white bias of AI, how a lot of these programs, the LLMs, other than Grok specifically, have an anti-white bias built into them.
	But AI is becoming something which is getting an air of inevitability about it.
	We're being told constantly that AI is the future, AI is the thing that's going to drag us kicking and streaming into a future.
	And I want to examine the vision of that future as being presented by high-level technocrats.
	Because if there is one person I do not trust to have the best interests of humanity or my people in mind, it is technocrats who treat everything as if it is a scientific computer-controlled experiment where you can just shift widgets around and adjust conclusions to your liking.
	What you're describing is materialists.
	Yes, materialists.
	People with no spiritual conflict, what you're describing as materialists.
	Yes, and that is what we are seeing here.
	This is an image from the recent US Saudi Investment Forum where Elon Musk was in attendance alongside, as we can see here, OpenAI president Greg Brockman and NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang.
	You can see them here in their suits and dress shoes, question mark, posing for a photograph.
	And a number of statements were made by Elon Musk at this forum.
	So we can see a few of them here.
	And if you go out long enough, assuming there's a continued improvement in AI and robotics, which seems likely, the money will stop being relevant at some point in the future.
	Now, there will still be constraints on power, like electricity and mass.
	The fundamental physics elements will still be constraints.
	But I think at some point currency becomes irrelevant.
	Jensen, any thoughts?
	You can pause it there, yeah.
	My understanding of what he's saying there is not necessarily that this is going to be something that's going to happen in my lifetime, but the inevitable conclusion of AI is that it's basically going to manage everything for us to the point where there's going to be no human in charge and therefore the economic system as we know it will break down.
	He's talking about a complete revolution of the way that the societies are structured.
	And according to these kinds of projections that he's bringing up here, he's saying in 10 to 20 years.
	If he is correct, so that is within our lifetimes.
	I do not think that he is correct in this.
	No, I disagree.
	It is a strange vision to be presenting to people in the first place this idea that work will be optional because this sounds an awful lot to me.
	One, like Bugman mentality, and I do think that Elon is king of the Bugmen.
	Sorry, he is.
	And I also think that this is kind of a vision of Marx's Marx's ideal future sounds a little bit globalist and wef-like as well, doesn't it?
	What was it?
	The idea of eight hours leisure, eight hours work, eight hours arts was what the socialist utopians and Marx, who I know wasn't a socialist utopian, et cetera, put forward as the end goal of a socialist society.
	And the problem with that is, it's this idea that if you unshackle people from the chains of abundance Sorry, from the chains of scarcity and you have super abundance, in this sense administered purely by AI, that you will have this flourishing of human creativity and that human beings will not become restless, They will not disconnect from all social bonds, They will not become lonely and suicidal, that instead,
	they will become endlessly creative and do everything that they've always wanted.
	Problem with that is we already had that experiment.
	It was called the COVID lockdowns.
	From 2020 to early 2022, most people.
	Did they really start pursuing their dreams?
	Did they start to pursue those artistic, creative endeavors they've been waiting their whole life to get an opportunity for?
	Or did they goon, play video games and watch Netflix and eat takeout and get fat?
	Did they indulge in the WAL-I future?
	I would argue that that's the least severe future.
	That's sort of the best case scenario from something like this.
	I'm taking it on Elon's terms of what he's suggesting.
	But yes, please present the more realistic outcomes.
	I think that with the way that human nature is, the struggle to survive is part of what gives life meaning in the first place.
	And if you take that away from people, they'll feel like their life is meaningless.
	If they've got nothing to strive towards, no reason to better themselves, and they're just existing to create with endless opportunity.
	What will actually happen is people will be suffocated by that opportunity.
	Monopson paralysis.
	This is why the Bible says that Adam's role is to labor.
	That now you will have to earn your keep by the sweat of your brow.
	That so long as you are on earth, you must be working.
	And this is very much a Christian idea that you must consecrate your work and make your work have value.
	And taking away work from people is in no way going to make them better.
	We saw this with the various experiments on universal basic income, which were disastrous across the board.
	They didn't actually help anybody.
	Elon is an advocate for UBI.
	If this future that he's projecting goes forwards, he says that, well, I've got the quotes and I'll go through them in a moment.
	And if it was going to be good for people, then the state with the most welfare spending would have the most productive citizenry.
	But everything that we see says that welfare encourages laziness and being indigent.
	It doesn't actually work.
	And there's also another element to this, that if AI is able to be, you know, the thing that's running the economy and there's no human input necessarily needed or very little, then who's to say that AI isn't also far exceeding the creativity of human beings, making human creative endeavors basically redundant?
	Not just that.
	I mean, for one, that's the thing that I always find annoying about people who are kind of proselytizing the advances of AI art, which is, frankly, on a personal level, I have no interest in consuming or experiencing art that hasn't been created by a human.
	Art is an expression of the soul.
	AI, robots, they do not have souls.
	Therefore, they have nothing to give for me.
	But the AI may be able to, with the direction of a human being, pursue these sorts of things, right, in a way that might delegitimize human creative endeavors.
	And certainly people will perceive it that way, even if it isn't necessarily that way.
	For uncultured types, and there is the idea of the Greeks, which was that leisure, the opportunity to be creative, is something that really should only be afforded to people who are actually capable of pursuing it.
	And that most other people should be given opportunity to find meaning elsewhere in life.
	There's also an old saying among developers that goes something along the lines of if builders built buildings the way developers wrote code, civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker.
	And there is the reality that if you allow machines and code to run your entire civilization and economy, well, you're just one virus away from being utterly destroyed.
	So this as an aspiration is an insane aspiration, and it is not grounded in reality, and it is not grounded in humanity.
	And nobody who loves human beings wants them sitting around idly all day.
	You want them to feel that they're productive, that they're doing something useful, that they're contributing.
	If you don't work, you don't plan for the future.
	If you don't plan for the future, you're not going to produce anything worthwhile.
	And what he's basically advocating there is a universal nursing home.
	Yes.
	And if you've ever seen people in nursing homes, it's not great.
	It's really not great.
	But let's carry on.
	On the whole idea of work being optional, people have poked fun at this and pointed out that certain parts of the demographics have already figured out that work can be optional.
	So that's an interesting observation.
	One of the best observations, though, which people have made is that this is completely and utterly contradictory to the way that Elon Musk pursues his own goals with his own companies.
	This idea that you need rising birth rates so that people will have bigger families to keep the economy going, but at the same time, then AI will replace everything.
	So he's just encouraging people to have children for the sake of it, more mouths to feed for the AI overlords, more people to sit around playing video games into their old age, pursuing no greater meaning in their own lives.
	Very strange.
	And also, surely, if AI is going to be that amazing, why do you need so many H-1Bs, Elon?
	Why is this?
	As of last Wednesday, this is a statement he made.
	An account here was responding to SpaceX saying, thanks to all of the 1800 plus members of the SpaceX team.
	Happy Veterans Day.
	And it points out SpaceX used less than 20 H-1B workers between 2011 and 2024.
	Less than 20.
	They hire almost 100% American because defense contractors are heavily restricted from employing visa holders.
	And it works.
	We have the people, we have the talent, but companies want cheaper labor.
	To which Elon responds personally, saying, President Donald Trump is right regarding H-1Bs.
	We must distinguish clearly between companies that need to hire critical world-class talent from other countries versus companies that simply hire low-cost non-US employees to increase profits.
	SpaceX has succeeded despite not being able to hire critical world-class talent from other countries due to ITAR laws.
	You are inviting in potential spies by the sounds of it to me, Elon.
	Had we been able to do so, our progress would have been faster.
	Now, if I was working for SpaceX and saw this, the spit in the face to the work and dedication that you have done for SpaceX, I would go on strike.
	I might quit because what Elon is saying there is great work, but if I could have replaced you with an Indian, I would have and I'd have expected them to do better than you anyway.
	That's vile, that's disgusting, and that is again this Bugman mentality.
	Human beings do not belong to nations.
	It's not a mentality that he puts for European countries for some reason, but he has this new world mentality with America, that America is the place, the global experiment, where anybody from anywhere and everywhere can come and be used as interchangeable widgets and traded out on the basis of min-maxing skills according to credentials.
	And that's how he sees this.
	And again, if you work for SpaceX and you're watching this, if I was in your position, I would be very insulted by the implication of this statement.
	It's also reading some of the rest of what he's saying here.
	It's a strange conflation of the H-1Bs, which are done, what, hundreds of thousands of people, like 600,000 or something in that magnitude, wasn't it, last year?
	And he's there talking about getting the world-class talent in things like Tesla.
	So what Elon's basically talking about is there are a handful of people I want for SpaceX around the world, which is not the same order of magnitude as the H-1Bs anyway.
	Even without the H-1Bs or not, SpaceX is limited, so it doesn't matter.
	Well, also, can I just say, the thing is, when he had his big meltdown last year, people looked into Tesla and found that it was employing hordes of H-1Bs, potentially 10% of its workforce.
	And if you look here, industrial engineer, base salary of $80,000.
	I looked into it.
	That is basically as low end for a US industrial engineer as you can pay them.
	Their base salaries can go up to $103,000.
	So you can't convince me that Elon is hiring these people purely because they are the best in the world, when instead it looks like he's trying to nickel and dime his own company to save on costs.
	Well, most businesses, the main expenditure is the labor costs, isn't it?
	So when you're looking at a spreadsheet, the thing that you want to get down the most is the labor costs because it's the largest share of your expenses.
	But sorry, Ferris, you're going to say something.
	What I was going to say is that if in 20 years all of this is going to be absolutely pointless, why would you bring anybody now?
	I mean, the short-termism of the thinking is absolutely insane.
	If he believes that in 10 to 20 years' time, all of these H-1Bs will be sitting around doing absolutely nothing, why make them the problem of your companies, which are presumably going to be producing the robots that make work irrelevant for everybody else?
	Why increase the future burden on yourself and on your companies just to save nickels and dimes now?
	Well, perhaps because he believes that AI will somehow eliminate poverty altogether because of the superabundance that it will generate.
	Here he is saying as much.
	But AI and humanoid robots will actually eliminate poverty.
	And Tesla won't be the only one that makes them.
	I think Tesla will pioneer this, but there will be many other companies that make humanoid robots.
	But there is only basically one way to make everyone wealthy, and that is AI and robotics.
	And we can't talk about robotics without AI fa- Okay, I mean, outside of all of the actual logistic concerns of such things, what it would do to humanity to actually experience something like this, a complete upending of all societal relations as far back as we can remember Unemployed, is it?
	Yeah, but does it sound realistic?
	Does it sound realistic?
	Or does this sound like the high-minded utopian musings of a guy who indulges in too much science fiction?
	Yeah.
	Because in looking into this, I looked back on some of the stuff to do with the dot-com bubble back in the late 90s.
	And in some of the videos that I watched, it went back to the 1970s when the US government was involved in the creation of a very, very early version of the internet to begin with.
	And you can find clips all the way back then of scientists, American scientists, saying that I have no doubt that by the year 2000, this technology will make it so that you can have a brain surgeon in Scotland operating directly on a patient in New Zealand.
	I remember seeing those sorts of things.
	Yeah.
	Does this sound like something that's going to be realistic?
	Or does it sound like that kind of high-minded fantasy?
	I mean, prove me wrong.
	Experience may prove me wrong.
	Maybe AI is going to change everything and unleash all of this onto the world.
	But right now, it just sounds like Elon Musk is indulging in science fantasy.
	Realistically, this sort of technology he's talking about is hundreds, if not maybe even thousands of years into the future.
	It's not feasible.
	Certainly not the 10 to 20 years that he was talking about.
	It's not happening in any of our countries.
	I think they're assuming a continually exponential rate of progress in technology, which is not ever really something that you can bank on.
	But even if it does happen, human nature will be human nature.
	And we will find massive differences through which to build up conflict.
	And we will end up fighting each other over all kinds of things using this kind of technology.
	So it's not going to be a utopia where everybody sits around idly.
	It's going to translate into weapons, techniques of control, coercion, etc.
	Imagine having a fully automated police force.
	It's going to be horrible to be constantly interacting with robots with absolutely no humanity and no sympathy for you.
	So the dream itself, even if it was realizable in the timeframe that he's talking about, is not a good one.
	If you've got lots of idle hands, you've got lots of people for a war effort, and through the AI's logic, well, these other countries have resources that it could acquire and better achieve its aims.
	Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is we need to invade these countries and take their resources.
	Exactly.
	Because resources are always, to a robotic mind, rational to acquire.
	And the human cost of the life is a subjective thing that is felt by human beings, but an AI might not necessarily perceive that.
	And let's remember again that this is all banking on the idea that somebody who is trying to make his AIs neutral, like Elon Musk, is the one who ends up with the monopoly on this technology rather than the people who are programming it to be purposefully anti-white and value the lives of white people far far far Far below anybody else.
	Building on that.
	Remember, some of the studies that were done on AIs were showing that some of these AIs were valuing the lives of ICE agents a thousand times below the lives of illegal immigrants.
	Do you want that kind of technology in charge of every facet of human life?
	I don't think so.
	Invert this.
	Invert this a little bit.
	Imagine the Chinese have a similar breakthrough, where they decide that the value of a Chinese life is worth, what, 10,000?
	1 million, 10 million?
	The lives of others.
	And how would that behave in a conflict?
	And how would that behave if you gave it actual autonomy?
	And how would you be able to control it if you gave it autonomy?
	And how would you stop your own system from being infected with one virus that changes its value system?
	So the ambition itself, regardless of its feasibility, is an absolutely insane one and is absolutely a bad one and an unethical, immoral, un-Christian, inhumane one.
	And even if you programmed into an AI and you got it perfectly correct that it values human life in the same way that a human being might, then there's all a bit difficult to figure out which way to go.
	But even then, the way in which AI is going to improve and accelerate its improvements is that AI works on itself to improve itself.
	Therefore, it has the ability to change its code.
	So it's no guarantee that it will remain anyway.
	It might decide that the value of AI is worth all of human lives and decide that, okay, I'm going to skynet all of you and genocide you.
	Yeah, there's so many future.
	There is no.
	This is not a good thing.
	This is not a moral thing.
	But either way, to carry on, there are the other problems with this, like Elon Musk, when he went on Joe Rogan last month in October, saying that when AI and robotics like Tesla's Optimus eliminate all work and money, the government should hand out a universal income, which is contradictory because if it's eliminated work and money, what's the point of an income?
	If you can just get the Star Trek future where you can just press a button and get someone to bring something to you without any charge.
	He says, we'll have in a benign scenario universal high income.
	Anyone can have any products or services that they want, but there will be a lot of trauma and disruption along the way.
	For one, if everybody has universal high income, that means that nobody has high income because it levels it all out.
	Besides, if money isn't relevant anymore, what's the point of income?
	Two, this is the technocratic problem.
	This is the problem with technocrats, the non-human way that they think, the soulless, inhuman minds that they have.
	What gives you the right to inflict that trauma and disruption on normal people?
	This would be that right.
	This would be managerialism on steroids.
	Absolutely.
	This would be injecting the existing managerialist system, globalist system, with steroids and letting it run amok.
	And with absolutely no input from human values, which should always be Christian values.
	It's just crazy.
	It's just.
	It's mad scientist territory.
	It's really mad scientist territory.
	Certainly is.
	And then let's move on to the next part of this.
	And I'll try and get through this as quickly as possible, which is the question of whether AI is a bubble right now as well.
	I've spoken about this briefly.
	Our access has been blocked from the Wall Street Journal.
	But just to summarize the article that I did have up here, it's that Elon Musk's XAI is in advanced talks to raise $15 billion right now, lifting its valuation to a new equity at a $230 billion valuation, which is according to people familiar with these plans.
	The new valuation would represent a significant increase from $113 billion, which was disclosed after XAI acquired the social media site X in March.
	The terms of the new fundraising were disclosed to investors by Musk's wealth manager.
	In June, XAI raised $5 billion in equity and $5 billion in debt to help build out its Colossus data center in Memphis, Tennessee.
	Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, invested $2 billion in the company as part of that round.
	Musk, who is chief executive officer of Tesla, has publicly supported the idea of Tesla investing in XAI as well.
	At a recent shareholder meeting, Tesla shareholders had a mixed response to a proposal that asked the board to make such an investment and is now up to the board to decide.
	Ahead of the meeting, Tesla chair Robin Denham told the journal that she questioned the logic of such an investment, said the board hadn't done any of the due diligence required to move forward.
	So it seems like Elon is trying to start shifting his assets, a lot of his financial assets and investment from his other companies into XAI as well, which will again inflate that huge valuation of the company.
	This is his new obsessive focus.
	And this is part of this whole worry that people have right now that I've seen people talking about of whether this is a bubble, which is why I'm glad to be sat on this panel with two guys who would probably know a bit more about such things than I do, because people have been talking about this for months.
	This is an article back from the beginning of October.
	There's going to be really bad fears over AI bubble bursting grow in Silicon Valley.
	Tech giants are spending big on AI in rush to dominate the boom.
	That's from the end of October.
	Companies are being told that they are over investing in AI.
	That's warnings from fund management.
	And Google's boss currently is saying a trillion-dollar AI investment boom has elements of irrationality.
	And what this is talking about is Alphabet, the parent company of Google, has shares that have doubled in value in seven months to $3.5 trillion as markets have grown more confident in the search giant's ability to fend off the threat from chat GPT owner OpenAI.
	A particular focus is Alphabet's development of specialized super chips for AI that compete with NVIDIA, run by Jensen Huang, who we saw the image of earlier, which recently reached a world first $5 trillion valuation.
	As valuations rise, some analysts have expressed skepticism about a complicated web of $1.4 trillion worth of deals being done around OpenAI, which is expected to have revenues this year of less than 1,000th of the planned investment.
	The tech giant is also expanding its footprint in the UK.
	In September, Alphabet announced that it was investing in UK artificial intelligence, committing £5 billion to infrastructure and research over the next two years.
	This will be alongside, I would assume, Oracle and Larry Ellison working with Tony Blair to try and implement AI into chatbots for your GP because Tony Blair wants to make the entire GP system automated under AI.
	So you're getting this huge investment boom in Silicon Valley.
	Now even Jeff Bezos is getting involved in it as well, putting $6.2 billion into this and himself as co-CEO behind a new AI startup.
	So you're getting this huge swell of investment from people who are already, let's be honest, the heads of huge tech monopolies into this.
	And then they are building that infrastructure into the foundations of national infrastructure as well.
	The problem I see with it, along with a lot of different things, is just this Tuesday, right?
	If you make your entire system completely dependent on AI, the gigantic server farms and chips that are required for it, the energy needed to power all of this, this is one thing that a lot of green leftists are worried about, not because of the potential issues with fault lines in the infrastructure, more to do with just the amount of energy it uses up for green climate change purposes.
	These are hugely energy-intensive things for a power grid.
	Google itself, Alphabet, are going back on their green climate energy targets so that they can put all of this investment into AI because it is just that energy intensive.
	And yet on Tuesday, Cloudflare goes down.
	One website goes down and all of a sudden, half of the internet goes down with it.
	And that is, these are websites, big websites like X, like even our website was taken down by it for a little bit, right?
	And so you have everything hooked up and you expect there to be lots of contingencies for these fault lines, but there isn't.
	Yep.
	There isn't.
	So you get your entire society globally hooked up onto the AI mainframe.
	What happens?
	What could possibly go wrong?
	What happens when the equivalent of a Cloudflare issue goes up?
	And the entire global economy, which in Elon Musk's mind is entirely run for the purposes of super abundance by AI, goes down for half a day.
	What happens then?
	Do your robots freak out?
	Do they just shut down?
	Do they start Skynet attacking you?
	Like, I don't know.
	you tell me what happens in that situation and when people talk about the ai bubble i couldn't get the bloomberg article but i got this screenshot from the bloomberg article that talks about it pointing to all of this and how it you may be able to make more sense of this than me but a lot of this seems to be classic money changing you
	Money goes from one hand to another and back again in a big circle until it ends back at the same place.
	And because that money is changing hands over and over and over again, it looks like there's lots of investment going around.
	Therefore, a magic, separate, invisible number, which doesn't actually correspond to anything practical in reality, keeps going up and up and up and up.
	And people are saying that this is very similar to the dot-com boom.
	But just for an example, right?
	So like NVIDIA is giving investment to Intel, who are then producing stuff for Coreweave, who are then selling it straight back to NVIDIA.
	At which point, I ask, why don't these two companies merge?
	Because it seems to me that Intel is...
	Well, actually, it raises the...
	The Global Reserve is pretty much printing the money that keeps these share prices up.
	Yeah, well, it raises the question to me, what's the point of Core Weave?
	Like, what is the point of this company?
	they doing something to the stuff that's going into the hardware or software that's being produced by intel why can't nvidia like it's stuff it's stuff like that You can see the gigantic web.
	Again, I am not an investment guy.
	I'm not a money guy.
	So maybe you guys can explain this a bit better, a bit better than I can.
	I mean, this is true of a lot of areas of the economy, to be honest, particularly when you get to large multinational companies.
	They all do trades with each other.
	So a lot of the economy does just look like this.
	However, that doesn't mean that it's not a bubble.
	It just means that a lot of the rest of the economy is a bubble as well.
	And a lot of this sort of stuff is incestuous.
	But I think that these companies are still going to emerge as very important.
	But people are over-investing in creating the bubble because they're hedging their bets as to which one is going to be leader of the pack because you will get so many spoils when it you know a clear frontrunner does emerge.
	Well, and the thing, I looked at this Forbes article that was talking about the AI bubble that isn't there.
	They're making the argument that it's not a bubble in response to a lot of people.
	Forbes says that I kind of assume that it must be.
	Well, yeah, that's one of the words.
	And plus, this article is just word babble, garbled nonsense most of it.
	It's written by AI.
	It's written by a guy called Jason Snyder, who, let me, I'll just find it, I'll just find it.
	There's just a little bit of nonsense in here where he's talking about how he created a lamp, basically.
	Here it is.
	So this is the kind of intellectual content that I get from this and the kind of flowery, poetic language that he uses.
	He says, this connection, sorry, civilization itself is the story of arranging energy into meaning.
	This connection is personal.
	Years ago, I invented the Lucy or Luchi solar lantern to bring light to communities without reliable electricity.
	It was an effort to democratize photons to capture sunlight and convert it into opportunity.
	In Africa, I watched children hold a Luchi lantern with awe.
	Light became cognition.
	Energy became hope.
	I joked about it being written by AI, but it does have that feeling.
	It comes across as totally stars in his eyes.
	This will be infinite expansion forever.
	GDP brain line go up on graph forever equal good.
	The main argument that he's making when you sift through all of the waffle is that what is being built by all of these companies who are making huge investments is infrastructure rather than the same thing that happened with the dot-com bubble where it was just a load of companies being started by nobodies with inflated stock prices who then went out of business out of nowhere as soon as the stock market took a little hit when Japan hit a recession made everybody scared.
	But it's only infrastructure when it's actually infrastructure.
	Like at the minute, most infrastructure is run not with AI.
	Or if it is AI, it plays a small role and still largely run by people.
	So if that is his argument, well, it's got to actually come into fruition for that to be a tangible argument.
	Well, he does contrast it with the dot-com bubble.
	Sorry, the dot-com boom and the bubble, which then popped.
	And the argument that he presents is this.
	That period is remembered as a bubble because thousands of companies failed, but that interpretation misses the larger truth.
	The infrastructure built during that frenzy created the modern internet.
	Much of today's economic output is driven by a small group of winners, companies like Amazon, Google, and Meta, that emerged from the record and now define the S ⁇ P 500.
	So what I'm getting from that is the best that we can hope for.
	What we can expect is for a sponge, a series of government-backed censorious monopolies to become the market leaders in control of all of this.
	And we can guarantee that they will be government-backed if they're building the infrastructure into the governments themselves.
	And a lot of these that we can see here, Amazon, well, Jeff Bezos is investing in it.
	Google, heavily involved in it.
	Meta, also heavily involved in it.
	These are going to be the same monopolies that we have already come to know and love.
	So that's the best future that we can look forward to, according to this.
	All of your favorite government-backed monopolies will have even more control of your life.
	And Elon Musk is hoping that he can get ahead of all of that so that he can give you the pod person bugman life that you've always been looking for.
	This, frankly, no matter how it ends up working, isn't a future that I was looking forward to.
	And that's the best way that I can put it.
	Yep.
	All right, we've got quite a few Rumble Rants and super chats, so I'll go through this.
	Counterpoint on Harry to Harry on AI, the Will Stancil show is the greatest adult cartoon comedy running.
	I'm aware of it, but frankly, he's a funny enough meme for five minutes.
	I'm not going to watch a whole show about him.
	I mean, it's only short.
	I don't care.
	It did make me laugh.
	I don't care.
	Random name, you should watch a video called The Four Types of Dystopia.
	It explains how the merchant class are mercenaries who will sell the country for profit and the bureaucrat class legislates to preserve the system.
	True.
	McLeod software can be as theoretical as possible, but the real world limits show up.
	Amazon is hiring nuclear engineers to try to power their stuff.
	Never mind Moore's Law with chips.
	AI crash is coming, potentially.
	Hapsification, Zinlord Firaz.
	Thank you.
	Random name.
	Again, programmer here.
	It is easy to make an AI that is either super smart for hyper-specific tasks or really retarded overall.
	The things that are currently labeled AI aren't true AI.
	I think it's a bubble.
	Amandine512, have you guys seen The Circle with Tom Hanks and the Harry Potter girl?
	It feels more predictive every year.
	We advance towards an AI surveillance utopia.
	I do remember that coming out.
	My missus watched it.
	I did not.
	Not just a string.
	If this segment isn't AI generated, please show me your fingers, everyone.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	Easy E on super chats.
	Also, AI isn't a bubble because there's no normie at the bottom to take the financial losses.
	This is just normal corporate inflation of stock price.
	Yeah, but generally, if everything crashes all at once with the stock market and investments, that does end up affecting the guy at the bottom.
	Yes.
	Sadly, just like we saw in the 2008 recession.
	Chris H, in the future, one solar flare can bring it all down, although ignoring the sun in their models isn't new to these people.
	Cough, cough, climate change.
	True.
	Easy E reminder that most scientists don't know more than most people outside the specific area of study.
	A constant frustration of engineers is explaining to them why their predictions aren't accurate.
	I just want to be out exploring space.
	Luke Stewart.
	Also, your argument of COVID kind of fails because people were locked in their houses.
	It wasn't that they couldn't work.
	They just couldn't go ahead and live.
	I disagree, frankly, when given the option to be lazy, people will be lazy.
	I think that COVID is exactly what a lot of people wanted, which was the excuse to stay at home and play video games and get fat and not do anything with their lives.
	And if you make that permanent, then that's not great.
	Harry, I agree.
	It's high-minded fantasy unless we get the Terminator result.
	High-minded dystopia then.
	Yes, I'll go through a few more.
	England needs strong nationalism.
	Flags are good memetics, but if people don't simultaneously reject the interlopers while gaining nationalism in the UK, it will remain a hotel for the world.
	I don't know what you're so worried about, Harry.
	I, for one, welcome our cyberpunk overlords.
	I find Musk's view of the world endearing in its naivete.
	Money is currency.
	Currency is level of power for states.
	One they won't choose to be abandoned.
	The game makers are playing the game as well.
	Good point.
	Good day, everyone.
	I like AI art because it will allow me to create art without having to deal with the biases of the creator, bake the gay wedding cake.
	I don't know how applicable that is here.
	You can just make art for the sake of it.
	You can just make your own art.
	Meant to say AI, not I damn.
	Also, I like the idea of having not to deal with the ideology or conflict of the creator as someone who sucks a lot but has great ideas and would like a scribe to write or paint for me.
	Sorry, bro.
	AI already hates you.
	Most AI already hates you.
	Anyway, good luck all the same.
	Yeah, good luck.
	Thank you.
	So let's talk a little bit about what socialists get right because we want to try to be charitable towards these people and try to sort of.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's sort of a requirement.
	Sorry.
	But before we go there, this is about defending economic pragmatism and about being realistic when it comes to economic questions.
	And the starting point here that I want to talk about is where we are right now in Britain as an economy.
	Ridiculous energy prices, a completely dysfunctional state that can't achieve anything that it sets its mind to do, insane levels of welfare.
	This is a breakdown of the spending of the British government.
	And you see pensions around 225 billion, healthcare, 250 billion, education, 120 billion, defense that everybody likes to complain about, just 70.
	And then actual welfare, I don't know why pensions weren't included, 188 billion.
	And then separate the two out to make it huge.
	And then protection, which, again, means welfare, at 50 billion.
	So there is this massive level of spending.
	What's protection versus defense?
	Protection isn't about the policing.
	That's included in all other spending.
	Protection is various social safety nets.
	So it's another part of welfare.
	Another part of welfare.
	Just separated out to make the number look.
	Another part of welfare, another part of welfare.
	The only thing I would keep here would be the defense spending and policing and maybe justice.
	Yep.
	The rest of it, as far as I'm concerned, we could save trillions of government spending.
	I'm going to disagree with you in a second, but I'll explain to you why.
	Add to that around $3 trillion in official debt, which is almost 100% of GDP.
	And then there is the hidden unfunded liabilities that are also to do with pensions mostly.
	And that might be three or four times as much as the actual debt.
	So you're dealing with debt to GDP that's in the 500 to 600% level, which is common across most of Western Europe when you think of the insane generosity of the welfare system.
	So there is something fundamentally wrong here.
	And what is wrong is this massive overspending.
	The socialists think that the answer must be more social spending and more taxation and more welfare.
	If this was going to solve anything, it would have already.
	But it didn't and it won't.
	The other issue that the socialists get wrong is immigration.
	That this can be sustained or paid for by bringing in more and more people who end up being net drains because their tax contributions over their lifetime are much smaller than what they take in government services.
	So this is the picture that we have here.
	And it's worth understanding how did we get here.
	The British government nationalized most industries after the Second World War.
	Then it privatized those industries.
	The process in which this happened was basically they took a bunch of successful entities, be they in healthcare, various charities that were providing healthcare, or in railroads, or in mines, or in energy, or in water, and bundled them together into centralized entities.
	20 years later, they realized that this was a disastrous decision.
	Then they sold them off.
	But instead of selling them off into smaller chunks that would be competitive, they sold them as is, as these massive conglomerates, and then they ended up capturing the institutions that regulated them.
	And so you ended up with this weird situation of excessive regulation, excessive concentration, much less distribution of wealth, therefore more inequality.
	And then after the privatizations, an insane level of regulation.
	And with the DEI and net zero, that regulation truly became incredibly destructive to the extent that Britain has pretty much lost its industrial base.
	British Steel is collapsing.
	It's ended up owned by China.
	Tata Steel bought some steel mills, ended up selling them off.
	Britain doesn't make anything anymore.
	So the total, the actual examination of this picture does agree with what the welfare socialists say, that there is too much inequality, too much poverty, too many people are suffering.
	But as usual, all of the solutions that they prescribe for it are wrong, except for one.
	Except for one.
	Because there were countries that did get out of being severely deindustrialized and extremely weakened economically and found a way out.
	And what these countries are are essentially the various Asian miracle countries.
	Japan, Korea, China, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.
	What they all had in common was a very high level of cooperation between the public sector and the private sector.
	And the way that this relationship worked was basically the government would set out a bunch of industries and technologies that they wanted to support and finance and help develop.
	They set out bits of infrastructure that they wanted to build.
	They basically made a plan.
	But they didn't follow the full central planning approach of early China and the Soviet Union.
	It was more of a dialogue between the big businesses and the oligarchs on the one side and the state.
	And so in a country like Japan, you had the Ministry of Industry and Transportation, MITI.
	These guys did an incredible job.
	They worked on finding markets for Japanese companies.
	They employed a level of protectionism for their own economy.
	They then went with export-led growth in order to develop their economy.
	And it succeeded to the extent that Japan was stuck producing third and fourth rate goods in the 1950s.
	And by the 1980s, it was the second largest economy in the world.
	And competing with the United States and causing all kinds of troubles for American manufacturers.
	The Koreans followed pretty much the same approach.
	In 1962, this was a destroyed economy.
	They were operating on subsistence level to the extent that in 1950, Sudan and South Korea had the same living standards.
	This is how bad it was in South Korea.
	And then the South Korean government decided that we are going to pursue a policy that is aimed at building up our industrial capacity.
	And this policy was supported with a combination of loans and financing and market access and so on and so forth.
	And industrial policy succeeded.
	They really made a great job.
	And now South Korean cars are competing with everybody.
	South Korean chips are indispensable.
	South Korean phones are market leaders.
	They took their GDP per capita from $87 In the 60s, $87 to $10,000, $15,000, $20,000.
	This was the extent of their success.
	And it was neither the Soviet or early Chinese pure state control, but it was also not free market libertarianism.
	It was not economic liberalism.
	That did not succeed.
	That did not build them.
	What they did manage to do was create a level of cooperation between industries and the state.
	You could go on and read about this.
	I've given you a bunch of links here.
	And China did something very similar.
	China went through different phases, according to Philip Pilkington, six different phases of development.
	The first one is a complete failure, where all they did was just, we're going to invest in as much infrastructure and industry as we could, and then people starved and died under Mao.
	And then Deng Xiaobing came over, basically he had been kicked out of political life, and then he became the leader of China, and he inverted that and adopted economic pragmatism.
	And when you look at where Britain is today, it's this level of economic pragmatism that's needed.
	But it's happening now under very different conditions because the economic pragmatism of the various Asian giants was predicated on there being an endless expansion of globalism and more and more market access being given to Asia into Europe and the United States.
	This phase is done.
	And any British policymaker has to realize this.
	The Americans want to prioritize their own market.
	The EU wants to prioritize its own market.
	The Japanese are always going to be protectionists or going to South Koreans.
	Tariffs are coming back.
	Tariffs are coming back.
	So there is this level of realism that's needed.
	But this level of realism was very present in Britain's own Industrial Revolution.
	It was mostly privately led.
	But when things like the canal mania happened, where Britain pretty much connected all of its industrial hubs with canals and allowed the very rapid transportation of goods between different locations, this was done through acts of parliament that helped the financiers of the canals.
	So it was three steps, really, to summarize.
	The first step was somebody very clever with usually self-taught in engineering would decide on a canal route.
	They would go to parliament and get that approved and allow for the acquisition of land, the acquisition of resources.
	Then they'd go to investors and get that privately funded.
	Why?
	Because Britain is never going to be this kind of centrally led economy.
	It's just not in the nature of the English to be this subservient to the state.
	They don't work this way.
	The shed tinkerers.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	So it was a combination of the shed tinkerers and the government working on supporting them and allowing them to become rich.
	So it's extremely similar.
	If you wanted to think of the British temperament, it's extremely similar to how the Chinese are operating today.
	They're defining the technologies that they want.
	They're defining the objectives that they want.
	And then the state is providing the loans and the financing and the backing.
	And this can happen to Britain as well.
	And this kind of semi-planning with a level of competition does work, but it requires the shedding of ideology, the shedding of socialist ideology that says that the state must control all of the means of production, and the shedding of libertarian ideology that says, no, no, no, no, the state has no role in the allocation of capital.
	The state should have a role and should have objectives and should have policies.
	And these policies should be geared at what the state is supposed to do.
	Defending the homeland, being able to raise an army, being able to kill enemies.
	The thing to remember is when this happened, when the building of canals happened, which coincided with the Napoleonic Wars, the total take of the British government out of the economy was between 9 and 20%.
	Now, 45% of the British economy is controlled by the state.
	And it's mostly wasted on welfare.
	So the socialists are partly right.
	Some level of cooperation between the state and the economic leaders is warranted.
	And the state does have a role in the allocation of capital, but not this insane welfareism and not this insane taxation.
	I'm going to preempt two things that I know people are going to comment.
	Go on.
	One of them is: I'm sure people are going to point out Japan's very high debt to GDP ratio.
	It's sort of known.
	Which came after the 80s.
	That's true, yes.
	Which came after the 80s.
	It came after the economic miracle had passed, and then they had their lost decade of the 1990s, essentially.
	And they've been in lost decade after lost decade since then, more or less.
	That's also a function of the collapse in birth rates in Japan and the collapse in demographics.
	And they've decided to just fund the elderly through welfare, not through industrial policy, in order to pay for that.
	So, yes, there are possible traps in that.
	And the trap is doing exactly what Britain is doing today.
	And I know someone in the comments is going to point out that, well, some liberals, liberal economists, or free market economists or libertarians argue that you need protectionism when business is emerging and then when it flourishes in a specific industry, then you can open up to the market.
	Which is a limited thing, isn't it?
	I can also respond to that, which is what leading industries do we have?
	Yeah, we don't have any of them.
	There are leading industries that we can open the markets to so that we can flood.
	Because the whole point of that is you build up your industries so that they are able to compete.
	And this isn't necessarily libertarian.
	This is more like Alexander Hamilton, almost guild protectionist politics.
	Mechantalism, even.
	Yeah, mechantalism.
	You build up those industries internally until they can compete on the global stage.
	Then you open up the markets so that you're able to out-compete other industries.
	Hopefully put them out of business and force them into being reciprocal to you.
	Look, with the geopolitics of today and with the Western demographics of today, it might end up being that Europe and her daughters, that is Europe, Latin America, North America, etc., Australia, decide that they are forming one trade zone and they are competing against each other in that zone.
	And within each country, there is a level of tinkering, there's a level of specialization, etc.
	It's one way of turning the West around.
	Essentially, a more unified Christendom, more or less, that accepts that its civilizational enemies are going to be the Muslim world and China.
	Which, to be honest about it, that's very much what the civilizational enemies of the West are always going to be in the world that we live in.
	So there is room for that.
	There is room for something along these lines, so long as you don't end up putting all of your industries in the United States.
	Having them all be in China is much, much worse.
	Way worse.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And notice I don't mention India as a civilizational competitor for obvious reasons.
	So there is something to say about how the geopolitics of trade have changed and how there is a need for Christendom to recognize itself as Christendom.
	Because having Polish immigrants turned out to be a blessing compared to all of the other alternatives.
	And you've personally experienced it.
	And comparatively.
	Comparatively, a lot of them still like their welfare.
	Fair enough.
	A lot of them still like their welfare.
	Although it's still now a bigger problem with the Bulgarians and the Romans.
	That's true, that's true.
	There were still problems, even when it's somewhere as culturally close as Poland.
	There were still huge problems.
	Josh might remember this.
	Cast your mind back to the mid-2000s.
	Of course.
	Where they would come and they would create their own little ethnic enclaves and there would be ethnic divisions there.
	One of the schools in the town that I grew up had riots because of Polish versus English tensions that were going on.
	So it can still create problems even with people as close to us as that.
	I would say the Scandinavians and Germans and people more along those lines don't go into our country and form their own ethnic enclaves anywhere near as badly.
	Yep, fair enough.
	Fair enough.
	I think it's a matter of scale, isn't it?
	If a large enough number of people turn up en masse, they form their own communities.
	And that's not to disparage all Poles.
	Like you say, it's just a matter of scales.
	It's a matter of human nature.
	We do it in Spain.
	It's also a matter of human nature.
	People naturally congregate around people who speak their own languages.
	But the last point that I want to make, given the time, is that this is only possible in all of these countries where there is energy abundance, where there is plentiful of cheap and reliable energy.
	So if you're going to pursue anything like that, you must have an insane explosion in the amount of energy that is being produced in Britain.
	And you must have exploitation of oil, gas, coal in order to transition to nuclear.
	There's national security on that as well.
	You can't be a top priority in energy.
	You can't outsource your energy production.
	Britain's standard of living pretty much stagnated right after it stopped being a net energy exporter.
	You have to have a huge amount of abundant energy.
	And if you pair that with very basic things, like letting schools be academically selective, like letting schools train for talent as opposed to for ideology, with this kind of talented population and with energy and with some cooperation between the state and capital, there can be an industrial revival.
	And if the right wants to win, it has to address the economic question, not just the national question.
	And this is what's really missing in the vision of the right.
	And that's why, with somebody like Nigel Farage, who is essentially just a Thatcherite, this isn't going to be enough.
	There has to be a full-on attack on the left's economic agenda.
	They're saying, let's just tax and spend.
	The answer must be, let's build wealth.
	And part of building wealth in the countries that have succeeded has involved a very high level of cooperation between government and capital owners.
	This is oligarchy to some extent, but so long as you discipline the oligarchs and they're afraid of the state, you can make this into a winning formula.
	It needs to be, I said this on a recent podcast.
	It needs to be guided in the interests of the nation.
	The nation itself being the people of a particular time, a particular place, an ancestry, it needs to be in their benefit rather than the benefit of the bottom line of these companies solely.
	Exactly.
	And that's all the time that we have for this segment.
	Well, we've got a couple of comments.
	Yeah, I think that was really interesting.
	Okay, so we'll go through.
	We've got a few rumble rants.
	Random name, great podcast, gents, amazing segments.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you for taking the time to read all super chats.
	I always try to.
	Don't want to shortchange people.
	Here's $5 monopoly money, Canadian.
	Oof.
	Though not for you, Harry, you got your pot of gold waiting.
	Thanks.
	When did Harry become a leprechaun?
	I missed something.
	Since people decided that I was ginger.
	Ah.
	Egregiously.
	Wrongly.
	Gaily.
	No, no, you.
	Hair decided.
	Logan, reminder, forgot the promises of progress.
	Hamsification.
	I've been using that UK public spending website for years as a way to get me depressed.
	You should see the COVID years.
	I can now inform you guys I'm thoroughly depressed.
	Yippee.
	You don't need to go to that website.
	You've got a podcast, you know.
	That's progress.
	You've progressed from one stage of depression to the next.
	So you're welcome.
	Do we have any video comments, Harry?
	We don't have any video comments.
	Screw it, let's go over by five or so minutes.
	Let's read a few of these website comments as well.
	Josh, do you want to go through yours?
	Of course.
	Sophie Liv says, yeah, these people don't understand that we are now at a point where if a politician openly states he's racist in favor of white people, that would be a vote winner, as no one in power seems to have the corner of poor white people at all.
	It's not just poor white people, middle class white people in Britain in particular have been squeezed perhaps the most of anyone.
	And that's not just me, you know, being self-interested.
	Yeah, we could show you our pay slips to demonstrate, but we won't.
	Kevin Fox says, if I were Nigel, I would explain the comments were made when I was 13, right after Keir Stalin explains why three Ukrainian rent boys set fire to his old house and a car.
	If he won't, I wouldn't.
	Yeah, where is that?
	Where is the explanation for the rent boys?
	That story is buried deeper than something.
	Demand answers, Kier.
	Harry demands video footage.
	I demand the live leaks.
	No.
	Dear me.
	Jim Bergi says, honestly, sick of even hearing the word racist at this point.
	They think literally everything is racist, so who cares?
	Correct.
	Like when dealing with colonialism, the only time they acknowledge the English race is when it's being used as a stick to beat you with.
	Yeah, I like pointing this out, that English as an ethnicity only exists when we're being racist or colonial.
	So basically when we're being better than other people.
	Or when they're trying to extort us for reparations.
	That's still related to colonialism, isn't it?
	I put it under the same umbrella.
	I always like to think, you know, like, oh, so you're British just like that, so we can split the bill then.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	And when, who's that actually going to in that case, if all of these people are just as British as I am?
	My favourite thing is to bring up people, you know, particularly with online Indians who are perhaps some of the most annoying nationals online.
	I bring up the fact that many Indians participated in colonialism in India.
	Are you going to demand reparations for the money?
	This is some money that you don't, isn't it?
	This is something that we should remind the Irish as well when they're fetching as they like to do, which is the Irish were also heavily involved in colonialism as red shirts and other administrators.
	We're very grateful for you for that.
	And it was glorious.
	And don't be ashamed.
	So, stop shirking your own responsibility there, you stupid mix.
	Ed Miller-Ban, harnessing Enoch's spinning grave.
	Brilliant.
	Brilliant.
	Bowie wrote a prophetic song about this 50 years ago called Save Your Machine.
	AI will destroy humanity not by killing us, but by creating so much peace and abundance that it drives us insane.
	It begins with President Joe once had a dream.
	Sleepy Joe Much.
	I do love some David Bowie.
	Richard Schmeer, Elon is right whether you think that makes him Marxist or a bugman or not, or whether you think he's even saying it's a desirable outcome or not.
	If AI continues to improve, that is a big if.
	As we've spoken about and with some programmers in here have said as well, whether AI is actually intelligent is still up for question.
	Whether it's capable of doing all of these things that he thinks it is and says it will be is still a huge question that is unanswered.
	There will eventually come a point where AI can do literally every job.
	There'll be nothing for people to do and no reason for them to do it.
	The economy will collapse and people will turn to hedonism to get through the day.
	While Elon keeps making these predictions, I don't recall him ever saying that this is the outcome that he wants.
	In fact, I'm pretty sure he said he'd rather we don't have AI at all.
	But if it must happen, it must be our AI and not China's.
	I don't believe that this isn't an outcome that Elon wants because, for one, he is a technocrat and technocrats all adhere to the same technocratic logic and mentality.
	So I do disagree with you there.
	And I've got to say, that is not a rosy picture of the future that we are painting here.
	There's a reason it's being compared with the Tower of Babel.
	If it's going to cause all of humanity to collapse, maybe it isn't something that is worth pursuing.
	There's also one job AI will never be able to take, which is human advocate against AI.
	It might surprise you.
	It might surprise you.
	Sam Weston, Harry, talking of socialist utopians with insane ideals and visions.
	Look up King Camp Gillette, the founder of the company that would eventually become Gillette, and his outline for a mega city called Metropolis in a book he wrote called The Human Drift, available on Amazon.
	He explained, among other things, that would not only possess a perfect economical system of production and distribution ran by a united company, but would also be powered by Niagara Falls.
	That's very interesting.
	Yeah, interesting.
	Do you want to read through some of yours?
	Yeah, sure.
	Sophie Liv says, well, even then, these tactics can't have been that good.
	You just went ahead and listed the three countries with the lowest birth rate.
	Yeah, no, I agree with you.
	It doesn't solve the human problem.
	The human problem is a spiritual problem, and that's separate from the economic problem.
	But yes, you're absolutely right.
	Cumbrian Kulak says, I'd advise one of you to read The Welfare Trait, How State Benefits Impact Personality by Dr. Adam Perkins, psychiatrist.
	So you might like him, Josh.
	Okay.
	Might not like him.
	It says, I'm not a big fan of psychiatry.
	But I do admit that sometimes they can have good ideas.
	So I'm not a zealot necessarily.
	Okay.
	It's a very succinct book, full of data, quite a tiring book, not cheap.
	Ed Dutton references it a lot.
	Okay.
	Grant Gibson, let's talk about what the socialists get right.
	Immediately lists the seven things.
	Come on.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	You didn't expect me to become a socialist, did you?
	But they're right that there is an economic problem.
	Also, worth noting what caliber of Poles went to Britain.
	They have a bad reputation in Poland, too.
	That's a fair point.
	Like I said, I'm not trying to smear all Poles with that.
	I have heard from a few people now you're reminding me that, yeah, it was a lot of the scrounging Poles that Poland didn't want come over.
	But that's the same when you've got a welfare state that's open to the world.
	That's the same even with the Islamic countries laughing at us, going like, thanks for taking all our criminals, suckers.
	Yeah, pretty much.
	Like, it keeps happening.
	That's why we need to stop giving welfare to the world's criminals.
	Yep.
	Roman Observer says same thing happened in Italy.
	They had a mixed economy in the 50s and 60s.
	And then privatization and deindustrialization in the 90s.
	It's a real problem.
	Like, industry and keeping people employed should be a top state priority.
	And nobody on the right is addressing that.
	And we've got two more honorable mentions from Daniel Butchers and Zesty King, both saying happy birthday.
	Zesty says, Now you're 30, you're officially old.
	I felt it before, but now it's nice to have a formal title.
	I can't believe how young you people are.
	Well, thank you.
	I'm not even.
	You're making me feel younger already.
	Yeah.
	You'll get there, Harry.
	Quicker than I'd like as well.
	Finally, your ginger hair will go grey.
	You guys can keep just like coping and telling yourself that I'm ginger, but what do you identify as blonde?
	Ah, it doesn't matter.
	I've got lots of redheads in my family.
	My hair goes a little bit red in the sun, so it's nothing to be ashamed of.
	Just come out and proud as ginger, Harry.
	I'm not saying I'm ashamed.
	I'm saying that it's just not true.
	Oh, you're deep in the ginger closet.
	And oh, that's a random name from the side.
	It's always better to be a ginger than an anagram of one.
	And on that note, I think that's where we should end.
	Thank you all very much for joining us today.
	I think it's been a good time.
	So we'll see you again tomorrow where we can depress you even more.

▲