The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1307

Dec. 1, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:27:13

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1307

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Load Seaters episode 1307 for Monday the 1st of December 2025.
	I'm your host Luca joined today by Brother Stelios.
	Hello everyone.
	Brother Firas.
	Hello.
	Good afternoon.
	And it is the 1st of December so we are now fully in the Christmas period.
	Ladies and gentlemen, Merry Christmas.
	Feel free to shout it from the rooftops far and wide.
	Get the spirit going.
	And with that, I also just want to say at three o'clock, we've got Firas's Real Politique.
	What are you talking about today, Firas?
	Oh, fun topics.
	We're trying out a new format, actually, which is to do several things together.
	So we're doing Hezbollah, Iran, Venezuela, and Ukraine.
	10-15 minutes on each of them and questions from the audience.
	And yeah, we'll see how it goes.
	All right, so be there for that.
	And also, just to say, as regards to what we're going to be talking about today, of course, we are basically going to try out a new format.
	So for the foreseeable future, rather than when you tune in for the podcast and you get three different segments about three different things, what we're going to do is we're going to have a broader, deeper discussion of one particular topic.
	And we think that you'll benefit from this by having a richer analysis where we have more time.
	We're not thinking about the clock and other people's segments.
	We're just able to have a really in-depth discussion.
	So we hope that you enjoy this test of that formula today.
	And we're looking forward to going through what we have to discuss because what we're discussing today is the absolute train wreck that was your party, which has been officially decided by the members.
	It is now, always was, always will be your party.
	And we're going to be talking about the very Soviet operation that it seems to be operating with.
	It was hilarious.
	You know, I can't stop laughing.
	No.
	I had hysterical laughter incidents in the office today.
	Yeah.
	I kept looking over at Stelios thinking, oh my gosh, he's wincing in terrible pain.
	Actually, what it was, he was creasing so hard from the laughter.
	So let's just start recapping, shall we, of how we got here.
	So obviously, the political landscape in Britain is changing very, very rapidly at this point.
	We're seeing what could well be the total extinction of the Labour Party and of the Conservative Party and the total death of Blairism.
	What we're seeing is that more and more people now we're moving away from the 20th century where we voted Labour because my grandfather voted Labour.
	And actually what we're seeing now is a greater plurality of choice.
	And what we're finding is when we look at the polls and the way that the trajectory seems to be going is that actually people are not satisfied with the middle ground.
	They either want something populist right or populist left.
	And obviously, whilst we know who the figurehead is for the populist right, even though he recently came out and said he wasn't a populist after all, but is Nigel Farage non-the left nonetheless.
	And but then we have the left.
	Now, the left is a very, very interesting group of people in British politics because by interesting, you mean worthy of an insane asylum.
	Yes, yes.
	And they do love their splinter groups, right?
	These are the people's front of Judea when it comes to British politics.
	So we had, of course, two figures there right in front of you, Jeremy Corbyn, Zara Sultana, both of whom used to be members of the Labour Party.
	In fact, I'm sure from some sort of fever dream, Jeremy Corbyn used to, in fact, be the leader of the Labour Party.
	Yes, one time.
	That was one of the worst performances of a Labour leader against Bojo.
	Well, here's the thing, right?
	On the one hand, he did gain more votes than Keistana managed to obtain in the last general election.
	However, alternatively, he also lost, let's not forget, as well as Bojo, he also lost an election against Theresa May.
	Yes.
	And that, in and of itself, means that there is something somewhat dismissive about your politics, right?
	The country has to really reject you to choose Theresa May.
	Yes.
	And so what we have here as well was that ever since, well, before Jeremy Corbyn had even announced this party, we had the case of Zara Sultana after she had the whip removed from her saying, well, I'm going to go to Jeremy Corbyn's party and I'll co-lead it.
	She said, like a Democrat, she just accepted that she's going to have one of the most important voices in this thing.
	Presumably, and this is quite important actually, because she was already a sitting MP.
	Yes.
	So the implication is that because you are in parliament, you've already been voted in via Democratic mandate of your constituents, you are going to have a more important voice in it.
	And we'll put a pin in that until we deal with how the rest of the MPs have fared in the party as we go through the conference.
	But also, just to say as well, of course, Jeremy Corbyn hadn't even announced a party at this point when she just leapfrogged, stole his thunder and said, I'm going to go work with Corbyn and we're going to destroy you all.
	We're going to take the effing lot, as she quoted on stage, which is really the brand of her politics.
	And so then let's not forget that ever since Zara sort of jumped the gun on this and then forced a way into it, she also went on to basically scam £80,000.
	£800,000.
	Sorry, £800,000 out of your party membership.
	She basically set up an independent website.
	Yes.
	Not associated with your party.
	Not the official channels.
	No.
	Used the mailing list of the party to raise money, managed to raise £800,000, still hasn't repaid that amount in full.
	No.
	There's a legal dispute over it, and she clearly violated various European and British privacy laws by accessing the members list improperly.
	And they could sue her for it, but they're sort of stuck with her because the more radical, not Islamist elements of the party seem to like her, as proven by the fact that she managed to raise £800,000 in a matter of days.
	Sure.
	Maybe she's going to launch a crypto coin for funding the party in the days to come.
	Maybe.
	That would be an interesting fusion between the modern oligarchy and the old school communists.
	So really, the point is as well, that this has not been a smooth birth for a party whatsoever.
	This has been a deeply ugly affair full of very, very volatile personalities.
	And really, if we're just looking at this objectively, obviously Jeremy Corbyn should have just led it.
	Obviously, Jeremy Corbyn should have just led it.
	I don't know, because whoever loses many times, especially must leave.
	And he just doesn't want to go away.
	No, this is, I understand that, but also he has a cult of personality around him that would get the party's some forward momentum in its early stages.
	Also, he is the seasoned veteran.
	He is one who has been in parliament itself since the 80s.
	There are many pragmatic reasons.
	Yeah, but you're not thinking as a leftist.
	From a leftist perspective, nothing of this.
	I'm thinking as a pragmatist.
	Yeah, they are not pragmatists.
	You've got to get exactly true.
	But you're not pragmatists.
	No, they are not.
	And so ultimately, as well, we have to remember that Zara Sultana leveled some seriously cool allegations against your party being a sexist boys club, which, you know, I say was a hell of a pitch.
	I actually almost joined, to be honest with you, after hearing that.
	But nonetheless, I ended up not doing because in the end, the sexist boys decided to leave the party.
	And so if they're not there, I'm not going to go for it either, unfortunately.
	That was the only thing keeping me interested.
	But ultimately, so you have Iqbal Mohammed and you also have Abnan Hussain, who both have left the party very, very recently, just talking about the, well, Zahra Sultana.
	It's worth pausing there and going a little bit into the sort of idea behind this.
	Sure.
	This was supposed to be uniting the left, largely around the cause of Gaza with the Islamists.
	The left sees that there's an opportunity when it comes to the Muslim vote, who are dissatisfied with the Labour Party because of its support for Israel.
	Jeremy Corbyn was seen as a staunch and reliable leader because of his long history of opposition to Israel and Israeli expansionism and things of that nature.
	He got the five Gaza MPs with him and launched something called the Independent Alliance, which was supposed to be a block of MPs advocating for this kind of interest with Jeremy Corbyn as a nice figurehead similar to Zach Polanski for the Greens, giving it a genuine left-wing flavor in order to bring together these two constituencies.
	Then Zara Sultana pointed out the bloody obvious, which is that this is going to be an incredibly sexist movement by definition, because the five Gaza MPs are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.
	And that is the culture.
	And so she, in a way, triggered a purity spiral in the party, which has led to endless comedy, as we are going to explore in a moment.
	So he brought the quiz for Palestine and they told him, thank you very much.
	Now we're getting control.
	Yes.
	We're here to take the whole thing.
	And so we have this towards the start of the conference, this remarkable clip.
	I shan't play it all, but of Jeremy Corbyn being interviewed about it.
	It's been a little bit bumpy over the last few months in the setup of the party.
	Well, we didn't find a handbook on how to form political parties.
	So yes, there have been, of course, there's been some problems.
	Of course, there's been some stresses and strains.
	But I tell you what, it's got a lot better in the last few days and weeks.
	And we're going to get through this weekend and we're going to come out of it with an effective, alternative left political voice in our society.
	And that's something I'm going to be very proud of when we've achieved it by Sunday night.
	Zara Sultana, obviously, is another big voice in this movement.
	She's here.
	Are you two friends?
	We're colleagues in Parliament and we obviously communicate.
	And so we'll see each other tomorrow morning in the conference.
	She'll be speaking there.
	So, would you consider her a friend?
	Well, she's a colleague.
	That's one way of saying it.
	He can't lead a party.
	I mean, we know it, but he can't lead it.
	He seems to me like the academic type.
	He's there, he thinks he's the professor dealing with unruly children.
	It's not like that.
	He's literally the Trotsky.
	Yeah, he's stupid.
	He's literally the Trotsky.
	He's the theoretician.
	He doesn't have Trotsky's military genius.
	He doesn't have Trotsky's organizational genius, but he is very much the theoretician, but the organization has passed him.
	He's naïve.
	In a way, but also, what's more as well, so you have Jeremy Corbyn on stage, you know, and occasionally you say the word Palestine, and everyone cheers, and this is all very agreeable, and everyone can get around this.
	And then, also, of course, Jeremy Corbyn will call for nationalization of public utilities, water, all these sorts of things.
	Not even policies on principle, I actually think that the broader British public could not get behind when it comes to like keeping our basic utilities in the hands of the British people, not selling them off, privatizing them to foreign contractors and companies, right?
	That I understand that, or worse, hedge funds, or worse.
	But ultimately, the problem is that Jeremy Corbyn is saddled with a party of his own making.
	And really, what you have when you had back, you remember back to his time when he was leader of the Labour Party, of course, and there was that whole push for momentum, right?
	So, you had all of a sudden you had this organization within the Labour Party itself, momentum.
	And this was bear in mind, it's 2017, so we're really snowballing into the hellhole that was the peak of woke and it just being everywhere.
	And momentum were like a really zealous pressure group that were, of course, just pushing for this all of the time, being very, very zealous and basically just bullying people into accepting their positions, which is something that they still do through Antifa and through the left relationship with violence is long-standing, well-established, and sort of integral to their worldview.
	It's his Frankenstein.
	Exactly.
	The thing is, as well, that those momentum types, the sort of type of momentum character that we saw from all of those years, have obviously tagged along for the ride now.
	And the thing is, they weren't particularly impressive then, and nor would I particularly say that they seem like the most charismatic, enlightened thinkers of our day now.
	The first one you showed is a bit impressive.
	I mean, I think.
	Yeah, you'd vote for the force is strong inside her.
	I mean, the vision of these people, the image of these people shaking their fists, knowing how little upper body strength they have is comical.
	You cannot see this and say, Yeah, but it's the feast of the people.
	Yes, the feast of the people.
	Yes, I suppose so.
	Of course, the communists were very out and proud, and just the Communist Party themselves went to go and check it out, see what good words of alliance and solidarity, I suppose, is the word I'm looking for, could be had with your party.
	But ultimately, the thing is as well that you had untold numbers.
	And honestly, I could have drawn so many examples of just the types of speaker, the type of things you remember back when Callum used to do those Labour Party conference montages.
	And the point is, they've all just moved with Corbyn.
	Hello, my name's Mick Spey Gibson, and I'm a non-Barnery patient.
	Give it up for the trans people, everybody.
	Thank you, comrades.
	And it is an honor and a privilege to be stood speaking on this podium today.
	The reason I am saying yes to socialism in this political statement is because, as a trans comrade, as a disabled comrade, as a mad comrade, and a neuro-divergent comrade, I think she's going to be the next leader.
	I can't imagine why Adnan Hussain couldn't proclaim himself to be a trans comrade.
	Yeah, no, I don't know before his trans comrades.
	It's a real head scratcher.
	One thing I want to say is we have two Muslim MPs leaving the party, but that doesn't mean that your party now is only the trans party.
	No, no, not at all.
	Because if you played the previous clip, not many people are clapping.
	Most people aren't happy there.
	It's awkward.
	Yes.
	It's just cringe.
	Yeah.
	It's genuinely cringe.
	It's openly awkward.
	However, they have built that the highest quality that they seem to regard is inclusivity.
	Yes, right?
	They never shut up about inclusivity.
	And so it doesn't matter whether you have deadweights and albatrosses and just things that are dragging your party down.
	Yes.
	you know, just the dead weight, you know, to create a leaner beast.
	So you can...
	That was a beast for sure.
	You, uh...
	You take my meaning.
	Yes.
	And so ultimately, you're in this place now where they're just being embarrassed because all of their lunatics rise to the top.
	And because also the other thing as well is that they place the word democratic, right?
	Democratic is simply a synonym in their books for good.
	If something is not democratic, then it is not good.
	If it is democratic, then it is good.
	I want to disagree with one word you use, which is lunatics.
	I think they should be very much incentivized to carry on what they're doing.
	Oh, they have all the incentive they need.
	Yes.
	I don't think they're lunatics.
	No, they're not going to waver.
	Don't worry.
	You're going to be entertained by all of this for many months, possibly years to come, Stelios.
	I'm not sufficiently entertained yet.
	Well, how about this then?
	Hi there, Conference.
	My name is Erin from Glasgow.
	When this party started, it included two MPs who are openly transphobic, one of whom was a landlord.
	This party preaches unity and equality for its working class members.
	I'm sorry, I need to stop you there for calling them transphobic from the rostrum.
	Can you please stick to the motion?
	Well, now she disagrees with it.
	When someone from the right does it, it's you're straightforwardly transphobic.
	Two members who allegedly express transphobic views.
	I love that.
	One of them's even a lambda.
	This is the thing.
	You feel the depth of resentment animating this man.
	Yes.
	And I think this guy was kicked out of a previous party.
	Is that him?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	So basically, he was allegedly texting a 13-year-old child, essentially grooming.
	And this is why he ended up getting kicked out of the greens.
	The fact that there is, as you pointed out earlier, no gatekeeping mechanism to keep somebody out who has apparently been involved in grooming to the extent that the Scottish Greens rejected him is quite serious.
	So they don't have a way of saying what do we want and who are we because they insist that this is inclusive and so on.
	Whereas the only way to make anything function is to be exclusive.
	Absolutely.
	Yes, of course.
	And one thing to add here is that it seems to me that the reason why they don't do this is ideological in their minds.
	Yes.
	Because they seem to be peak woke.
	Yes.
	And what they'd have, what they say here is the following.
	This person is more oppressed than the 13-year-old because most probably the 13-year-old is part of a group that in the hierarchy of the oppression calculus is higher than that.
	And their modus operandi involves the principle: whoever screams, they're more oppressed.
	Whoever is a member of the more oppressed groups, their demands must be met.
	Yes.
	Absolutely.
	How can you argue against this?
	But now it's interesting because you do see that this person starts saying transphobic, and the panel says no, it's not.
	Because they don't want to poison Corbyn's political life.
	This is queer for Palestine, finding out what Palestine is like.
	Yeah, well, this is really the point, isn't it?
	That basically, every single person, I put Good Money on it, in that conference hall, basically agrees on free Palestine.
	That's the single thing that every single one of them can unite around.
	Everything else in there is really hotly debated.
	And not just that, the nature of this thing is that it must include a purity spiral.
	Because no matter what you do, you are never good enough.
	This is why I keep saying that the left is, in a very real sense, a bunch of Christian heretics.
	They accept that there is a better thing that must happen.
	They don't accept that they themselves are at fault.
	They insist that everybody else is at fault.
	So they don't accept original sin.
	They just believe that everybody else is sinful.
	And so the temptation is to always accuse everyone else of not being sufficiently ideologically committed.
	And so the first thing that you do when you get on stage is to look at your allies and call them transphobic because they're not pure enough in their ideology.
	Now, from a Christian perspective, we all know that we fall short.
	We're invited to be more like Christ.
	This is what we're supposed to be doing.
	But we accept that we have original sin and therefore we will fall short.
	For them, it's sort of inverted.
	They themselves, because they are the ultimate victims, are the purest of the poor, of the pure.
	And therefore they are by definition the best.
	And everybody else is failing and isn't good enough.
	So this thing is deeply built into it because it doesn't correctly balance original sin and divine grace.
	They believe that they're full of grace.
	They believe that they are the righteous.
	They believe that they are the good.
	And everybody else, including their own allies, including the people who they need to work with to have any hope of any political success, is bad.
	Including the people who go right to the top of the party.
	Yes.
	Because it's just not the greatest optics, really, when Zara Sultana is boycotting her own party's conference on the first day.
	Now, this actually goes, ties very well back to all of this monarchy, because ultimately it's down to the fact that Zara Sultana was deeply offended by the fact that people who were part of other parties had gone to the conference and saying, well, no, if you're a part of another party, obviously you can't come here.
	And, you know, you have a past record of these parties.
	And so Zara Sultana, basically a bunch of people were expelled from the conference and were told they couldn't come in.
	And Zara Sultana boycotted it on these lines.
	It's like, Zara, you're letting in people like this.
	I have thought after stories like this, you'd want your security and your gatekeeping to be tighter, not slacker, right?
	But all of a sudden, you're humiliating your own, who the sort of figurehead of your own party by making him have to answer all of these awkward questions on live TV, which is really the only thing you've brought to the party for the past quarter of a year that you've been with it.
	And so you get her saying things such as these.
	Would you like those who've been expelled to be reinstated?
	Absolutely.
	They shouldn't have been expelled in the first place.
	These are groups that don't even run in elections.
	And if we are here to be the home of the left, a home for all socialists, this is not how you treat members.
	This is what the Labour Party did, where people were expelled.
	Members were treated just like volunteers, not allowed to actually make decisions and just thrown on the scrap heap.
	We're here to treat people with respect and end a toxic culture that is ridden with leaks to the press, smears, allegations, and sabotage, including what happened to me before I went on BBC question time.
	I will just note as well, all of the things that she is accusing the party of being guilty of are not things that you hear, I mean, for all of their faults, and I obviously despise them, but they're not stories that you hear every single day coming out of the Green Party.
	No.
	No.
	Right?
	They're just not.
	Zap Polanski, for all of his flaws, just managed to win a leadership election and said, follow me, boys, girls, and themes.
	We're going to, you know, go and become the greatest left-wing force in the country.
	Give him time.
	Well, I'll give him time.
	Well, I will give them plenty of time.
	But my point is that it shouldn't be this ugly, this early on in the process.
	When Corbyn says, oh, there's no handbook on how to start a party.
	It's like, well, Jeremy, there's been hundreds of political parties started throughout history.
	And he's in the process of writing the handbook of how not to start a political party.
	Yes.
	So there's that.
	It's so true.
	And so you eventually get...
	This was hilarious.
	It's fitting.
	My name is Tam Tamdean Burn from Glasgow North Branch and Glasgow Branch Committee of the Union Equity.
	I agree with Penny what she said, that there is an absolute necessity to start trusting the membership.
	But also, there is another necessity.
	We have been shown, proven time and time again here, that we cannot trust those who are in the positions of power and leadership in this organisation up until now.
	They have failed us, comrades.
	So it's abundantly clear that the membership must be given power in the branches.
	We must be given immediately all of the data so that we can reach out to the 850,000 people who showed a great interest in this party.
	We've got to win them back again.
	By 850,000 people, I assume he's referring to the newsletter that you could sign up for for free that everyone was signing up to with fake email addresses.
	I mean, you know, I popped a few in.
	But it's, you know, well, I want to keep up with that.
	How I ended up signed up to your party.
	And so you have all of a sudden, like the first conference, this war between the people who have set it up, the reason that there is even a conference happening in the first place and the membership who are going not ideologically orthodox enough.
	What I don't understand is how did they choose their speakers?
	I mean, how did you choose a bunch of speakers whose first act is going to be to rail against you?
	I suspect there's a there must be a vetting process or an IQ test or something.
	I don't think they have IQ tests.
	Aren't these racist?
	Very.
	Maybe they have a non-racist IQ test.
	And though it does seem like democracy has won out in one way, we can finally agree that your party members vote to make the name permanent at what even the Guardian are admitting was a tense first conference.
	And so when Zara Sulzana said back in July, it's not called your party, well, it is now.
	So that's nice.
	At least we can do away with all that guessing.
	If you go back to Corbyn's face on the Guardian article, this is just the look of desperation.
	This is Zarathustra with a lamp searching for an honest person.
	We're a bunch of lunatics.
	It really is just that part.
	He actually made it, and it's absolutely deserved.
	Right.
	Absolutely deserved.
	Absolutely.
	But the thing is, as well, right, Corbyn, this entire time, his entire answer has just been, well, the right thing to do is always just whatever the membership decide is to do.
	And that is a terrible, terrible decision.
	Because, look, on the one hand, right, you have the Tories are a perfect example of the absolute opposite, right?
	They didn't listen to their membership, their grassroots whatsoever, right?
	All of the Tories, everyone just voting in the Tory constituencies is saying less immigration, less immigration, and the Tory elites are just doing whatever they bloody well like, right?
	So yeah, sure, that's bad.
	But it's alternatively just as bad a decision to basically just hand over the trajectory of this party to whatever the majority decision is all of the time.
	Because ultimately, as well, there's no synthesis of how those two things can work together.
	What if you pick to nationalize all of the utilities?
	And then also you're trying to basically get rid of Islamophobia, right?
	The conference votes to abolish Islamophobia.
	Well, not to abolish Islamophobia, the term, but you know what I mean, to go hard on Muslim hate, and then simultaneously, you know, to go down the LGBT stuff.
	Like, all of these views are incompatible, but they're all going to be voted through.
	So you've got no direction here.
	A leader, Jeremy should have just led from the front, said, look, it just needs one person to be there as a head of the party, to turn up to question time, to turn up for the interviews and all those sorts of things, you know, when it comes to the leadership debates.
	But ultimately, what we're going to do, have a committee of 10 sat on question time next to the Tory MP and the Labour MP.
	And it's just absurd.
	There's a famous speech from Khomeini where he goes, I will, what was it?
	We will do exactly what the people want and we will do whatever it is that is the will of the people and I will interpret the will of the people.
	And this sort of combines the two perfectly because he says, I have divine authority to rule over you and I will do what you want.
	Right.
	And that's kind of necessary because that's the art of leadership.
	You want to appeal to your public.
	You want to do what they want, but you can't do everything that they want.
	You've got to be able to manage this process and to manage the party.
	But it's completely impossible under these kinds of principles.
	Well, the other thing to say as well is that it's one thing to say the people and it's another thing to say these people.
	Yes.
	Not all people are the same.
	Yes.
	And so leaving it to these bright individuals might be something of an error.
	And so ultimately, what we get down to is really what I feel like is such a spiritually, you know, insincer thing, which is for a gent just singing John Lennon's Imagine whilst leaving the party conference.
	I mean, that really does just wrap it all up, doesn't it?
	It's just an airheaded conference of idealism and dreams, and none of it is really based in reality.
	And it's just pure utopian, well, dystopian from my point of view, nonsense, of course.
	But ultimately, I cannot see how on earth, after this first conference, this party is going to be able to go forward.
	Because as a recent MP for the party, Adnan Hussein pointed out, couldn't think of a better gift to reform than calling for communism/slash Marxism, all hopes of a mass, all-encompassing movement burnt to the ground just to create another fringe, factional echo chamber of which this country already has many.
	Yeah, but it was always going to happen, Adnan.
	The sense of political reality that the Muslim MPs have far exceeds the sense of reality that the rest of your party seem to have.
	Oh, you're absolutely right.
	They're much more politically realistic than there was a person who was sitting on the podium there.
	She was shouting at one of the delegates who was coloring outside the lines in his speech.
	And some of the people in the crowd started to get rowdy.
	And her response was, I visited my father in Evin prison.
	You will not intimidate me.
	Now, for those of you who don't know, Evan prison is a notorious jail in Iran where Khomeini, the arch-Islamist, sent pretty much all of the communists before he executed them.
	So what you have in this party is a bunch of people who are fundamentally incapable of learning.
	This is a woman who her father presumably was sent to Evan, possibly because of communist ties.
	She is Persian.
	She is Iranian.
	She understands the limits of the Islamist alliance with the left.
	She's seen in her own country how when allied with the Islamists, everybody got pretty much executed.
	And then she decides, you know what I need to do?
	I need to join another coalition of leftists and Islamists.
	That's the way forward.
	Why?
	Because of Gaza.
	But this time it will work.
	But this time it's going to be different.
	Real Islamo-leftism's never been tried yet.
	Islamists have a much better sense of reality than the leftists because they understand how to wield power and they understand how to pursue power.
	Whereas for the left, it is largely a purity spiral.
	And they get stuck in this purity spiral all the way.
	Well, honestly.
	Sorry for us to just interject, but this is a what you're saying, and just to fully bolster you on this point, is when Adnan Hussain wrote this piece saying why I walked away from your party, I'm just going to read you a single paragraph from this.
	And it makes it more sensible than anything you will have heard over three days at that conference, right?
	So Adnan just says, the problem is ideological absolutism masquerading as progressive principle.
	There is a strain of thought on the left that sees socially conservative views as a pathology to be corrected.
	It is rooted in an assumption that improves someone's economic conditions and their social attitudes will inevitably liberalize.
	This is historically, sociologically and politically illiterate.
	Human beings are not economic widgets.
	People hold on to their traditions, beliefs, and identities because they are meaningful, not because they are materially convenient.
	Adnan Hussain makes the case for remigration.
	Yeah, cheers, Adnan.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	I mean, he's telling you exactly the truth.
	He's telling you that people will be who they are, regardless of where you put them and regardless of their economic conditions.
	And this is why, you know, South Africa or Rhodesia, shall we say, to be less controversial, Rhodesia was a functioning country where Zimbabwe cannot be.
	So people will be who they are.
	And there is this reality that's staring at us in the face.
	And it's a very inconvenient reality, including from a Christian perspective.
	But it is the truth.
	And you just have to admit it and you have to face it.
	And these guys can't do it.
	All they want is this endless spiral of more and more progressivism until everybody is a non-binary, atomized, nothing bugman from nowhere.
	And this is the ambition.
	And so ultimately, after the great first launch of the Your Party Conference, what we've walked away from all of this with is some illusion that they care deeply about Palestine, some hints that they also are willing to die on the hill of trans rights, and that they believe so there's actually two genocides going on, and somehow what's happening to trans people and what's happening to Palestinians,
	they both fit the category of that word.
	Yes, there's no stretch there, they're totally dissimilar, similar things, sorry.
	And so, and also, what's more, we've had it being boycotted by one of its highest-profile people on the first day.
	And then Jeremy Corbyn, who founded this entire thing, has gone in at the beginning of it just kind of expecting to walk out as a leader and has basically been overruled by a 51 to 49 percent win by the membership to basically say, actually, Corbyn, we'd rather go for a collective leadership style.
	And so it truly is just the Soviet Union all the way down with factionalism, with anti-Soviet behavior, anti-trans behavior, with misspeaking and having to say, oh, there's no problem.
	And obviously, ultimately, Stalin will be loving this.
	Yeah, it's beautiful.
	It's beautiful.
	And you sort of have to look at them here and ask yourself: if you're slightly conspiratorial, have they been infiltrated?
	Or are they just like this?
	Because one of the things that the CIA came up with was a manual in 1944 as to how to sabotage everything.
	The beautiful thing about it is that these people just do it naturally.
	They don't need the sabotage.
	They don't need any ideas.
	Exactly.
	They themselves are the saboteurs.
	So, in this piece here from this manual from the CIA, which I thought was absolutely hilarious because when I was looking at what your conference, your party was doing, I thought, well, that's exactly right.
	That's exactly what they're doing.
	So, one of the pieces of advice is talk as frequently as possible and at great length.
	Illustrate your points by long anecdotes and accounts of your personal experience.
	This is fundamentally the trans speakers that we saw.
	You know, talk to us about how you're oppressed.
	Their issue is the most important issue in the room.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
	The trans speakers.
	Haggle over precise wording.
	Are they transphobic or allegedly transphobic?
	Again, refer back to matters decided upon.
	So don't let anything be resolved.
	They've been kicked out of the party or they've left the party, but we must insist on discussing them endlessly and blaming them for one of them being a landlord.
	Be worried about the propriety of any decision.
	So has this been properly voted on?
	Is this really an expression of the will of the public?
	This is exactly what they were talking about in your party.
	And I don't, I'm not conspiratorial enough to think that they were penetrated by the CIA in order to make them do this.
	I think they're genuinely like this.
	Well, one thing to say as well, Sargon Stanis.
	I wanted to say that these cases, no, talk large assemblies, they offer great case studies for how things are not working.
	Yes.
	So if you want to compile a list of how to disrupt things when they are working, all you have to do is look at people like that.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, it's just beautiful.
	And then the fact that they constantly insist on this purity spiral, on being holier than thou, on accusing everybody else of not adhering properly to the revolution and to what the workers want and to this and that and the other.
	They don't see that it alienates everyone else.
	And they can't have enough pragmatism to say, well, we're going to compromise on point B in order to achieve objective A.
	Well, one of the sayings of politics, isn't it, is that battles have to be small enough to win, but big enough to matter.
	Yes, I suppose.
	But for them, everything matters equally because there is this spirit of Puritanism that animates them.
	And they can't control themselves.
	And it's very reminiscent of the early struggles within the Communist Party and the Soviet Union, in that the various factions tried to align together against Stalin, but Stalin was the superior administrator.
	And he managed to slowly take control of the party apparatus and pull the rug from under somebody like Trotsky, who was far more capable in terms of eratory skills, theoretical skills, and even military organization.
	So this kind of machinations are deeply entwined within the Soviet tradition and within the leftist tradition, where you see them endlessly stabbing each other in the back and plotting against each other.
	So to get Trotsky out, Stalin allied with two others of his comrades who were considered to be on the right of the party.
	There's a bit of a lesson there.
	And they decided to forego the idea of endlessly exporting the revolution and launching an armed revolution across Europe in order to bring about the communist utopia and to focus on what was attainable within the territory that they controlled, that is the Soviet Union.
	And in the long term, it worked because Stalin ended up in control of all of Eastern Europe and half of Central Europe.
	So it was a proven strategy.
	But that didn't satisfy Stalin because after he consolidated power, he then turned on his former allies and had them executed.
	And you see this mindset in the left.
	Why?
	Because they are animated by resentment, because they're animated by hatred, they're animated by anger.
	They want to create a utopia now.
	Whereas every Christian will tell you this is a fallen world, we are meant to suffer in this world until we reach the next one.
	Actually, I believe Trotsky once literally promised.
	He was making fun of religious leaders and saying, let them promise you a utopia in the afterlife.
	We will deliver to you a utopia here in your lives.
	And this is the exact same thinking that is animating your party.
	It's the same exact mindset.
	It's just slightly tinkered with.
	Instead of the traditional workers' proletariat, you have the oppressed classes, including the Muslims who are viewed as one of the oppressed classes, including every ethnic minority, including obviously the sexual minorities/slash deviants.
	And these are the new proletariat.
	And from the outset, you see them attacking their leaders and saying, you're not delivering enough to us.
	You need to be more pure ideologically.
	You need to give us more.
	But if you looked at what the CIA recommends to sabotaging a workplace or sabotaging an organization, well, that's exactly what they're doing.
	They're constantly questioning all of the diktats of management.
	They're constantly saying that we are being failed.
	They're going back to the old and settled debates and reopening those.
	And they're doing everything that they can to create chaos.
	That isn't because they're actual CIA saboteurs.
	No.
	That's because of their very nature.
	That's because of who they are as people.
	Well, you saw this actually.
	This was another thing from the conference.
	They were almost like a purity test.
	Yes.
	Basically, will you confess yourself to be an anti-Zionist?
	Because Zara Sultana got up there and said, I mean, anti-Zionism and everything.
	And there have been times where Corbyn's not quite said that.
	But also, it's like, they want you to say it so that there won't be...
	Oddly enough, the one form of infiltration they do seem to be worried about is Zionist infiltration of the party.
	But why would they bother?
	Why would they have to?
	Yeah, why would they have to infiltrate you when you're such a farce?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Because to them, they're not such a farce and it's all about direction and they don't want to be stirred towards the other direction.
	And yeah, I mean, I agree with you.
	I don't think that we have to appeal to a possible infiltration of your party by any three-letter agency.
	They themselves seem perfectly capable of destroying their own self-selves.
	Yeah, that doesn't mean that there can't be, that there isn't any such infiltration.
	It's that, you know, just we don't have to believe that there is because their own temperament is destructive.
	And I think that at the end of the day, what we want to say here is that character is destiny.
	Yes.
	And it's the very character of these people and the leftists that are involved there that sort of makes destruction, if not inevitable, 99.9% probable.
	Yes.
	Right.
	And I think that we need to focus a lot on character because it shows a lot about their composition, the composition of the party and their modus operande, their actions, the way they operate.
	And speaking of character, we have the ancient Greek virtue ethics course, which is the ethics of character.
	You can buy it from here and pay it in three-month installments or pay it in one go if you want.
	Here we have the I'm giving you a course about the development of ancient Greek virtue ethics and the importance of character and how a good character leads most probably to a good life and how a bad character leads invariably to disaster.
	And speaking of that, I want us to focus a lot on character and bad character in this case.
	Because if we look at two variants, it's their composition, who they are, and who they address, and their actions.
	We will see that these two things are informing one another and are leading them into a downward spiral.
	They themselves, because of their character, think that this is a purity spiral.
	Of course, in their own minds, it's always they themselves who are doing the right thing.
	Everyone else is compromised.
	They are the pure and the good.
	Everyone else is evil.
	Everyone else is evil.
	And also, what's to as to the point, sorry, just to say, Stelios, with this particular individual as well, because it's, oh, well, I'm disabled, I'm neurodivergent.
	It also, what they're basically saying is, I don't have to work on myself.
	Yes.
	I have reasons not to do that, legitimate reasons.
	We will go to this individual.
	But one thing I want to start with is the principles.
	What this party that was built a few months ago in July 2025 by Corbyn and Sultana, what they claim to be.
	Oh, well, Sultana jumping on his back, yes.
	Yeah, already in the collective unconscious of the people, it's Sultana there in the leadership, right?
	So it's Stalin that has topped Trotsky.
	Right, so basically their temperament is the Russoian temperament, if you want a word, a philosophical word.
	It's unless there is, unless everything is great, everything is bad.
	They are going to make, they're going to look at the world and try to find any problem and justify mobilization of a political nature, strikes.
	They're going to make life unlivable for everyone else because they get fixated with any problem around the world.
	And it's not a coincidence that one of the main parts of their rhetoric is, and this is a party in the UK, is that without Palestinian liberation, there can be no other sort of liberation.
	Because as Biden said, it's all connected.
	So in their mind, it's all connected.
	They look at themselves as parts of a globalist elite or parts of a globalist movement, if not necessarily a few aristocratic individuals.
	They look at themselves as part of a globalist and global movement.
	And they try to look at the world and say, so long as the world in its entirety is as I want it to be, which is socially just in their own minds, we are going to constantly do strikes, political activism.
	We're going to disrupt everything to bring down capitalism, to bring down the wealthy, to bring down the nationalists, to bring down everyone who has a position.
	And the main things they're for is socialism, radical redistribution of wealth and power to address poverty and inequality.
	Again, it's the issue that they can't understand that life involves hierarchies that form naturally.
	They really hate this.
	They want nationalization of banks, food production, construction, internationalism and peace.
	Everyone says that they want peace.
	Yeah, I mean, that's not particularly new.
	But when they're talking about internationalism, what they want is the liquid.
	Some of them want the liquidation of ethnic identities.
	The others are there because the former think that that's what they're for.
	They're doing it domestically so they can impose foreign cultures on this one.
	Sorry to interrupt you, but this was a thing in the Soviet Union in that it was decisively against the Russian identity, but it was fully supportive of all of the other minority ethnic identities to the extent that it helped invent literatures for them and it helped invent identities for them.
	And this was because they didn't want any Russian nationalism interfering with the identity of the USSR.
	They saw that as a threat.
	And it continued to be a threat until Hitler invaded.
	And then it was national rhetoric again.
	Exactly.
	Aiden appeal, Mother Russia, and the defense of the fatherland and all of that.
	So this issue, what you're seeing here is a very low IQ repeat of the original communist debates.
	Well, what was Mark's line about history being first buy tragedy and then die fast?
	Yes.
	This is the farce.
	This is the farce.
	But one thing to add to what you're saying, which is in agreement, is that leftism, to a very large extent, has common origins to extreme republicanism.
	Within the Republican tradition, there are several variants.
	One of them is very extreme, and it says for there to be a balance of power, which is one of the desired things in that tradition, you have to have balance of wealth.
	You have to have material equality.
	So extreme Republicans frequently have created this philosophical mindset for the communists to take over.
	And they're saying, so long as there is communist distribution of wealth, we don't have a balance of power and we need to equalize power.
	And to equalize power, we have to bring everyone down.
	And then there is the contradiction there with respect to whether there can be natural hierarchies of other sorts, even if everyone has the same wealth.
	And there absolutely are.
	And they seem to be completely unable to stomach that truth.
	And their temperament is essentially otherworldly.
	It's anti-life.
	They can't understand how life works.
	And because they can't understand how life works, they want to keep everyone within that illusion.
	And everyone who bursts the bubble of that illusion, they're demonizing.
	They're calling an enemy of the people, the far right.
	They're calling Starmer a controller position for the right.
	And given everything that he's done to make work unrewarding and to make living on benefits to be far more rewarding than working, it's very ironic that they would say that.
	One of the first things in the CIA manual, which I wanted to mention, was that always make patriotic remarks.
	Or in this case, remarks that insist on your ideological purity, if patriotism isn't the actual objective.
	Because for these people, patriotism is bad.
	Except when it comes to patriotism of other countries.
	Their self-government, solidarity, there, it's all game.
	We all have to be patriots for Palestine, comrade.
	We all have to be patriots for Palestine.
	Please don't clip this.
	They just clip this.
	Yeah, they just clip this.
	But, you know, your own patriotism is bad.
	But for them, this whole insistence on ideological purity, it's.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And one thing I want to say is that we have been saying this for a long time.
	I've said it at least 10 times.
	But one of the ways to band together, to form an alliance of incompatible groups, is by inventing a common enemy.
	That's why we constantly hear about the far right and the demonization of right-wing extremism, the epidemic.
	No, there aren't that many right-wing extremists.
	There are, there are not that many.
	There's definitely not an epidemic of the type the left suggests.
	And definitely, Zach Polanski is not the authority on who is a Nazi and how many people are right-wing extremists.
	Right.
	So, this is really important to bear in mind because if you look at the composition of who these people are and who they claim to whose benefits they claim to put forward, you do see that they are groups that have completely different ideas of what constitutes peaceful coexistence.
	You can't have the trans people, the feminists, and the Muslims.
	These three groups are incompatible with each other.
	We constantly have the battle between the trans side and the feminist side.
	We have the battle between the trans side and the Muslim side and the feminist side and the Muslim side.
	These groups can't coexist because they themselves show why multiculturalism can fail because there can be so vast discontinuities with respect to how people value things and that you can't have common rules that everyone accepts as good binding rules for conflict or reconciliation.
	Well, what's more as well, that when you have them coming across with the feminist and the trans messaging or the Muslim messaging, whatever it may be, okay, but like even let's say hypothetically that you were managed to just top-down, basically get society to imbibe and accept these sorts of moral judgment systems, right?
	Even if you were able to do that, you're also ideologically possessed by constantly replacing the domestic population with new people.
	So every single time you think that you've re-educated someone, you've just brought in an entire new stock of people that also are going to have to take those values because they're coming from places like Africa and the Middle East who obviously don't believe such things.
	And so actually, it puts you in the state where not only does everyone need to be re-educated, but also the process of re-education never stops.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So one of the things that we see here is that they are in a very introspective mode, an introspecting phase.
	That's why we don't listen about this for the other party, the Green Party.
	They'll do the same.
	They'll do the same.
	It's the same kind of people, the same temperament, the same character.
	Yes.
	But right now, the Green Party is attacking.
	It's extroverted.
	They are in an introspective phase because what we see here is people within this party trying to capitalize political power and capitalize their support within the members of the party.
	Can I try to rephrase what you're saying?
	Zach Polanski is the smarter operator because he's identified an external enemy and gotten his people around him to attack them.
	Whereas Jeremy Corbyn is the less capable political operator because he's trying to build this broad coalition through a conversation rather than through a focus on a common enemy.
	It's either this or it's they're in a different phase.
	Right.
	Polanski just now starts to kickstart the party, to make a fuss about it.
	They are in the more introspective point here.
	But if you see them on TV or panels, they're not going to be introspective.
	They're going to have the same rhetoric with Polanski.
	Everyone's a Nazi who disagrees with it.
	Yes.
	Right.
	So here, for instance, we see the trans person Luca showed us the video.
	Almost no one was clapping at the end.
	Very few people were clapping.
	So these are incompatibilities that are very obvious.
	And again, here this with this person who was allegedly accused of sending messages to 13-year-olds.
	13-year-old, yes.
	He accused Adnan Hussein and Iqbal Mohamed of transphobia.
	Then the panel came in.
	No, you can't rush to say they're transphobic.
	They get the benefit of the doubt.
	No one else does in the entire country and the entire West.
	Yes.
	The MPs who are no longer even in the party get the benefit of the doubt.
	So now the point is that you can't have this together.
	This coalition can't function together, especially if it's very decentralized, democratic, and functions as an assembly.
	That's why, because it sort of functions this way, lots of people are leaving.
	Adnan Hussein and Iqbal Mohammed that you mentioned before, they're leaving.
	This is why Stalin, as general secretary of the Central Committee, was able to actually make sure that everybody was singing on the same hymn sheet.
	And if they weren't, they died.
	They don't have this kind of power, and so they end up in this kind of chaos.
	So their composition leads to destruction.
	They're either going to destroy themselves or they are going to become incredibly absolutist within the party and be very socially corrosive.
	And if they govern, if they ever govern, I hope they don't.
	I don't think they will, especially with these guys.
	If I look at the potential there, they're not going to do it.
	But if they ever did it, it would be a disaster.
	So it's a combination of disaster and absolutism.
	And they are in complete.
	They are just, they live in a different planet.
	So they decided for a collective leadership model over a single leader.
	Right.
	So I don't know exactly how this is going to play out, but it seems to me that it's just going to be chaos.
	And this is one of the things that I think Montesquieu gets really correct.
	And I want to get Firas to read Montesquieu, the Second of the Lords, especially, and also Jehuca.
	He says, whenever you want to have a popular form of government, the only way for it to work is if the spirit of equality isn't translated into the administrative dimension of it.
	You must have a leader.
	You must have a leadership.
	And I'm actually surprised that they do this because if you see the whole way in which they communicate violates their demands, their demand for equality, for balance of power, for equal influence of each voice, it can't happen.
	I don't know in what planet they live in, but if you have 800 people, 1,000 people in a room, they can't all talk together.
	You have to have a panel.
	You have to have a process.
	You have to have a mechanism there.
	People must follow.
	It's 101, and it's really funny that we have to mention it.
	You're posing the most important problem.
	You're really hitting the most important problem.
	Withholding evidence.
	No, no.
	If you want to have an egalitarian party, it must have a unitary leadership.
	Even if the objective of your party is supposedly egalitarianism, there can't be egalitarianism and leadership.
	There has to be solitary, unitary leadership.
	And this is something that they can't understand because of their ideology.
	But this is what political reality dictates.
	You're absolutely correct.
	And what I want to say here is that this shows how they're entirely ideological and they don't do, they're not realists.
	They don't do empirical research.
	They don't consult their common sense or reason because it's so abstract.
	It's one thing to say I'm for equality.
	That's a slogan.
	People do it.
	People say I'm for equality.
	I'm for freedom or for nation.
	People do it.
	I'm for community.
	I'm for faith.
	People do it.
	There's a part of the slogan bit, the marketing bit, where it's understandable.
	You have to somehow communicate with a slogan, cast wide nets, and try to bring many people to you.
	But then you have to give flesh and blood into your idea.
	You have to say how you understand faith, how you understand liberty, how you understand equality, instead of just being incredibly abstract.
	What we see here is a kind of temperament.
	We see the temperament of people who are entirely unrealistic.
	They can't understand life.
	They can't accept basic facts of life.
	They can't accept their limitations.
	And they have been given a rhetoric that they can use against each other.
	And what we see here is a kind of behavior, a kind of character here.
	And that's where I'm going.
	Character is a pattern of disposition.
	To have society, you need to have the ability to reconcile, the ability, differences, the ability to make peace.
	These people who are behind every purity spiral and every occasion that they use in order to speak, it's an occasion where they're talking about injustice somewhere.
	These people can't be members of society.
	They can't make peace.
	And of any association.
	They can never shut up about how important peace is.
	And let me be clear, I'm not saying that all of them are going to end up in prison.
	That's not what I mean.
	I'm saying that when you're focusing on creating a party and any form of society, it could be even a small group.
	You need to have mechanisms of conflict resolution.
	And you need to also have the character to accept conflict resolution and accept that in the grand scheme of things, compromise sometimes is better than just destruction.
	But Stellios.
	They can't understand it because of their temperament.
	Their temperament is fundamentally anti-reconciliatory.
	Maximalist demands.
	People with maximalist rhetoric and maximalist demands, they frequently can't get together, form societies.
	They try to find every sort of excuse in order to destroy everything.
	Because that's how they're making their name.
	That's who they are.
	And also, when we're talking about politics and public discussion, this is how they build an audience.
	If you build your audience by screaming, I'm not compromising with respect to anything, yeah, you're not going to be a member of any society unless you're going to be its absolute leader.
	What you're describing here is not just a cult.
	There is a religious dimension to what you're talking about, which is fundamentally that these people lack charity and they lack humility.
	Everybody wants to be a leader.
	Why?
	Because they're driven by envy.
	They don't have any humility that says, actually, on questions of Greek philosophy, I defer to Selios.
	On questions of English literature, I defer to Luca because I know they're better informed than I am.
	So they don't have any sense of humility.
	They believe that they all must be leaders and they don't have any sense of charity, which is to say that, you know, maybe this guy's perspective is different from mine for a good reason.
	Maybe this guy sees the world slightly differently because of legitimate experiences, a deeper understanding of something, something that I should interrogate, rather than prematurely judge.
	So what you're describing here isn't just a sort of philosophical character.
	You're right to describe it in philosophical terms, and it genuinely helps.
	There is also a spiritual dimension to this, that these people are genuinely spiritually badly formed by their own choices because they focus so much on envy and they focus so much on anger and resentment that it's impossible for them to say, hey, you know, these people that are working around me might know better about winning elections.
	Jeremy Corbyn has been winning elections sometimes in the teeth of opposition of his party most recently, and therefore I have something to learn from him about electoral politics.
	They can't say that.
	They must insist, no, no, no, no, I also have to be a leader.
	They also think this because in their minds, there should be equality or they should be the leaders.
	And the spirit of equality is the spirit of resentment.
	And that's the thing, that anger, however justified, because there are lots of angry people.
	Some of them are justifiedly angry, others not.
	It's not a good council.
	No.
	Emotions must be tempered.
	You need the virtue of moderation.
	And what you see the left doing in, I mean, arguably from the time the left was born, is they're attacking the notion of reason.
	And especially in postmodernism.
	Exactly.
	Especially in postmodernism.
	They tried to co-opt rationalism and the Enlightenment before with classical Marxism.
	They tried to portray themselves as scientific, but then it just didn't work for them.
	And ever since postmodernism, 50s and 60s, they're trying to say, no, the logos itself is phallogocentric.
	It's sexist, which means they have been given a rhetoric in order to formulate their own resentment and appear as if they come from some, as if this comes from somewhere that is justified.
	Because now we know that what they're doing, social justice worries.
	They just scream, I want social justice, and everyone's suddenly supposed to clap.
	No, that's not how it works.
	The thing is, as well, they are deeply inspired by the recent victory of Mamdani in New York.
	They look at what happened in New York with Mamdani and just talking about the ordinary cost of living and taxing the rich and all of this.
	And they look at Mamdani's victims.
	Taxing whites.
	Right.
	And taxing whites.
	And they look at this and they think, ah, here is an example of a successful template for how to do left-wing politics in the 21st century, not taking into account that Mamdani won in a city and they are trying to win as a party across an entire nation.
	And ultimately, though you have many pockets of New York-esque behavior in Birmingham and Bristol and London and all these sorts of places, as Carl and Dan recently looked at in that long analysis they did called the English Revolution, ultimately we're seeing now actually the English themselves are starting to form into ethnic voting blocks, even if not consciously.
	They're doing it.
	And that parochialism is really the place where the political voting capital lies in our current landscape, not in retreading the wokeness of five years ago, going back into that hellhole where no one was happy.
	It felt like it was all bread and circuses.
	We never got to discuss anything substantial.
	Have to go back to the most basic facts of what a man and a woman are.
	No one wants to return to this.
	No one wants to return to this, but in their hubris, and exactly as you say, Ferras, in the sense that they feel this such sense of righteousness and resentment for their lives and the failures that they've just to say, this is going to be a party entirely without, and the conference is obviously a symptom of this, but it will go on, entirely without message discipline.
	This is a party that will have no message discipline whatsoever.
	It will be full of just whatever they want to say in the moment, saying this thing to screw over that guy within your party, put him in an awkward position, and so on and so on.
	Like, obviously, I have critiques of the way that Nigel Farage is governing reform, but I ultimately understand why you need some level of we're all on one page fighting for these particular policies, and the British people find these policies popular.
	You're not getting any of this from your party.
	No, you're not, because they're incredibly ideological in their thinking.
	This is extremism of ends.
	I'm not saying it's extremism of means, but this is extremism of ends.
	They have completely unrealistic demands from life and from society, and they can't stomach the fact that they're unrealistic.
	And I want to say that they seem to me to be heading towards the dilemma.
	It was going to happen.
	Either they're going to have a sort of vanguard party, a sort of administrative hierarchy, or they're going to completely destroy themselves.
	And here we already see it.
	They have a panel there.
	Sorry, it's 101, but it's good to remember of remind ourselves of basic facts.
	But we have a panel there.
	They are trying to form an administrative hierarchy.
	And because the crowd is completely unruly, they call for people to for people's mic to be cut and shut off.
	And they say, no, you're off topic.
	You're straying away.
	They're doing what you said before.
	Right.
	We're having style and erasing people from photographs.
	Yeah, but also we have people talking about anecdotes and talking about things that they find important, the panelists don't find important.
	And here's cut the mic, then a woman was kicked out of it.
	So, yeah, that's all it happens.
	You can't have a collective making decisions without having an administrative faculty there.
	It's 101.
	Even the most primitive tribes have a tribal elder, or at least a council of elders, in which there is the elder of the elders.
	Yeah, and there is the culture of respecting the elder.
	Here there isn't.
	No, not at all.
	There is a culture of respecting experience.
	There's a culture of respecting hierarchy.
	Here, this simply doesn't exist.
	And it can't exist with this ideology because this ideology is based on spiritual illnesses.
	And one thing to end this is that we have this again, Brother Luca played all my clips before.
	I'm not going to play it.
	Brother Selius did not consult on the shift clip.
	I mean, I had to, you put so many of them.
	I had to look at, I had to include something.
	Right.
	The party pardons.
	Habibi UK here says a very angry man at the Your Party conference rails against those in positions of power.
	They have failed as comrades, almost a complete sham.
	Here's talking about your party.
	So because that's what their character is, they're going to do purity spirals within them.
	Because in the circle, whoever screams more oppressed, whoever shouts more, they're going to be the leader.
	Yes.
	The loudest voice.
	It's not an abstract Concept where a thousand voices are of the same tone and volume, and you listen to all of them, it's it's chaos.
	That's why you require a hierarchy.
	Yep, they hate the noverer notion of hierarchy.
	So, I do think that it was a very, very entertaining first conference from your party.
	Um, I would say that I'm looking forward to the next one, but um, they'll make it that far.
	So, uh, sorry, ladies and gentlemen, by the way, I meant to say at the beginning, do um, feel free to send in your rumble rants and YouTube comments as uh you usually would, but rather than break it up and sort of stagnate them through three separate segments now, we'll just focus on keeping them in the discussion here at the end.
	So, I'll go to the rumble rants and the uh YouTube comments.
	We've got Tom Rat says, Your party should probably avoid putting trans rights on the pedestal alongside the Hamas sexuals as they are liable to push.
	Yes, very, very witty, Tom.
	Uh, that's a random name says the echo is what happens when you have only one segment.
	The laws of physics break down.
	Yes, but as you can see, we have repaired them.
	Uh, Tom Ratt also says, Oh, yeah, another point to the audio.
	And uh, Logan Pine says, I think your party is a good representation of the modern left, disorganized, corrupt, all already, and leaderless at a time when it needs leaders.
	Yeah, absolutely, couldn't agree more.
	Uh, Forsaken on YouTube says, Hey, lads, my father has been taken back for heart surgery, so would appreciate your prayers.
	Much love from the great United States.
	Well, you have them from me, sir.
	Um, um, Smathluk says, uh, I just had pork shoulder and it was delicious.
	How wholesome!
	Glad to hear it.
	Uh, oh, and Merry Christmas to all of you, of course, as I go through the comments.
	Um, one topic for an hour is boring and repetitive, says testing.
	Well, we're trying it out because we've had um some comments pointing to the contrary, and some people felt like segments were too brief and didn't go specific enough.
	So, um, we'll just see how things run, and we'll obviously take all the feedback on board.
	Uh, it also says, um, I'm a number one poster at $4.
	Uh, new to oh, it's repeating the same general point.
	All right, testing.
	Well, we'll take that on board, and we'll obviously listen to what other people have to say as well, and we'll figure out communists, and so we will not go on a purity spiral.
	We will take your feedback.
	We will take your feedback.
	Uh, no gulag, no gulags required.
	Uh, so comments, comments from uh the uh section, we've got oh, yeah, sorry, let's go to video comments first, and then we'll go through them at the end.
	The spirit of the postmodern leftist xenophilia seems to come from Heinlein's stranger in a strange land.
	In the story, humans try adopting Martian culture.
	It is also where Elon got the name for his AI, Rock.
	In the book, Rock means to understand something so well it becomes part of you.
	My opinion of these LARPing nerds can be summed up rather succinctly.
	Xenos fear me, wow, yeah, that's my favorite mech suit.
	I've got to say, that's a really impressive effort.
	So, yes, LARPing is cool.
	Okay, just hear those labels ding a lingering ding-a-ding-a linger.
	That's grim.
	That's really, really grim.
	All right.
	Those are the video comments for today, Samson.
	Yep, any more?
	All right, great.
	Omar Awad says, your party might be ironically inaccurate, accurate a name.
	The entire membership has main character syndrome and thinks it's literally their individual party.
	Yes.
	Not Corps.
	It's a really good point.
	A party cannot function without some level of realpolitik.
	But if they ever knew what that meant, they'd probably call it fascist.
	It's a really good point, Omar.
	Yes.
	Cumbrian Kulak says, as funny as it is, seeing these leftist nutters imploding in on themselves, a benefit of them not being total f-ups would be splitting the green vote.
	I'm a bit worried the greens are being underestimated by those on the right.
	Never underestimate a leftist fanatical desire to stop the far right.
	Yeah, no, absolutely.
	Really, if one thing does trip up the total victory of Nigel Farage, it will be a remarkably organized ground campaign of basically just tactical voting.
	Right, that's what it'll be.
	However, on paper, by the numbers, by the polls, by just looking at which opinions the British people have on particular issues, there's no reason why reform shouldn't have the numbers.
	Yeah, I mean, never underestimate a committed minority.
	Change comes from the committed minority, not from the majority of the will of the majority.
	So this is a very important point.
	Another thing, as well, just to say from the point of that could well be the case for the Greens, but also the last remaining stragglers that vote for the Tory party have just got to understand that it's over.
	Yes.
	Right?
	They've just got to vote for reform at this point.
	Because otherwise, what are you going to do?
	You are really just wasting a Tory vote at this point in order to potentially muck it up and get some green lunatic involved.
	Do you think Peter Hitchens will vote for reform?
	No, not at all, because he absolutely detests Nigel Farage.
	And, you know, I get it, but at the same time, it's not.
	Well, I mean, he'd just rather we all left, wouldn't he?
	Through the scrucible, whatever that is.
	Yeah.
	Michael Drabelba says, Firas, have they been infiltrated?
	Well, no, it's a waste of time to infiltrate a group who's too stupid to recognize its own stupidity.
	Exactly.
	Yeah.
	Exactly.
	California refugee who says, Insharah, comrades, only not quite spelt as it sounds.
	This is a microcosm of the United Kingdom.
	A Muslim woman scamming a bunch of radical leftist English people whilst playing the victim.
	Yeah.
	I mean, honestly, if Jeremy Corbyn had had an ounce of strength in his character, he would have just basically said, Zari, you're out.
	You're just a troublemaker.
	Yes.
	We've had nothing but problems and scandals from you since you joined.
	But he won't do that.
	So he'll just have to suffer the consequences.
	Jimbo G says, don't ask me how, but I have had previous dealings with the mad comrade.
	I insist on asking you how.
	Yeah, go on, Jimbo.
	Leave us another comment.
	Don't do tell.
	They live off of the state and are basically a full-time activist.
	A few years ago, they were part of the Northern Independence Party, which is exactly as it sounds.
	Well, as a northerner, I can promise you that's not my party.
	I'm for England.
	Your tax money is going towards their Bob Villain tickets and then playing GTA 5 online when they aren't protesting.
	But apparently, that's not enough.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	More welfare.
	Lord and Quiz to Hector X says, point of personal privilege.
	Please don't clap as it's extremely triggering.
	Sorry.
	Triggering.
	Please don't clap as it's extremely triggering.
	And when too many happen at once, it sounds like a small explosion which could frighten our Muslim comrades.
	You're all being very witty in the comments today, I have to say.
	Full marks.
	Carl's evil twin Vosh says, ever wonder why socialist and communist countries need a tyrannical dictator?
	Watch this conference.
	I also just can't help but think of in Hayek's Road to Serfdom about how he just talks about how the worst always rise to a top as well, because they're just the ones who are willing to do the most brutal, Machiavellian, dishonorable tactics, obviously, in order to assert their will over everyone else.
	And I mean, we could see that here as well.
	All of a sudden, someone from the very committee who decided that the committee was a wonderful idea so long as it elevated their voice.
	But then why can't their voice go even higher, having the main character syndrome that I think it was Omar rightly pointed out that they all have?
	So yeah, this could get really, really messy and much more comical yet.
	Roman Observe says, when Zara said home of the left, I pictured a crumbling slum full of waste and drugs.
	Yeah, at least the Soviets built things, you know, to be fair.
	So these are really the farcical version of the Soviets.
	Yeah.
	Richard Schmear says, what is it with you Brits that makes you think that the only two options in nationalization are selling off to private foreign companies?
	Why do you never mention the obvious correct answer of privatizing to a local British company?
	Because in the past privatizations that have gone to British companies, I believe they ended up in the hands of hedge funds.
	And there is no difference between the hedge funds and the foreigners at the end of the day.
	They're both after extracting the most amount of profit and shipping it off.
	So if you're going to sell to a British entity, you've got to sell it to an industrial entity that has a stake in expanding its operations in Britain.
	So there's got to be some constraint on it.
	But yes, you're right.
	It's slightly different for the Americans because of the vastly larger pool of capital that exists in America.
	I mean, people don't understand the scale of the American economy compared to everybody else.
	So it matters.
	Cumbrian Kulak makes a great point here, which is that Piers Corbyn is so much cooler than Jeremy.
	Piers goes on stop the boat marches and was anti-lockdown.
	He also goes on anti-trans marches.
	And because I was at one of those, I ended up with his speaker.
	And I've offered to give it back to him, but I have no way of tracking him down.
	Yes.
	We've also got Henry Asham says, weren't a few of the Lotus Eaters signed up to the initial your party mailing list?
	Yes, I still get them.
	By one of the production team, couldn't you sue the party for a GDPR breach on behalf of, well, it's just nice to be kept in the loop and I'll settle for that.
	Yeah, they're sending emails to me as well.
	Yes.
	Why?
	Because someone in the production team signed us all up as a joke.
	I want to find him.
	Yeah, I'll tell you who it was afterwards and we can frog them.
	Also, Time Stealer says, if your party is like the death of Stalin, when is Zukov going to come in?
	I tell you what, I do love that film.
	Have you seen that?
	Yeah, it's a good film.
	It's a great film.
	Fantastic film.
	Yeah, and he's going to play me in the Lotus Eaters movie.
	We established this on the Lad's Hour as well.
	And we're going to be played by Pedro Pascal.
	Yeah, because you're feeling socially anxious.
	Yeah.
	And Kevin Fox says, your party have infiltrated the Lotus Eaters tech and condemned the panel to the seventh circle of hell.
	Oh, dear.
	Well, we soon got out of it, didn't they?
	a bit dramatic.
	It is quite dramatic, Kevin.
	But we emerged out of it.
	Firas hopes that the seventh circle of hell is worse than hearing echoes.
	An echoey mic is the seventh.
	Dante speaks of this.
	And then honourable mentions, Cumbrian Kulak says, shout out my Raal brother, who has started listening to Lotusiers.
	Well, sensible chap.
	He also says, Firas, a slightly unrelated note, but would you consider getting friars, Spiritu and Bailey on?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	That's a good point.
	Wonderful.
	Alpha of the Beta says, please do an entire segment with the echo effect.
	You guys sound epic.
	Oh, right.
	So you could hear it too.
	I was a little unsure on that point.
	And then Josep Yenikomishenyin something says, I like this new format, although it might be useful to use both, depending on how slow or fast the news is on any particular day.
	Yep, well, like I say, we're more than happy to take all your feedback on the new format.
	We'll see how it goes.
	We'll see how it goes.
	The thing is that very frequently we have conflicting feedback.
	Yes.
	Right.
	And I'll say this just it's a funny anecdote, but every now and then there are people who say please interrupt with white pills.
	Do white pills.
	We can't do black pills.
	And then if a white pill goes out, no one watches it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	So conflicting reports.
	But nonetheless, we're very, very glad to have you here.
	We really hope you've enjoyed the show today, of course.
	Do join Firas at 3 for Real Politique.
	And we will see you at 1 p.m. for the podcast tomorrow.
	Have a good day.

▲