The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1309

Dec. 3, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:07

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1309

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello folks, welcome to the podcast of Lethesis for Wednesday the 3rd of December 2025.
	I'm John Ba-Harry and Josh.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about how we're living in the long shadow of the British Empire as we are about on the precipice of abolishing trial by jury.
	Not something I thought I'd ever actually say.
	I mean who would have predicted it?
	wasn't in the Labour Manifesto and I thought it was, I thought it'd be worth us having actually a deep dive into this quite.
	It'd be quite a circuitous route that we go back through the events that have led us to this point.
	But frankly, it explodes a bunch of the liberal myths if you actually just trace it in a linear fashion as to what has happened and what the people now in charge of our country say and do.
	Well, I mean, if you're going to say liberal, this is all a function of managerialism.
	And for managerialism, efficiency, as Jacques Allul would put it, a technique, the idea of putting efficiency as the sole god to worship and aim towards and strive towards.
	Liberalism over top of managerialism is basically just a thin veneer.
	It doesn't really mean anything.
	Yes.
	And, I mean, they're essentially one in the same when it comes to their worldview.
	They view just, and the British Empire is just as guilty of this as anyone else, of viewing human beings, all empires, operate in the same way, as just numbers.
	Numbers on spreadsheets.
	For example, the reason that there are loads of Bangladeshis in Burma is because at the end of the 19th century, we were like, okay, we need plantation workers.
	So we just imported something like 300,000 Bangladeshis into Burma.
	And now they're called the Rohingya.
	And the Burmese are like, they keep committing acts of terror for some reason.
	It's because, of course, they have a different religion.
	And so the British Empire is just as guilty.
	I mean, this is why we had so many Indians in Africa that then came back to Britain after decolonization, which we'll go through all this in a minute.
	But the point is, we are living in the long shadow of the British Empire, and it's costing us our liberty now.
	And so the world has changed.
	Everything has changed, in fact.
	And we are still using the same sort of governing software that was literally brought in and implemented in this country during the empire.
	And so we need to basically update the way that we look at the rest of the world because we haven't.
	And now we are kind of being cursed by it.
	So I guess we'll begin.
	This is the British Empire in 1948.
	Pretty bloody expansive, isn't it?
	We were marveling at this before we went on air.
	It is amazing that our tiny little island managed to control all of this.
	Yeah, and we're certainly paying the price for that now, just AI.
	But yeah, so this is what Britain looked like at the close of World War II.
	And so you have, after the closed World War II, the period of decolonization.
	And it just begins really quite quickly with India and Pakistan becoming independent in 1947.
	The end of the British Raj, the partition of India and Pakistan is created.
	They kill a million people in the process and blame us for it somehow.
	Typical, really.
	Yeah.
	Then you get the independence of Sri Lanka at the same time.
	1948, Burma becomes independent.
	Israel is established, ending the British mandate of Palestine.
	Ireland in 1949 formally leaves the Commonwealth.
	Get the Irish Free State.
	In the 1950s, Africa and Asian decolonization begins.
	You get the Sudanese independence.
	We have the Suez Crisis in 1956 in the same year, which is the point that shows that Britain is no longer a world empire and can't act as a global imperial power.
	In 1957, Ghana becomes the first independent sub-Saharan African nation.
	Then this is the sort of African independence wave that begins.
	1957 again, you get Malaysia gains independence.
	Then in 1960 is known as the Year of Africa.
	17 African countries gain their independence.
	Not just from Britain, by the way.
	There are also, of course, French and German ones, or probably not German ones at this point.
	But there are French ones as well, and probably other ones.
	From us, though, Nigeria gains independence in 1960.
	Sierra Leone gains independence in 1961.
	Uganda, 1962, although Uganda, I don't think it was ever actually a colony.
	I think it was a protectorate.
	1963, Kenya, after the Manmau Rebellion.
	64 is Malawi and Zambia.
	And then in the late 1960s and 70s, you get 65 is Rhodesia, declares its illegal independence because of based Ian Smith.
	He's like, I'm not going to pick up a commie, mate.
	Unfortunately, they lost that because we sided against them.
	We recognized their independence in 1980, instantly.
	In 1966, Barbados gained independence.
	Then in 68, Mauritius.
	In 70 to 74, the Caribbean nations gained independence.
	Fiji, Bahamas, Granada, things like that.
	And then in 1973, you get Britain's presence in most of the east of Suez territories and withdraw from the Persian Gulf.
	In the 1980s and 1990s, the final major decolonization steps.
	So Zimbabwe gains full independence.
	In 1981, Belize is independent.
	That's a tiny nation somewhere in like Americas.
	St. Kitts and Neves independence.
	Namibia gains independence from South African rule.
	And capped at the very end with the British handing Hong Kong over to China.
	We still do control some like remote islands in various oceans, miles away from anywhere, but basically that is the end of the British Empire.
	Now, this, I think, is an important thing to remember because in 1948, we decided to pass the British Nationality Act.
	Now, the British Nationality Act created the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies.
	Sorry, first, is it worth speaking briefly about why it is that we decolonized?
	Yeah, why not?
	Because, Josh, you have a copy.
	We lost the war.
	I do.
	Well, yeah, I've actually been reading this at the minute.
	It's Imperial Obituary by Major General Richard Hilton, who fought in both world wars.
	And it's very, very interesting.
	Very much recommend everyone pick this up because it's put in such sort of pleasant to read terms in a way.
	Not that it's a pleasant subject, of course, but he's a martial man and he's quite plain speaking in how he puts things across, but also fair-handed.
	Obviously, he has a bit of a bias towards Britain.
	However, he does acknowledge, he does acknowledge, like, listen, there are competing interpretations of this, and he acknowledges them.
	But it's interesting as well because he talks a great deal about why it was Britain and nowhere else, which I found very interesting because I've not really heard that addressed very much.
	Oh, go on.
	What's the reason?
	So he's basically saying that there was competition between the Spanish and the Portuguese and the Dutch, as well as, of course, the French.
	And the Spanish basically dedicated too much money on trying to proselytize people, as well as losing some key wars.
	The Portuguese were just too small to out-compete the other European powers.
	Same with the Dutch.
	He's saying that they were good.
	They managed things well, but they were just too small a nation to succeed.
	And therefore, it came down to England and France, basically.
	And we had the jockey, and eventually we basically just outmaneuvered the French politically and also militarily.
	Exactly.
	Crossed them at like Trafalgar.
	But the actual details of it, I know that sounds quite common sense, is fascinating because it breaks down like the individual conflicts.
	And particularly, the thing that I really enjoyed was how we basically took over North America from the French.
	I learned a lot there.
	I look forward to reading it myself.
	Harry's got my copy.
	Well, you lent me.
	I don't know.
	It's only short.
	I'll get through it in a couple of days.
	But from what I remember, I know that AA did a lot of content on Hilton's work when he found it.
	I think he's probably the reason that some of his books have been republished now, because it's that one and the 13th power that I think whifflings have.
	I remember AA speaking about it and putting forward the idea that what he got from the books was essentially that a number of administrators of the imperial empire by the beginning of the 20th century had essentially ideologically given up on the idea of it and had in fact gone complete the opposite way around, saying that actually it's wrong of us to be doing this.
	We need to be shepherding these nations so that they are ready and fit for independence.
	So it was starting to come to the long, they were starting to view history and the way that it was about to proceed as a tunnel through to the light of independence for all of these nations rather than an empire that had existed for its own sake.
	So this is, I think, a really unspoken aspect of the end of World War II.
	That one of the few people who really speaks about this is Julius Evola, right?
	Where he, you know, the arch pagan traditionalist who is who points out that the victory of World War II was the victory of ideology over tradition.
	It was the, and the ideology is the ideology of equality.
	It is just manifested in different ways.
	In America, you have a more liberal view of equality.
	That someone like de Tocqueville, yeah, no, it was de Tocqueville who wrote Democracy in America, isn't he?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	He explains in Democracy in America, the principle of equality is the primary principle.
	The Americans would approach anything other than a civilization that had a sort of caste system within it.
	And that's why black slavery in America is such a sore wound.
	Because the primary commitment of the Americans is to the concept of equality, social equality, rather than liberty, which is actually a corollary of that, he views.
	And so, and of course, in the East, you have the Soviet Union, which is explicitly communist, and therefore equality being the explicit avowed stated principle.
	The only real two winners of World War II were the Soviet Union and the American states.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, yeah.
	And then they immediately erupted into conflict with one another.
	A Cold War, yes.
	Sure.
	But one of the interesting things about the period of decolonization that I got from reading, I've not read the full book yet, but it's called something like Generation 68 by Kerry Bolton.
	Was that decolonization and the attempts of the US and the USSR to try to attract each of those countries that's decolonizing into its own sphere of influence?
	Because, of course, when you're in a period of empires and the USSR was definitely an empire, America became an empire.
	You can never have civilization without empire of one form or another.
	It becomes a question of whose sphere of influence that you exist within.
	And the argument can easily be made, especially when you look into how much of the student movement and the student outreach programs in the 1950s were illicitly being funded by the CIA, formerly the OSS, through things like the Congress for Cultural Freedom.
	The period of decolonization has a huge impact on the internal politics as well, because the US is trying to advertise itself to all of these nations that are suddenly independent.
	Say, you should align with us.
	But the USSR can easily just point to the US and point to all of these African countries and say, why would you want to align with them when they still have no civil rights for blacks?
	Why would you want to go align with them when they still have laws like Jim Crow?
	And then all of a sudden in the 1950s, you see all of these massive sweeping changes.
	Eisenhower bringing in the National Guard to desegregate schools after Brown v. Board of Education.
	So I think people don't realize with the period of decolonization how much the geopolitical conflict that was going on kind of forced the hand for the internal politics of the US in particular to shift.
	And of course, with the US being the center of the Western world, the UK and other countries within its sphere of influence then have to shift alongside it.
	It's not so difficult.
	Sorry, I want to pick up on that point because that's exactly correct.
	Because what we're seeing is essentially moderate liberalism and extreme liberalism represented in America and the Soviet Union, both now vying for essentially world domination.
	And that's what the Cold War is.
	Which version of liberalism are we going to get?
	Communism or American-style neoliberal capitalism.
	And what this did is completely invalidate the European empires.
	Because the European empires were not built on liberal principles.
	They were built fundamentally on the principle of inequality.
	That the conquerors have a superior place and therefore are in some way superior people, not necessarily genetically, but have a superior culture or legal system or economic system or military.
	And so this is an expressly hierarchical way of viewing the world.
	And it has its merits.
	It can produce well-run, well-governed societies, as the British Empire showed, right?
	You look at some of the old photos of like Kingston in Jamaica and things like that, where it's just gorgeous in South Africa, gorgeous clean streets, and everything's just going about normally.
	Oops, we accidentally created paradise.
	Yes, but it wasn't equal.
	That's the thing.
	It was an unequal society.
	And therefore, if your primary governing principle is equality, well, the liberal view on either side is the European empires have to be destroyed because they are, frankly, in violation of our primary principle.
	And so it was understandable that essentially the people at the time felt morally discredited because they weren't liberals.
	They were like, no, we have this was essentially a racial hierarchy that rules the world.
	And the people who have just devastated, you know, we've got no money, we've got no infrastructure, we've got no, you know, we need help, you know, the Marshall Plans and whatever to rebuild.
	And the people who are paying the Piper get to call the tune, right?
	And if they say, okay, well, you've got to rebuild in the spirit of equality, which is the thing that genuinely has won this war.
	You ruined yourselves over your empires of inequality.
	We're going to pay to rebuild you through the spirit of equality.
	It's not surprising that the people at the time lost complete confidence in their own moral principles.
	I mean, I mean, we gave away all of our gold reserves to the US.
	We bankrupted ourselves fighting the Second World War.
	We put ourselves into their debt to the point that by 1954, we were still on rations.
	Yeah, I know.
	And I know.
	But that's the point, right?
	Is the paradigm has shifted.
	There's no power left in the old imperial model.
	The power has shifted to the equalitarian model of the Soviets or the Americans.
	And so basically, it's the sort of the new wave of the liberal mindset.
	And so you can see how this then flows through Western society.
	So, right, okay, everything should be equal where it was never equal.
	And, you know, then you've got the civil rights movements and stuff like this.
	And you can see how this captures the zeitgeist of the era.
	And so the era of the 20th century is the century of equality.
	And we're living in the ruins of that now.
	So one of the fundamental problems of this equality thing and why it's so destructive is that it's far easier to drag the exceptional down than it is to elevate exactly.
	And one thing I wanted to add on what you were saying earlier, Harry, is that people don't really realize that the Cold War was a sort of total war that affected every aspect of life, particularly younger people who didn't actually live through it because it didn't actually have that much on the ground competition.
	The only thing it wasn't is a hot physical war in all other ways, ideologically, morally, spiritually, economically.
	You were absolutely right.
	It was a total war.
	And they measured themselves by their competition with us.
	Like, Mao was constantly going on about having more steel output than Britain.
	Because, of course, we were a major industrial power at the time.
	And the Soviets were constantly comparing themselves to the United States.
	So it was, you were absolutely right.
	And people forget that, like, you know, the boomers go on about Russia all the time, but you can't really blame them because they grew up in an era where Russia was the reason that they did everything.
	You know, they had to beat the Russians.
	And so you can't really blame them.
	But they grew up in the shadow of the Russian bomb.
	Exactly.
	And it's not their fault.
	It's just the way things are.
	But anyway, so that's a really excellent way of setting the scene, actually.
	And I'm glad you brought in the ideological aspect of it upon decolonization as well.
	Because it's in 1948 that we bring in the British Nationality Act.
	And this is such a revealingly liberal thing to try and do, but so obviously inappropriate for the time and place.
	So what it did is it created the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies, which meant that all Commonwealth citizens were recognized as British subjects.
	And this act granted Commonwealth citizens the automatic right to enter, live and work in the United Kingdom.
	Now, this is crazy if you think about it through the imperial lens.
	Right, so there are like 500 million people in India now and like 40 million people in Britain.
	And all of them now have the right to just, you know, show up on your doorstep.
	Camp of the Saints style, get on a boat.
	Well, that's the thing.
	They weren't really thinking about it.
	From all of the reports that I've seen, it was basically seen as a token gesture.
	Because we want to celebrate the after the end of this horrifying war, we're all united under the Commonwealth as one people, as subjects under the Crown.
	We're going to pass this piece of legislation as a token gesture.
	Whoops were flooded with migrants.
	Well, hang on.
	It actually wasn't that bad initially.
	Well, not initially, yes.
	Before the age of air travel, isn't it?
	It is air travel of the 19th century.
	It is, but that made it possible.
	What you're not seeing on this is tens of thousands of ships traveling all over the world all the time.
	It still bottlenecks things more so than the modern day.
	Yeah, it does, but we had massive merchant navy.
	You know, it's like you could get a boat anywhere in the world.
	Of course.
	You'd be able to travel.
	it would just take three months or six months or whatever, rather than it made it a lot more expensive.
	And also, a lot of them were military rather than.
	Sure.
	But the point is, like, as Piers Morgan said in this chat with Tuck Castle, people just couldn't travel.
	No, they could, Piers you moron, right?
	They absolutely did travel.
	But the point is, people from the Empire didn't have the right, if they were not British, to come to Britain.
	Because why would they?
	It's the Imperial Heartland, you know, and so England actually survives the British Empire as a deeply homogenous and bucolic place.
	And when you've got the sort of AJP Taylor in 1915, the average Englishman can go from cradle to grave without ever interacting with the state beyond the post office.
	Imagine that.
	My utopia.
	It's always the same.
	Absolutely.
	That's my utopia.
	It's always the most depressing quote.
	It's not that verbatim, but I've never experienced that personally.
	I know, but is it tragically?
	But literally, we honestly had heaven on earth.
	And we were like, well, we need equality now.
	It's the product of inequality.
	It is saying, no, we will come to your countries.
	You will not come to our countries.
	This is an unequal system.
	And they're not wrong to criticize us on those grounds if you think equality is a valid and predominant principle that you want to apply to the world.
	And so, as you say, you know, they'd lost moral confidence in their own system.
	Oh, we'll just all have the British nationality.
	The Americans are all equals.
	Then we should be equals.
	Okay, fine.
	Then large-scale immigration into the UK begins.
	This is, of course, the year of the Empire Windrush.
	Would you like to tell us a little bit about the Empire Windrush?
	Because you've looked into a lot more.
	Yeah, I've got a lot of information on the Windrush.
	And the first thing to say is, I think partially there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Windrush was some kind of behind-the-scenes cartel action not to intentionally flood the UK with immigrants.
	After all, the amount of people from the Caribbean who were, you know, black Caribbeans on the Windrush who came over was only 417.
	But it does seem to have been part of a larger conspiracy to just profit, to just make a lot of money, right?
	So first of all, there's the interesting thing, which is that the Empire...
	I've got an article in front of me.
	I won't tell you the name of it.
	The Empire Windrush was passed from ownership from the government.
	Well, not ownership, but it was operated initially by the government.
	Captured from the German.
	It was originally a German ship called the Monte Rosa, which had been used in the 1930s for cruises and then repurposed during the war and then captured and repurposed for the British Empire.
	And originally it was just used by the Secretary for War under Clement Attlee to ferry people from one place to another who were British subjects and who were mainly like soldiers.
	But then in around 1947, he signs that over to a company called the New Zealand Shipping Company, who then carry on those operations.
	And then after that, the green light is given by the Minister for Transport to say, well, we can make some money off of this.
	So if there's any free spaces on the ship, then you can fill them up with people and send them over.
	And the National Now.
	Sorry.
	But the Nationality Act makes that suddenly.
	But also, the government weren't aware that the Minister for Transport had allowed this.
	Somehow, the Minister for Transport was just able to give the green light to these...
	The ministers are given a relatively large degree of autonomy.
	Yeah, they had a large degree of autonomy.
	But given that this could and did have such wide-ranging ramifications, the impact of this was potentially huge.
	It's pretty crazy that this Minister for Transport, whose name is escaping me right now, I could probably find it in the article, but I'll just carry on.
	He just green lights it, says, like, any free spaces, go ahead.
	Throw people on them.
	And then all of a sudden, while it's heading to Jamaica, obviously it's got spaces free, so they say we can do this.
	But before it even arrives, right, before it even arrives, the Gleaner, a Jamaican magazine, part of the Gleaner company, just three weeks before starts advertising cheap travel to Britain.
	Because obviously the The price of it was £28.10, which I think was half or a third of the price it would normally cost.
	So it was a discount.
	That's still expensive.
	But it's a discount, a massive bargain discount price.
	So all of a sudden, you get all of these Jamaicans being bombarded with ads for cheap travel to Britain and articles telling them about this amazing new life that they could live in London.
	And there's a quote here from an author called Stephen Pollard that says, the response was almost instantaneous.
	Queues formed outside the booking agency and every place was sold.
	It carries on to say many of the ads were propaganda pieces that presented an idealized picture of life and job opportunities in Britain in stark contrast to the bleak reality of what Britain was like in 1948 when we were still really recovering and rebuilding from the war.
	Because there's other articles that I've got, some from IM 1776 by Lynn Manuel, who's a really great poster on Twitter.
	You should follow him.
	But they're very detailed articles talking about the fact that at the time, they try and justify it now by saying that there was a labor shortage.
	And you can go into the documents and you can find that between 1945 and 1960, the unemployment rate reached a peak in 1947 of 3.1%.
	So not very high.
	But averaged below 2% through that entire period.
	And even despite that, at the time, we had stuff like the £10 POM for people who wanted to emigrate over to Australia.
	The government was trying to encourage people to leave the country because we actually had far too much of a surplus of labor.
	So the whole idea that we needed these people was a complete lie.
	Yeah, I mean, if we're exporting people whilst we're apparently rebuilding from the war.
	Yeah.
	So this whole thing is just a post hoc rationalization.
	I say exactly that, that it's been mythologized after the fact.
	But at the time, if you actually look at what was being discussed about it, it wasn't nearly of that character.
	And in fact, and in fact, he goes on to state in this article that most people prior to about 1998 probably would never have heard of the windrush.
	Yeah, no, I'd never heard of it as a kid.
	There was no reference to it even within the Caribbean migrant experience on BBC radio.
	Yeah, no, I mean, I remember the point.
	So I remember, I was well, I was probably into my 30s, like late 20s, early 30s, before, you know, the Empire Windrush became a talking point.
	Like, it was never spoken about.
	Because on its 50th anniversary in 1998, there was a BB2 documentary series celebrating it.
	Following New Labour getting in, the BBC decided to do a big 50th anniversary on this thing.
	And then it really, and then it gets featured in things like the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony that Danny Boyle did.
	But if you search on Google Engram viewer, for instance, about how much the windrush showed up in books and in articles and such, even by the late 90s, it's not very much.
	What you see a huge spike around is around 2015, 16, 17, 18 with the windrush scandal.
	Yes.
	And that puts it firmly in the public.
	So that seems to have been what gave it this huge push beyond what Blair's government and the Olympics were doing.
	And the whole mythology of it has been carefully developed since then as an excuse and as a justification for why it all happened.
	You can see why this is the liberal foundational myth of New Britain, right?
	As in, in 1948, we are ruined and the Nationality Act is signed, which effectively is the proper liberalization of the country.
	So everything's equal.
	Everyone across the empire is equal.
	You know, that's the first, the proper introduction of the principle of equality into law is really there.
	Everyone is the same.
	I do think there is another reason for it, which is by highlighting specifically black Jamaican immigration, it hides and distracts from the fact that the vast majority of immigration into Britain from foreign third world countries has been historically from places like Pakistan.
	I was going to...
	I was going to mention and from places like India.
	I've got population.
	India and Pakistan, yeah.
	I've got population statistics up right in front of me that are the estimates of Caribbean ethnic population.
	And I assume that that would have been just a shorthand for black population in the UK at the time.
	From 1951 through to 1988.
	And it peaks in 1971 at 548,000.
	And that includes new arrivals and people who had been born to previous arrivals.
	And then it starts slowly going down.
	Before in 1988, it's gone down to 495,000.
	Now, that's only a 150,000.
	I can explain why that happens.
	Well, yeah, right.
	So that's great.
	I'm glad you brought that up because you're exactly right.
	But just to hammer the point home, the reason that it begins in 1948 and why all this happens is because of the Nationality Act and the way it ties in dovetails with the Empire Windrush and creates the modern multicultural Britain.
	Because up until that point, Britain was literally 99.9% native.
	And the only people who weren't natives were people who lived in very small enclaves in London, who were like, you know, trading outposts and things.
	It was mainly people around the ports.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Like I explained in my segment last week.
	Exactly.
	Right.
	So there was just no question of are we a multicultural society?
	We are not a nation of immigrants.
	We are a nation that was deeply settled for a thousand years.
	It's also...
	Sorry.
	Sorry, go on.
	I was going to point out that when the Windrush did turn up and people did occupy jobs, the mythology says that they rebuilt Britain, but they were such a tiny portion of the population.
	And also, they didn't occupy construction jobs.
	Yeah, they were NHS, a lot of them.
	Yeah, NHS bus drivers famously and things like that where it's important, but it's not rebuilding the country necessarily.
	I mean, by 1951, I think it was about 17,000 people of black ancestry.
	Very, very small number.
	It was really the Transport for London scheme in 1955 that started to bring them over in huge numbers.
	And that's when you get an explosion of 50,000 and then 86,000.
	Let me carry on there.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, carry on.
	So, yeah, so the reason, like I said, the Windrush is the modern founding mythology of the country is because it's the place in which the laws and the empire is essentially liberalized.
	And then, as you say, large-scale migration to the UK begins.
	Now, when we say large-scale, I mean, compared to the immigration we get today, it's nothing.
	But, of course, back in the day, having how much was it?
	Do you say like 20,000 or something?
	It was about 17 to 18,000 in 1951.
	I mean, that would have been shocking, right?
	That would have been shocking at the time.
	Now, that, for us, is probably a weak, if that, actually, of immigration.
	But large-scale immigration begins, they say, from India, Pakistan, other Commonwealth countries, and a small percentage from the Caribbean.
	And then, so this happens for about a decade, and people start getting really upset by immigration.
	In 1962, they have the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which is the first major restriction on Commonwealth migration.
	So you can see that the liberal ideology has just been imposed on Britain and the Empire, which still exists mostly at this point.
	The Empire has it imposed upon it.
	And then suddenly everyone's like, oh, no, no, this was a bad move, right?
	Because it was just an idea in principle.
	The principle of equality has to be imposed on the country.
	And we don't like it and it's ruining everything.
	And so this is the first major restriction that introduces work permits.
	And so Commonwealth citizens now needed permission to live and work in the UK.
	And then in 1968, there's the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which is amended, which requires then, in addition, a close connection to the UK, i.e. a parent or grandparent born in the UK.
	And this is largely aimed at Commonwealth passport holders of South Asian descent in East Africa.
	This is how Pretty Patel ends up here, right?
	So, you know, Idi Amin in 1971 kicks out all the Indians.
	We have provided a legal route for the Indians in Africa, who were our imperial administration.
	So one could argue, okay, we've got some obligation to them because they were there serving the British Empire.
	And we allowed Africa to go.
	And so they were going to get massacred by various warlords.
	Or we, you know, they could have gone back to India, I suppose, or we give them things.
	So that's what we've done there.
	And then in 19, that also further reduced free movement rights.
	And then in 1971, we introduced the Immigration Act, which introduced the right of abode.
	And so these are called patrioles.
	British citizens with UK-born grandparents or parents had the automatic right to live and work in the UK.
	So most Commonwealth citizens actually lost their automatic residency rights here.
	And so that's where you can see that Britain's like, well, hang on a second.
	And again, that's where, from the statistics that I was reading out, that's where the West Indian population peaked and then slowly starts to go down.
	It was going to come in and they...
	And it really does seem to be that from 71 through to 98, the flow had basically stopped for the most part.
	In fact, there were years where we'd have negative.
	And then it's when Blair comes in and you get him sending out squads of people under Mandelson to try and rub the right's nose in diversity.
	That's when the floodgates open back up.
	That's exactly right.
	And I just want to one last thing to really demolish the whole, we needed them.
	We needed them to rebuild the country argument is that in 1953, in December, there was a report that was completed where civil servants stated that the new population, which was about 42, well, sorry, it was about 30 to 40,000 at the time.
	The new population found it difficult to secure employment, not because of prejudice among whites, but because the newcomers had, quote, low output and their working life was marked by, quote, irresponsibility, quarrelsomeness, and lack of discipline.
	End quote.
	And so all of the imperial concept, the initial liberal imperial concept of citizenship ended in 1981 with the British Nationality Act.
	It ended the imperial citizenship model entirely, created what we understand to be modern British citizenship.
	Commonwealth citizens are no longer British subjects.
	And therefore, as you say, immigration basically stopped.
	We just basically didn't get any more immigration for a couple of decades.
	Yeah, I mean, that was the thing looking at the figures that shocked me the most.
	It was like, oh, we really did just like the population of immigrants in the country from that period was just the holdover from those who had come in and the children that they were having.
	So after the close of World War II, there was kind of an immigration experiment in the country, which created very small proportionally communities of just in the tens of thousands of foreign peoples in Britain.
	And that ended, like I say.
	And then if you look at it, there are years where it's just net outflow because we're just not bringing in foreigners to the country.
	And at the time, the country is something like 95% white British.
	And then 1997, something happened.
	I don't know if Tom Howard clocked onto this yet.
	This is just the population overall, which you can see has changed things dramatically.
	And that only goes up to 2022 as well.
	It's amazing how the population keeps rising despite our falling rebirth rates.
	Yeah, well, this is just for England and Wales as well.
	So it was apparently 59 in 2021, which, well, no, it says more than that, actually, on that.
	Well, do you want to know something funny?
	So Josh referred to his book, Someone Whose Name I Cannot Remember, but I thank you greatly for sending it in, sent us in a load of Enoch Powell books a few weeks ago.
	And this one is a collection of speeches that he'd been doing from late 60s to early 70s.
	Most of it's about economics and socialism and why socialism is bad.
	You'd like that bit, Josh.
	But there is one chapter on immigration.
	And even within that chapter, he's talking about the 1971 Act, how he hopes that it passes.
	But he's saying that even if it does pass and we get this complete restriction on immigration that we're looking for, we still may need to.
	He doesn't say remigrate, but he says mass repatriation.
	Mass simply because of the birth rates situation.
	And he was also complaining about the fact that even in the 1960s, that the civil servants in the Home Office had been going out of their way to hide the actual numbers of immigrants in the country.
	Like he was saying, okay, according to official records, it should be about one and a half million.
	But judging by birth rates of people born to foreign-born parents in the hospitals, it appears closer to about 2 million.
	So they'd been hiding about 500,000 off of the books.
	And he says, he just says here, how came it that the departments with all the resources and information available to them continued either not to ascertain the truth or if they knew or suspected it, not to communicate it to ministers?
	That's a good impression.
	There may have been incompetence, but I confess I do not believe that the government and public could have been misled so persistently and gravely without a certain determination in some quarters to leave facts unascertained or to play down for as long as possible those that were known so that when the true situation could no longer be concealed, it should be irreversible.
	Nothing new under the sun.
	Yeah, so it was hidden from the public.
	They purposefully kept the figures in the dark.
	And then 50 or so years later, you get the Windrush scandal where they're like, oh, they did all of this for racism.
	No, actually.
	No, actually.
	The Home Office weren't keeping proper records so that mean old Enoch Powell wouldn't have all the proper figures to base his arguments off of.
	It's amazing how this works.
	Incredible.
	Incredible.
	So anyway, that is how we ended up with foreigners in our politics.
	We had many who came over because of an experiment, legally, a liberal experiment, with the liberalization of our concept of citizenship.
	It flooded the country with tens of thousands of people who nobody actually wanted here.
	And we are saddled with the consequences of that now.
	And so let's talk about the foreigners in our politics, because this has become a salient issue recently because of this tweet.
	Here you have Lucy White.
	And let's just have a quick look at the 6 million views on this tweet, which, you know, how many followers does she have?
	21,000 followers.
	So you can see this expression.
	I've never heard of her before, frankly.
	No shade or anything.
	Credit to her for this.
	Yeah, but this escaped containment because it prodded them in a particular way, didn't it?
	She says, the deputy speaker presiding over the budget statement is Nus Ghani.
	She was born in Kashmir, Pakistan.
	There should not be a single person born in Pakistan in the UK House of Commons.
	Now, that's actually a really tepid statement, right?
	Yeah, it could be far stronger.
	And I mean, sure, if I were to make a statement on a similar sort of thing, I'd probably make it a bit stronger than that.
	But the principle here is obviously normal.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's the idea that people from outside of your in-group, outside of your nationality, perhaps, might not have the same interests.
	This is sort of reading between the lines here, but everyone sort of knows what's being said here, that people inherently have biases towards their own group.
	And if you are to have people who are meant to be your political representatives, surely you want them to be biased in favor of your interests, right?
	That's your group.
	Or your group.
	I mean, there's a reason that the president of the United States has to be a natural-born American.
	I was going to bring that exact thing up because despite all of the so-called anti-racist rhetoric in the United States, no one ever talks about that aspect of it, even though you'd think it would be quite important to them.
	But they sort of understand it, don't they?
	That to be an American president, you've got to be American.
	Because if, you know, for example, when they were in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and you had a Russian president, people would be asking questions, wouldn't they?
	What is it if you have foreigners governing over you?
	Well, it's actually colonial rule.
	That's literally what they were gaining independence for.
	But, I mean, it doesn't really matter as much for America when they've got instant birthright citizenship.
	Sure, sure.
	It's a different conversation, different categories.
	And then somebody like Yulan Omar can end up in the Senate or House of Representatives, certificate.
	Absolutely.
	But this is the thing that was really highlighted by Nusghani here.
	And now, I just want to be clear.
	From all accounts, Nusghani is actually a good, reliable Conservative MP, right?
	So I'm not in any way trying to throw shade at Nusghani because apparently she actually does a good job for her, what is it, East Sussex or something, which is 90 plus percent white English, right?
	Bow bar, but fair play.
	Sure, but the point is, that's not to say that she can't be a good MP, right?
	Now, yeah, I don't actually know much about her personal career, but I've heard lots of accounts that, you know, everyone in the conservatives come out and said, no, she's actually really good.
	And she didn't get elected on ethnic sympathies, because, of course, she's ruling, she's the MP from mostly English area by a long way.
	And if you see her in her, the way she comports herself, she's very anglicized, right?
	So it's not that she is there in some weird ethnic toga or something.
	So on the personal merits of herself, actually not terribly objectionable.
	But what Lucy is highlighting here is actually the principle of the thing.
	How many British-born native Brits, English, Welsh, Scots or Irish, are ruling in Pakistan at the moment?
	And the answer is, of course, none.
	They don't have any.
	And why would you?
	That's the point.
	That was the point of decolonization.
	That was the point of leaving the empire.
	And that was the point of essentially restricting in the Nationality Act back to only British people and not allowing the Commonwealth to just move to this country.
	As in, oh, yeah, we've moved from the imperial model where foreigners rule over foreign nations to a national model where nations are ruled by themselves.
	And that's fine.
	That's totally fine.
	In fact, I'm completely in favour of it.
	But why then do we have non-natives and this person born overseas eligible to become politicians in this country?
	And the answer is because we never had to worry about it throughout history.
	We were exporting people to them.
	They were not coming here.
	This is new and has not been accounted for.
	And the thing is, back in 1948 or whatever, to 1958, when, say, 50,000 people came over, okay, 50,000 people is a lot.
	But even then, that's still a tiny sliver of the demographic.
	It doesn't matter too much until Tony Blair cranks open the borders and then Boris cranks them open even further.
	And so now more than a quarter of this country is made up of people who are not native British.
	Now it becomes a really salient political issue, right?
	Yeah, and the interesting thing is not the character of Nusghani necessarily.
	It's what the issue represents here.
	And that's why lots of people were interested in it in the first place.
	And this received lots of backlash because I believe she would go on GB News and Talk TV and the like.
	Yeah, and they were trying to personalize it about Nusghani, which is not personal about Nusghani.
	It's about the fact that we're living with an imperial legacy that's not being addressed.
	Yeah, and I think the question of do these foreign MPs really represent our interests.
	And there are lots of examples of that not being the case that I'll get to later.
	But the controversies here, I'm going to quickly go over them.
	They're not really, it's predictable at this rate.
	But The Mail, which is purportedly right-wing, apparently, GB News and Talk TV contributor in racism row after saying there should not be a single person born in Pakistan in the UK House of Commons, which if a Pakistani commentator said that about English people, people would not bat an eye.
	It is just applying the global standard to ourselves at this rate.
	In principle, there shouldn't be anything wrong with it.
	No, no, of course.
	That's a great way.
	It's applying a global standard to ourselves.
	That's all this is.
	And apparently we're not allowed to do that.
	We have this ancestral guilt for empire.
	For being exceptional, we must be punished.
	And here's The Guardian, of course.
	GB News urged to cut ties with contributor accused of racism.
	Of course, it was urged by people who already hate GB News and people saying this sort of things.
	She wasn't being racist.
	Like, she didn't actually say, she wasn't saying people from Pakistan are bad.
	She wasn't even elaborating the argument that they might have different interests to the native British population.
	She was actually making a civic argument that British politicians ought to be born and bred in Britain, which seems very reasonable.
	I also think in the Daily Mail article, there's some kind of comment from GB News and Talk TV along the lines of that as a result of all of this, they're not planning on having her on again anytime soon.
	I'm sure.
	Which is fantastic that they'll just give in immediately the free speech platforms.
	No thought behind it.
	Anyway, so we can.
	And yeah, there were also comments from politicians.
	Conservative politicians.
	Lucy is a racist.
	No broadcaster should put this racist on TV to spread her despicable hatred.
	You're acting Liam from the 1948 law that was superseded by the 1981 law because it wasn't appropriate to our country.
	And the empire is gone, Liam.
	Let it go.
	There's also, you know, a principle at play here that these ideas simply shouldn't be discussed, that they're off the reservation, which, of course, if you purport to be in favour of things like democracy, is very antithetical to that.
	So you could argue that this guy just wants to de-platform people and say that you can't speak about these things just because you've got opinions that I don't agree with, which, you know, yeah.
	Well done.
	Well done.
	People conservative values.
	Yeah, well, who needs this class of politician?
	I certainly don't.
	And then you've got Tom Tugging Hat saying Deputy Speaker Nusghani has stood up for her community's interests for a decade, defended Parliament's interests from the Speaker's Chair for 18 months, been sanctioned by China and Russia for defending our country's interests from dictators.
	She's been voted in four times by those who trust her in Sussex, once by the MPs who trust her in Westminster.
	She needs no help from me to call out Cretins, but I'll join her just the same.
	Now, this is a fair defence of Neskani, right?
	I don't think she's done anything personally wrong, but the problem is the system is not actually...
	It needs to be reformed in order to deal with the problems that we have now and not solve ideological problems that we had in the 20th century.
	And I found it very interesting that Ben Habib, who himself is part Pakistani, understood where she was coming from.
	That's reasonable.
	And it's quite long, so I'm not going to read all of it, but he's basically saying that it's reasonable to be concerned about people from abroad representing you.
	Well, I mean, the whole thing, like, Lucy White, I think everybody is interpreting her original tweet with a fair degree of bad faith, because I don't see any actual criticism personally of Noose in that tweet.
	It's on the principle of it.
	I think it's fair for an Englishman to look at his politics or her politics and see that, oh, the House of Commons is filled with a load of foreigners.
	Apparently, there are 35 MPs who are born overseas.
	I mean, there you go.
	And it's not to say anything about the personal character of those individual MPs to say that's not how our national politics should be run.
	Well, this is also following the incessant talk that I found insufferable of, well, I don't see any black faces.
	I need people to look like me.
	Otherwise, I'm not interested.
	We've had that in our ears constantly in our own country.
	And, you know, obviously.
	It's good enough for them.
	Why isn't it good enough for us?
	Yeah, well.
	It's a liberalism for you, identitarianism for me.
	Yeah, but the thing is, all it's done is just make more white British people identitarian and fair enough in the face of this.
	Because if you're not, then you face being taken advantage of.
	Well, there's a real concern that, okay, well, if there's no particular limit, then anyone from anywhere could move here.
	I mean, like, if, for example, you know, Communist Party of China decided, right, okay, well, we can just take over the British electoral system by getting people elected.
	So we'll just send people over who are our agents, help them to get elected, fund them, get them a constituency, wherever.
	And if they can become elected in the UK, then isn't that a security risk?
	Is there not anything concerning about this?
	Of course.
	Going beyond the, don't the British people deserve to represent themselves like every other country on Earth?
	I mean, there are lots and lots of different considerations.
	It's just not fair.
	And of course, all of this goes on in the shadow of massive Tory betrayal.
	And so people don't really trust politicians full stop, no matter where they're from.
	But the best chance you have of actually someone representing the interests of the native British people is if they're native British.
	And so people are a bit more hardline about this because they don't want to be betrayed again.
	And that is why people have become more radical on this.
	And people want people from their own group because at least then there's more of a chance of them keeping their word because they're more tied to the interests of the people they're representing.
	And we will show a prime example of that very shortly.
	Is it alright if we skip to the Tulip Sadiq part, just for the interest of time?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I just had a bunch of her responses to things.
	So you can read those in the reading list if you want.
	Again, totally reasonable responses.
	She was fair to point out that the media were taking all of the negative responses and completely ignoring all of the positive feedback should be.
	I also quickly point this out very quickly.
	It points out some of the hypocrisy.
	So we've got Pete North here, who came on the podcast not too long ago, talking about how he once applied for the MOD to work on nuclear weapons, and he got through the interviews and everything.
	And there was delays because he had to supply proof that even his grandparents were born in Britain.
	And I would argue that, sure, nuclear weapons should have these sorts of checks, but also the levers of power.
	Yes.
	They're just as important.
	And we will show you why these are important in a minute, in fact.
	But let's quickly go over Tulip Siddique, though.
	I'll get back to that part because that's important.
	Okay.
	Where are we?
	Where is the Tulip Sadiq?
	Here we go.
	There you go.
	Yeah.
	Oh, well, I mean, if you want to talk about it, that'll be fine.
	Yeah, so she's remarkable.
	She's Bangladeshi, and she was convicted in a court for corruption in Bangladesh.
	And I believe guilty of using her influence with her aunt, the former Bangladeshi prime minister, Sheikh Hanisa, to secure land near the capital.
	Exactly.
	And I think she was given a sentence of two years in prison, but actually she won't go to prison, of course.
	Because she's in Britain.
	Yeah.
	And also because she's a politician.
	Apparently, she's just going to pay a fine.
	Incredible.
	So this, but this is a Labour MP for a constituency in the United Kingdom.
	And there are other councillors and tower hamlets who are campaigning to become MPs in Bangladesh.
	We covered this recently for the Aspire Party here, which is a very progressive party, open borders party.
	But they're literally running for the Bangladeshi National Party, the BNP of Bangladesh.
	Not even joking.
	So it's one of those things.
	And we skipped over very quickly this, but the point of Nisrat Ghani, she took her oath in Urdu to honour a mother.
	It's like, okay, well, let's have a talk about what foreigners are actually doing to our politics then, right?
	So the question of trial by jury has been made salient in British politics in the last couple of days because David Lamy has come out and said, I'm going to abolish it for crimes that carry a sentence of three years or lower.
	Now, that's actually a deeply concerning precedent because, of course, trial by jury is one of the ancient rights of an Englishman.
	Well, sorry, what was the important part that Josh wanted to get back to?
	Oh, sorry.
	Oh, I was just going to mention that when it comes to areas outside of politics, people are more than happy to admit that there is a link between genetic proximity.
	Here's Reuters in 2014 saying, if your friends feel like family, there's a good reason for it.
	And they acknowledge that people prefer people who are genetically related to them and treat them better, more likely to do favours for them, more likely to associate with them, and all of the things that you would expect a reasonable person to admit.
	But, you know, when you apply this to politics, that doesn't happen.
	That was all I was going to say.
	The Berkeley concentric circles.
	Exactly.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So yeah, so let's talk about the point of David Lamy coming out and saying, well, look, we're going to abolish trial by jury for crimes that are three years or lower for their sentencing, and they're just going to be judged by a single judge who will, for bureaucratic efficiency's sake, be able to do that.
	Now, so let's talk about the trial by jury.
	So the Anglo-Saxons had something called the Shire Court or the Moot Court, which is a meeting of local administrators, free men, the Shire Reeve, the Earl, magnates, the church.
	And so they would come together and decide questions of law.
	This is the sort of earliest roots of what we would consider to be trial by jury.
	And as you can imagine, it was, well, kind of, how to describe sort of inclusive, right?
	So the free men get together with the men of rank and they discuss and in a very sort of proto-way go through what is kind of like a jury.
	It's not what we would consider to be a modern jury, of course, because this was over a thousand years ago.
	It's also very, especially for the time, very democratic.
	Oh, incredible.
	And an expression of a kind of aristocratic, bottom-up idea of where authority originates from.
	And it's a very English idea.
	This idea.
	Well, it's a very Germanic idea.
	Well, very, as well, to the Indo-Europeans.
	You're going to touch on sort of the ancient Roman accounts of the Germans and the like.
	I wasn't going to, but basically, the ancient German accounts are supported by the way the Anglo-Saxons live, but also the Franks.
	So the Normans brought with them something called the Frankish Inquest, right?
	This involves summoning a group of local men under oath to answer questions about landownership, taxation, wrongdoing, whatever.
	And this is the more formal beginning of the concept of trial by jury.
	William the Conqueror used sworn inquests in the Doomsday Book.
	And then you have Henry II's legal reforms, which effectively create trial by jury as we understand it today.
	In the Grand Assizes of 1166, which allowed a land dispute to be settled by 12 sworn knights or free men.
	So if you were a yeoman in England, you would be called to one of these juries, as well as if you were a knight.
	Then you have the Assis of Clarendon in 1166, which establishes the grand jury, where local men were required to report under oath who in their community was suspected of crimes.
	You had the petite jury by the late 12th century.
	Groups of locals, eventually 12, were used to decide whether a person was guilty and not to merely accuse people.
	So these developments essentially are the beginning of what we call, in fact, the formalization of what we call a jury trial.
	And of course, then we come to the Magna Carta.
	I didn't get a picture for some reason.
	Then we come to the Magna Carta and you.
	There you go.
	Isolate it in your mind.
	Yeah.
	There you can, Lotus Eater's audience.
	The jury trial in the Magna Carta becomes a right, a right of Englishmen.
	It's Article 39: quote: No free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions or outlawed or exiled or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed.
	We will we proceed with force against him or send others to do so except by the lawful judgment of his equals or the law of the land.
	This is very significant because it goes from an informal contract between the governed and the governing party, so to speak.
	And now it's formalized in the Magna Carta.
	Yes, it is explicitly formalized.
	You will not have any force done against you except with a judgment of your peers.
	And this, of course, is one of what I was going to say is, was or is theoretically one of the few remaining provisions of the Magna Carta that's still in force in English law.
	There are other things that happen.
	In 1215, the church also bans trial by ordeal.
	So jury trial becomes the standard method of proof of guilt or whatnot.
	And this becomes innocence, yeah.
	I can't even imagine the word anymore.
	I don't believe in it anymore.
	I've seen too many crimes.
	You did this job for long enough, and you're like, you know, is anyone really innocent?
	You know, show me the man and I'll show you the crime, Harry.
	But then this then becomes a core component of what is known to be the rights of Englishmen.
	And these come from, of course, the Anglo-Saxon tradition.
	So back in like 600, 700, you've got customary rights and obligations and legal procedures, as we covered.
	Then you get Alfred the Great's legal reforms in 890, which emphasize the rule of law, the right to some sort of legal process, even though they didn't have a trial by jury, and the limits to royal power.
	And then, of course, you have these from the Norman Conquest, but in 1258, you get the provisions of Oxford, which forces Henry III to accept constraints and forces him to convene regular parliaments.
	In 1295, you get the model parliament, which establishes the principle that the king consults with the commons as well as the noble and clergy, as in the common yeoman, the free men of England.
	1354, you get the statute of Westminster, which is the first use of the phrase due process of law in statutory form, which reinforces personal liberty against arbitrary arrest.
	In 1628, you get a petition of rights, so that's no taxation without parliament, no forced loans, no imprisonment without stated charges, no quartering of soldiers in private homes.
	In 1641, you get the abolition of the Star Chamber, which was basically the king's personal torture chamber.
	In 1651, the English Civil War ends, but that establishes the sovereignty of Parliament.
	That's where it all starts to go wrong.
	Well, I mean, I don't know, actually.
	Like, it's it seems to be after a lot far after this.
	Actually, he goes for 500 years.
	I know.
	Like, there are other points, right?
	There are other things.
	In 1679, you get habeas corpus, which means the king can't just hold you for an indefinite period of time.
	In 1689, you get the English Bill of Rights, and in 1701, you get the Act of Settlement.
	And suddenly, you can see how the Americans got their constitution.
	It all comes out of these innovations slowly but surely accruing in England as the rights of Englishmen.
	So, let's talk about David Lamy.
	Now, David Lammy is our glorious history, Lammy.
	Well, he's currently the Secretary of State for Justice.
	I know, I know.
	I know.
	I'm not saying it's your fault, Carl.
	Just life is full of infinite disappointments.
	Because for anyone, if you're not aware of David Lammy, he is primarily known in England as just being a buffoon.
	He's the moron who thinks that Henry VIII's son was Henry VIII and things like this.
	Just so many different clips of him acting like a moron.
	There's no point.
	Leicester was a form of blue cheese.
	Did he?
	It was the same mastermind.
	Jesus Christ.
	Some of the answers are really painful.
	David Lamy's just a moron, right?
	And it's fine.
	It would be fine if he was just a backbench moron, right?
	For Tottenham.
	Now he's Deputy Prime Minister.
	And the Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice, and Deputy Prime Minister, as you say.
	And he's previously been the Foreign Secretary, which was amusing.
	And it's like, how are the Labour Party scraping the bottom of the barrel like this, right?
	Like, if you need David Lamy to occupy these positions, you're in trouble.
	You know what I think it is?
	It's because the Labour front bench has been very, very white and middle class for a very long time.
	And they're probably doing it to not look like hypocrites.
	No doubt.
	No doubt.
	Is he an improvement or downgrade from Olange?
	Deputy Prime Minister.
	Well, I mean, she didn't try to abolish trial by jury.
	She just didn't get around to it.
	I'd take Angela Raymond.
	I don't think it would be in her constitution, mate.
	You know, like, I don't think she would have thought, oh, we need to get rid of these jury trials.
	But that's what Lammy has unironically done.
	So, just a quick background on Lammy, right?
	So, Lamy is, of course, the consequence of the Windrush generation.
	He was born in 1972 in a hospital in North London to Guyanese parents.
	That's the one colony we had in South America, for anyone who doesn't know.
	And his four siblings were raised solely by his mother after his father left the family when he was 12.
	And so he grew up in Tottenham, went to Downhills Primary School.
	He was awarded an Inner London Education Authority choral scholarship to St. Peterborough Cathedral and received a private school education at the King's School in Peterborough.
	So essentially, they were like, oh, right, he's black.
	We will put him through the education system.
	So he studied at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, got a 2-1 in law, called to the bar in 1994, went to study at Harvard University.
	He became the first black Briton to attend Harvard Law School, studied for a master's degree in law, and graduated in 1997.
	After Harvard, Lammy was employed as an attorney at various places, and then he ends up joining the Labour Party and ends up in charge of the legal system of the country.
	So he's not our best and brightest.
	He seems to be a bit of a diversity hire, frankly.
	I mean, Harvard at the time was a bit notorious for it.
	Yeah.
	I was going to say I'm surprised he managed to get into Harvard Law School after only getting a 2-1.
	Yeah.
	Again, all of these things, it seems, honestly, David Lamy's entire career seems to be about failing upwards.
	Genuinely.
	Also, these days, getting a scholarship from Harvard isn't that difficult.
	Even I got offered one.
	Yeah, but we're talking about, what, the early 90s here?
	Yeah, 1995.
	You would expect there are to have been higher standards years ago.
	But anyway, so David Lamy, born and raised in the country, you would think he would have integrated, especially when he was born.
	Britain was 97.5% white British.
	It's not like he had the option of living in a diverse London that was only 30% English or whatever.
	No, he had to live around English people.
	He had to imbibe the culture.
	And to be honest with you, he is very much a product of the country.
	Like, if you were to drop David Lamy in Africa, I think it'd be the funniest reality TV documentary ever, watching him actually experience Africa, right?
	I would pay good money to watch that because you know that he'd be like, why?
	What?
	Oh, you know, he wouldn't have no idea.
	He'd be a total fish out of water, right?
	But there is also the question of his feeling of belonging and attachment, because this is something that has come up many times.
	And I remember Lamy's legal background as well.
	That will come up later.
	So you may remember that in 2020 he wrote a book called Tribes because he had done genetic testing on himself and discovered that he came from a series of tribes in sort of West Africa, sub-Saharan tribes in my house.
	Somebody sent this book into the office and it's on my desk.
	Do not send any more copies in, please.
	We've already got a copy, don't worry.
	And he found, of course, that he comes from various tribes.
	These were involved in slave trading, and that's how his ancestors ended up going to British Guyana because they were captured in some sort of raid, obviously, and shipped out.
	And so, okay, that's interesting.
	But the fact that he's doing this, and he's written an entire book about his own genetic ancestry, shows that there's a kind of disconnect, right?
	It shows a lack of belonging.
	He feels like a fish out of water.
	And so was this fair to do to him?
	It's also interesting that subtitle, if that's the subject of the book, how our need to belong can make or break society.
	Like he's taking his own neuroticism on his own background and history and trying to apply it universally.
	Yes.
	And it's because, honestly, we didn't have a good framework for integration.
	Because the Americans at least have a narrative, right?
	You've got a story.
	You come to America, you work hard, sing the national anthem, you wave the stars and stripes, you can be an American, and the Americans just accept you like that.
	Well, Britain wasn't the same.
	Britain was an old racist imperial power that had literally, it was a racially hierarchical empire.
	And in 1948, no, equality.
	Well, sorry, what are you talking about?
	That's just not the British experience of interactions with other peoples.
	And so this has been kind of imposed upon everyone.
	And he would have, honestly, been on the raw end of it.
	He would have been on the wrong side of this, which isn't, I think, fair to have done to him.
	So you can see why he's an insane leftist who wants the promise that was made when his parents came over to this country that has not been fulfilled.
	But it's okay, well, you know, lots to discuss there.
	But the point is, he personally doesn't identify as an English person.
	Now, there are going to be people saying, well, he's black.
	Obviously, he doesn't.
	Well, yeah, whatever.
	You know, I don't want to get into the weeds on that one.
	But you get this from 2018.
	As Caribbean people, we are not going to forget our history.
	We don't just want to hear an apology.
	We want reparation.
	Okay.
	I mean, he's traced his ancestry, but surely he can find the ancestor, like the descendants of that tribe that kidnapped his family.
	Extract reparations.
	They have money from them, right?
	West Africa is going to have a really big bill.
	It is.
	But the point is, this was in 2018 at the height of woke when he decided, oh, I can make something out of being woke.
	You know, we are Caribbean people.
	We will not forget our history.
	We demand reparations.
	Right.
	So you're not British.
	That's fine.
	I accept it from your framing, David.
	That's what you are saying when you say that, because otherwise, you'd be like, I demand reparations from myself.
	You know, it doesn't make sense conceptually.
	You have to be declaring yourself to be an outsider.
	And therefore, what can we look at you as other than an outsider?
	Well, he's sort of got this Schrödinger's identity thing going on that many groups have, whereby they identify with whichever identity is most expedient to them at the time.
	You know what?
	I don't know.
	Because, I mean, like, he, when he became the foreign secretary, he took down a picture of the queen and put up a pan-African flag.
	So, actually, I think that he's not necessarily confused in his identity here.
	But even there, you know, he's describing himself as Caribbean, which is something distinct from Africa.
	Well, if it helps, I mean, if it's the pan-African flag, it's trying to unify all of the diaspora along with the people on the continent.
	So it's just one of those things where it's like, okay, look, I would be happy to say, yes, Lamy is obviously a product of Britain because sending him to Africa feels cruel, but also funny.
	But I would be happy to accept David Lamy as British, right?
	He's born in Britain.
	He's had a British education in the law.
	So I know that he knows it.
	Well, not too well, apparently.
	I know that he should know it.
	And yet, we've got to the point where he's like, no, I'm a Caribbean.
	I'm not like you.
	I put up the pan-African flag over the Queen.
	So I'm just to be clear, I'm declaring my flag is against you.
	And now I want to scrap jury trials for sentences less than three years.
	And it's like, okay, I'm sorry, but there is an ethnic dimension to this.
	Because Ferras, I tweeted about this because I was tweeting about this all yesterday because I was just livid, absolutely livid, that this would even, I mean, an inconceivable, inconceivable five years ago, this headline.
	I mean, could you imagine at any point in previous British politics?
	I'm saying, yeah, so we're going to scrap jury trials.
	It would just never happen.
	Again, it's all, I mean, outside of the ethnic dimension of it, and I do think that Lamy would be like the guy to do this.
	Really is.
	As we can see, because he is.
	And he doesn't have the same attachment or sentiment to it that we do.
	But I do imagine as well that this was a more general bureaucratic decision.
	I'll get to that in a second, actually.
	So there are lots of things that you can do for bureaucracy.
	And like I said, we'll come to that in a minute.
	But it was Ferras.
	I was tweeting about this all yesterday.
	And Ferras just replied, he doesn't feel the same way about it that you do.
	He doesn't understand why you feel this way.
	And it's because to me, this is essentially spiritual crime.
	My feelings as an Englishman are that this is sacred.
	You would never, like, you would never even think of being like, oh, yeah, we're just going to abolish trial by jury.
	I would never think about going beyond that.
	And yeah, for David Lamy, that isn't the issue at all.
	Because as you said, it is about managerial efficiency.
	So at the moment, there are 78,329 court cases outstanding.
	If we go back to the chart about immigration, and as you've seen the population going up, well, as the population has gone up, everything is getting worse.
	The NHS appointments are getting worse, the roads are getting worse, the trains are getting worse, and the jury system is getting worse.
	The criminal justice system is getting worse.
	Like in all things in Britain, demand is outplacing supply.
	Because actually, bringing in somewhere around the region of 20 million new foreigners wasn't a good idea.
	There was a genuine problem in just the logistics of the thing, if nothing else.
	Now, David has explained himself.
	He said, look, victims have waited long enough.
	Tradition, for its own sake, cannot stand in the way of justice.
	We are taking the bold decisions we needed to fix the emergency in our court and secure swifter justice for victims.
	Now, that, I mean, to me, I'm going to self-censor on what that makes me feel.
	It's very sacrilegious to.
	This is an actual mythology.
	Forget the windrush.
	This is actually something that is foundational to our national sense of self.
	And because he's not of our people, he just doesn't, it doesn't compute, as Firas says.
	He just doesn't understand why it's important to us.
	Yeah.
	He just doesn't understand.
	And so I'm genuinely furious about this.
	And I'm trying to keep my calm because I could easily stop ranting and raving.
	And then, you know, he keeps going on.
	Like, so look, and I'm not saying there aren't problems.
	There obviously are problems, right?
	If you're raped today, as Natalie points out, you could be waiting until 2030 for a trial.
	Yeah, that's bad.
	Don't get me wrong.
	Maybe stop importing rapists, right?
	That would be a good start.
	Crazy.
	I know, I know.
	Have you got a means test study proving that?
	Or should we just abolish Magna Carta?
	That would be a lot quicker.
	We could have executive trials done by woke judges who can just shuffle you through the courts.
	Guilty, guilty, guilty, stamping.
	Just like they did with the Southport rioters.
	Because what they did is they encouraged them to plead guilty, though they didn't need a jury.
	And so the judge can be like, right, maximum sentence, maximum sentence.
	And those sentences were about two years long, right?
	The sentence.
	So what David Lammy is proposing is that the next time a Southport riot happens, well, these are all.
	Which it will.
	Which it absolutely will, you know, and you absolutely know it will from some Welsh choir boy.
	The rioters won't even need, even if they claim to be innocent, they won't have a jury to judge them guilty or not.
	And the ones that did, there were only a handful of people who did plead innocence, and they were all acquitted.
	All of them were acquitted.
	It was only the ones who pled guilty.
	The judge is like, right, making an example, maximum sentences.
	There's no incentive to plead guilty in the British justice system anyway.
	Of course not.
	But the point is, because they're less than three-year sentences, that would include anyone who riots in the future.
	The state will come down on you.
	You will have nothing.
	It's also a weird incentive to commit as much crime as possible to get over the three-year threshold.
	So at least to be seen to commit.
	All of them are going to be claiming that they were the ones leading the riots next time.
	Next time that this happens to try and push the sentence.
	It's going to be like fake murders going on so they get a jury, but actually, it's like no one actually.
	That's a great point.
	It totally incentivizes criminality from the English point of view because you're like, well, yeah, I do want to be judged by a jury of my peers, obviously.
	But that's the anyway, the point.
	It's kind of similar to when Peter Hitchens is not in abolition of liberty.
	He took the chapter out, but in a brief history of crime, he has a chapter on the death penalty and argued that removing the death penalty actually incentivized criminals to kill witnesses.
	100%.
	Because if you killed a witness when there was a death penalty, if you all got caught, you're all going to the noose.
	Without the noose's incentive, well, I mean, we could get caught, but we won't.
	Might not.
	Witness is dead.
	Yeah, but we might not.
	Yeah, exactly.
	No, you're exactly right.
	Anyway, so the point being, he's putting victims first, which is the moral argument that they are making.
	You can see me ratioing him under every tweet here because I've been furious about this.
	179 to my 1.4 thousand.
	You know, that was only a smaller tweet.
	But yeah, you can see how angry I've been about this.
	But he wrote this in the Times, and I absolutely adore this argument because it's mad, right?
	So obviously, David Lamy says this.
	I remember studying the Bleak House of My A-levels.
	That's a Charles Dicken novel.
	And the Jarndis and Jarndis case went on and on.
	That's a fictional case.
	We cannot go back to a Victorian system in which all new people who are the victims of crime don't get justice.
	That was made up.
	That was a fictional case.
	Charles Dickens wrote it that way.
	Sure.
	It was a narrative plot.
	And so he literally says the system is not working for you.
	And elsewhere he says that this is about saving the system itself using the precedent of a Charles Dickens court case.
	And frankly, the fact that it's the system itself that he's concerned about.
	He wants to save the current managerial paradigm.
	And actually, the easiest thing to do would be to dispose of tradition for its own sake in order to just appoint the judges who have now an executive power over the court.
	And just mad.
	Absolutely mad.
	And I'm obviously completely against it.
	And so is Tulip Sadiq, at least by some degree, because she claims that her verdict was flawed and fascinated because she was found guilty by a judge and not a jury in Bangladesh.
	So interesting how that works, isn't it?
	But you know what who the dark horse who came out against David Lammy on this was?
	Jeremy Corbyn?
	Diane Abbott.
	Oh.
	Based Diane Abbott.
	Also, also Windrush, or a second generation Windrush person, born and raised in the UK.
	And she literally quotes Keir Starmer saying the right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the power of the individual.
	Keir Starman in 1992.
	So honestly, based Diane, well done.
	Like, would have rather you been the justice secretary than Lamy, by a lot of yourself.
	Yeah, obviously, Lamy has defended this in the past because he's a moron.
	But the thing that I was frustrated with was Kemi Badenock's response as well.
	And again, can't help but notice that these are all African immigrants or second generation immigrants who are not actually addressing the issue as we as Englishmen actually feel it.
	Lamy is today scrapping the same jury trials he once lauded.
	It's an attack on our democracy and on our individual rights.
	Ooh, I don't like that framing at all.
	Exactly.
	Modern libtard framing, right?
	No, no, this is an attack on the Magna Carta, Kemi, right?
	I realize that you literally are literally an immigrant who came over a few years ago.
	But this is an attack on like, you know, our ancestors from 800 years ago.
	Yeah, they didn't have modern democracy.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You know, or individual rights.
	You know, the way you frame.
	No, no, this is an attack on the rights of Englishmen.
	And that's the true spiritual malaise here.
	David Lamy doesn't get it.
	Kemi Badenock doesn't get it.
	Weirdly, Diane Abbott gets it.
	So, you know, I'm not saying there's no integration.
	But this.
	Again, it would be horrible.
	It's a small minority.
	It would be horrible to dump Diane Abbott in Africa.
	It would be a horrible thing to do.
	Like, she can't even find a way to do it.
	I feel like I do.
	I think another series of that game show, Carl.
	We've got at least a series planned now.
	I feel like it's cruel enough to let her go out and accompany him.
	I agree.
	To be honest.
	When Kier Starmer was like, I'm going to kick Diane Abbott at the party, I was like, I remember at the time, I was like, that's a bit harsh.
	But come on, it's Diane Abbott.
	Where else is she going to be?
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's like kicking your nan out, right?
	Like, you know, get out now.
	It's like, where's she going?
	Anyway, he didn't kick her out in the end.
	You know, human empathy went out.
	Sorry, shockingly with Starma.
	Yeah, but so anyway, so just to finish, so this is how we got to where we are.
	It was this sequence of events from the decolonization of the British Empire, the changing of the laws to make them more liberal, and the importation of a bunch of foreigners before the laws were restricted, which have allowed people of foreign ancestry who proudly describe themselves as foreign to get to the point where they're going to, or at least try, to abolish in part our right to a trial by jury.
	Now, it's probably not going to happen.
	I think there is actually going to be a labour bankbench revolt over this, led by Diane Abbott, actually, but again, based on Abbott.
	There will be a Labour backbench revolt over this.
	I don't think it's going to happen.
	But we shouldn't be in a position where we are discussing whether we're going to be abolishing the Magna Carta or not.
	This is not appropriate.
	And so, actually, the question is: should we have foreign and we can say born overseas, or we can talk about ethnicity in this regard as well, because I think this is an ethnic issue.
	Should this be permissible?
	And so, Lucy White, I don't think, is wrong to have raised the subject.
	I think everyone responding to her has not really thought about the context in which the question has arisen.
	The context was from a world that is long gone, and even in that world, they essentially were saying no, which is why they changed the Nationality Act to something completely different.
	So, I think that there's a lot to think about on that.
	Should we go to the video comments, Samson?
	And in the meantime, Kevin says, Question regarding immigrant workers coming to the UK.
	Having worked in Asia, in order to get a job, I have to provide my documents to prove my eligibility to work.
	Oh, we've not got any video.
	Oh, we've got loads.
	But let me go through this quickly.
	So, he's got loads of documents.
	This is no doubt why we end up with nurses.
	Oh, foreigners coming from Asian Africa to work in the UK do not need the same.
	And he lists like half a dozen documents.
	This is no doubt why we end up with nurses who had proxies sit their final exams and doctors working in the NHS for 23 years who had never trained or qualified as a doctor.
	So, countries are sending people to work in the UK place higher standards of proof of qualification than we put on people.
	Yeah, it's mad.
	It's absolutely mad.
	And this is the problem with all of it, though, right?
	It's all essentially predicated on the assumption that the British will be running everything because it's all predicated on old imperial ideas that are being sort of inappropriately remodeled for the liberal era.
	It's sort of like a Singaporean view that if you require far more authoritarian measures, the more diversity you have.
	Yes.
	Sorry, I didn't go through in the two chats.
	I wanted to get through all of that first as well.
	Yeah, I just want to do one very, very quick.
	So, somebody says, Charles Francis, Windrush was built by Blom and Voss back when it was still German.
	The yard that built the Bismarck, it did more damage.
	There is even more irony to the whole thing.
	So, that company that operated them during the Windrush thing, New Zealand Shipping Company don't exist anymore.
	They were absorbed into PO cruisers.
	That is one of the most bitter ironies I've ever heard.
	So, boomers can go on their cruises.
	Yep.
	Drunk Changely says, Can you guys check on Dan?
	He left the last podcast martin about milking, and I haven't heard from him since.
	I don't know what that's about, I'm afraid.
	Don't know what that was.
	I was on that one.
	What was that about, actually?
	Oh, he wasn't about Danes.
	That's why.
	He wants to milk Danes?
	No, no, it's that they've put they've put a threshold for IQ for sperm deaths.
	Oh, right.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yes.
	Uh, OC Door says, So they are trying to equalize crime rates, crime rates by ethnicity with the jury issue.
	Um, no, what they're trying to do is just essentially save the system that's destroying us.
	Uh, and they've decided that your ancestral rights are the things that can be sacrificed because I mean, tradition for its own sake can't have that.
	Thank you, by the way, Eddie.
	Um, Baystape says, We're building the inverse empire.
	It's still our burden to civilized the world, but invading their land is mean.
	So, we'll move every person on earth to this tiny island so we can rule over them here.
	Uh, yeah, and because we want to be liberal about it, they can rule over us.
	It's literally the way that this is working, and I'm sorry, it just shouldn't.
	Uh, we do indeed hold the record for the shortest war in history.
	Uh, we hold we heard that there were slave trading in Zanzibar, so we shelled them for 45 minutes and they gave up.
	It was amazing.
	Johnny says, lad acknowledgement: I live on land which was a former British colony, and I'm entering grateful for it.
	Well, many people are actually.
	Aquilia says, Harry, for the theme tune fund.
	Oh, yeah, I still need to do a theme tune of something.
	Yeah, yeah, we need copyright-free.
	I'm just gonna write something absurdly heavy.
	Just possibly not fit the uh no blast beats, you need a sort of top gear-esque thing.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Yeah, top gear-esque gonna be good.
	I'm Satan Scotty, love top story today.
	Carl Benjamin, famed media personality, is accused of going woke.
	You could look at it from a woke traditionalist perspective.
	Dare I say I'm for diversity?
	Well, I've got six cats, and my wife wants more babies, but instead we end up getting cats.
	That's what a woke traditionalist is.
	Stay tuned for that, as well as our following story.
	Why are the far right obsessed with the dangerous conspiracy theory known as malicious editing and how has it linked to Russian disinformation?
	This feels like it was sponsored by James Lindsay.
	Pretty compelling evidence, Carl.
	I await my trial by jury.
	I found this interesting list on the UK's website.
	Apparently, between the months of April and June of this year, only 712 people were found illegally working in the country.
	Now, these 712 are a little bit ambitious.
	What they should have been doing is not working and just getting free money from the government, duh.
	But look at the list of these companies.
	You'll notice some patterns.
	Yeah.
	There's one called Goyal Supermarket.
	I saw that.
	It's an Indian name.
	Let's go for the next one.
	I'm too sexy for my love.
	Too sexy for my love.
	Love's going to leave me.
	With Nigel Farage, I'm too sexy for my shirt.
	Sexy for my shirt.
	Too sexy for my shirt.
	So sexy hypocrites.
	I do know the Fairbrass brothers that produce that hit.
	You know, I'm too sexy for my shirt.
	You've got to get your shirt off.
	Thanks for the reminder.
	Yeah.
	That's our future Prime Minister there.
	To be fair, he handled it pretty well.
	It's better than George Galloway on Big Brother.
	I didn't.
	George Galloway was on Big Brother.
	It's worse than you think.
	For those who know that.
	No.
	And here we are.
	And here is a little way to do it.
	Dog playing in the snow.
	And now, dog back in the house.
	Well, here it is.
	The second snowfall in New York.
	Or at least in my area of New York.
	Just finished snowblowing the driveway.
	At least you're going to have a white Christmas.
	Yeah.
	There are two kinds of dogs in this world.
	There are those who love the snow and go out there and you can't get them in, and those who refuse to go out whatsoever.
	Yeah.
	And there's no in-between.
	I do love snow.
	It's a pain in the ass, but it looks gorgeous.
	This is what I was talking about before we started.
	Did you look up the George Galloway thing, by the way?
	I've seen that the YouTube videos are coming up saying, George Galloway, would you like me to be the cat scene?
	Yeah, you can watch that.
	Did he pretend to be a cat?
	It's really awful.
	Nigel Farage singing I'm too sexy and taking off his shirt is utterly milquetoast.
	I guess I'm going to relive the cringiest moment in British TV history.
	It's.
	So anyway, yeah, let's go to the next video comment.
	Kim Kardashian is stunned to learn her brain has low activity.
	Unless stunned.
	I didn't expect for it to be scientifically proven, though, let alone bragged about publicly.
	Wait, we get to see Kim Kardashian's brain?
	I didn't even think it existed.
	You can see the brain and then you're like, oh, okay, I'm assuming that this is skull.
	Otherwise, the entire exterior of it.
	No, that is bread.
	Look, there's that.
	No, it is just her brain.
	That's not her.
	Look at this.
	There's nothing going on in most of her brain.
	Josh, you've looked at brains before.
	I've even looked at my own.
	Is that a pretty low activity brain that you see there?
	It is a little bit alarming, to be honest.
	I mean...
	I've seen brains light up like a Christmas tree, and that's like one that's had a power cut there.
	To be honest with you.
	I'm a bit envious.
	It must be bliss.
	Exactly.
	Imagine.
	She's stupid and rich.
	It's like the two.
	That's the best combination.
	Imagine how tranquil her days must be.
	She doesn't think about, you know, the futility of existence, does she?
	Yeah, no, no nihilism first.
	She gets up.
	She looks at her bank account.
	Oh, $500 million or however much, I don't know what she's worth, but like, you know, tens of millions of dollars.
	Great.
	Okay, I've got all the money I'll ever need.
	Maybe I'll have a bath.
	Maybe I'll just be unconcerned.
	Maybe I'll go get a pedicure or whatever it is women get.
	And all of the microplastics in her body are slowly getting absorbed into her brain and eroding what little cognition she has.
	But just imagine how happy she is.
	Imagine how nice her life is.
	I'm envious of Kim Kardashian.
	Is there another one?
	I am.
	No, that's right.
	Stuart says, didn't the communists during the early years of the Soviet Union remodel the legal system similar to what Lamy is trying?
	Probably.
	I haven't actually studied the communist legal system in the Soviet Union.
	I wouldn't be shocked.
	It's probably just like judgment by commissar.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Why wouldn't it be anything else?
	Soviet Union has found you guilty, now you're going to be shot.
	Steve says, instead of abolishing the jury, why not make him a professional jury?
	A national body of jurors paid as much as they are now to be sent to wherever they are needed.
	It may not seem wise, but not wiser than abolishing jury trials.
	Well, I mean, that's actually not a bad suggestion if we have to do anything, but I would actually rather just suck it up, frankly.
	I don't want to get rid of my right to trial by jury.
	But also, I mean, like, I've seen them arguing that they could, you know, make just hire more judges, you know, create more trials to get through the backlog.
	But then the question is, why do we have a backlog?
	Just throw out all the BS cases that are to do with, like, oh, somebody sent the text.
	12,000 speech cases a year.
	Yeah.
	I mean, not off of that 78,000.
	Just throw the ones out that are completely frivolous.
	Loads of pointless crimes, loads of foreigners that need not be here.
	And so many people go anywhere anyway.
	Exactly.
	You know, they don't investigate or anything like that.
	It's just ridiculous.
	Baron von Warhawk says, when I was in college, I saw people call, unironically call Queen Victoria one of history's most evil rulers and compare her to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
	They're out of their mind.
	Yeah, absolutely mad.
	Absolutely mad.
	Jimbo says, if we allow David Lammy, a man who's probably never felt discomfort in his life, well, I mean, he's had to think.
	Imagine Lammy in an exam.
	That must have been.
	I mean, we can imagine it very clearly by just referring to the mastermind for sweating there.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So I disagree with you, Jimbo.
	He has definitely felt discomfort.
	But if we let him usher in a global digital fascist regime, we deserve everything we get.
	Yeah, I know.
	I mean, like I said, I don't think this is going to go anywhere.
	But if this does, I mean, I'm not happy at all.
	I've got an honorable mention here that I need to address.
	Josh, the people demand monkey news.
	I've already answered that call.
	You just need to wait until around Christmas time.
	There we go.
	Yeah, the editors are just monkeying about it.
	It might be worth adding something to it, though, right?
	I mean, Kim Kardashians.
	Now in Bonobo news.
	Richard says, the British government has always adjusted figures on immigration crime.
	Yeah.
	Steve says, the Minister of Transport at the time of Windrush was James Callahan.
	I'm not saying anymore.
	Russian says, you're on, Harry.
	The winners of World War II were the banks.
	I'll keep this comment YouTube for any good thinking.
	Yeah, we all like the banks, the profiteers, the people buying and selling the guns, they're always the ones who are actually winning from war.
	Hector Rex also wants to know if I fell asleep and my daughter clocked me in the face again.
	No, a dumbbell slipped in my hand and I clocked myself in the face with it by accident.
	I don't know if that's better or worse, to be honest.
	At least if your daughter does it, you're unconscious.
	You can't defend yourself.
	If you do it to yourself.
	At least I know it was pure utter incompetence on my part rather than what I assume is like malice from my daughter.
	Anyway, thank you for joining us, folks.

▲