Hello there and welcome to the podcast of Lotus Easters episode 1322 on Monday the 22nd of December 2025.
We are only a few sleeps until Christmas now.
So I hope you've all got your presents under the tree.
I hope you've got your stockings out and I hope you don't forget on Christmas Eve to leave out a mince pie and some carrots and a cup of warm milk for Santa and his reindeers folks because it's that jolly festive time of the year and in celebration I'm joined by Bo and our first ever appearance of Lucy White notorious for racism and Bo is going to be
Bo is going to be confronting her on such that's a joke.
That's a joke, don't worry.
Today we're going to be talking, Franja, you're not racist enough.
Yeah, yeah.
Bo's going to be interrogating her, saying, you need to get more extreme, you need to start really throwing out the zingers.
That's what Bo does.
No, we're going to be talking about respect for ancestors and the attempts to distort people's views and understanding and connection to their ancestors.
Bo's going to be telling us about how we don't actually need a position on foreign conflicts.
It's a bit more nuanced than that, but sure we'll go with that close enough.
And we're also going to be having a general discussion about parliament and the sorts of people who should be in parliament, which i'm looking forward to.
But before we get into that, I have been asked to tell everybody that there is a 3 p.m live stream real politic with Firaz, where he's going to be doing a review of the year.
Anyway, before I get into the news as well, hello Lucy.
Hey Harry, how are you doing?
I'm doing all right, thank you, I didn't mean to accuse you of race.
Okay, don't worry, it's only a joke.
We jest a lot in the office, don't we?
So it's fine, would you like to say hello to the audience.
Hello, happy Christmas.
Merry Christmas in a few days um, so hopefully we'll be giving you a good show.
Good Christmas present here, getting to be in our presence.
Oh well, I mean, sounds a bit full of you know, i'm trying anyway.
All right, let's get into the news then, shall we?
Thank you very much.
Uh okay, i'm sorry folks, i'm drinking a white monster.
I'm very tired.
Anyway, i'm not normally in on one day, okay.
So um, let's talk about ancestry and the attempts of many people, many liberal types, to try to distort people's grip connection to their own ancestry and also distort who your ancestors were, what they believed in and why they would want to do something like that, because it's a very common motif.
I see a talking point that is exemplified by this recent post that i've seen going about from some nobody called Sonny Bunch, if you want to know what he's from, what he's from, he does writing for things like the Washington POST and other outlets, but for Washington POST and other outlets, it seems that he's not done much writing for them since early 2023, so almost three years removed, and it's all on Movies, very lightweight cultural critique of movies.
So I wasn't familiar with this guy, but this was going around of him saying, I am generally of the opinion that caring about what ancestors who died before you did were born did is complete loser-esque, and nothing I've seen the last few years has really changed that.
So that's a pretty big statement to start off with.
What a dip shit take.
Could it be more wrong?
Well, I mean, we.
Could it be more wrong, really?
We can explore how wrong it is.
Who says that?
Him, or him, obviously, yeah.
What kind of subversive moron would say even think such a thing, let alone type it out?
Well, somebody who is being overtly subversive, I would say.
And I do have a few points against it to refute it that I'm going to highlight in a moment.
But first, let's see his own attempt to respond to people's responses, basic responses, what I would argue are straw man responses that he received.
He says there were three basic responses to this tweet.
Response one, but I enjoy doing genealogy.
It's neat.
He says, that's great.
I thought it was fairly obvious in the context of the whole blood and soil heritage American discourse from the other day.
That's not who I was talking about here.
And then he goes on to reaffirm that you are actually allowed to be interested in the things that your ancestors did.
Like he uses the example of your ancestors being in the Boston Massacre, for instance, as though we need this guy or anybody else's affirmation to appreciate what our ancestors did and hold a connection to them while he's trying to completely tear you away from that connection and also, like you say, kind of shit all over your appreciation of them and what they did.
Because in my estimation, if your ancestors were at something like the Boston Massacre, or if they came over on the Mayflower, for instance, if you're American, or if you're English, just being English in England,
as in you have Brittonic ancestry along with, you know, Anglo-Saxon ancestry, that does give you a certain right that gives you a connection and a legitimate claim to the land and the nation and its culture, far more than somebody who just got off the boat yesterday.
It would be really cool to have an ancestor that was wearing a red coat at the Boston Massacre.
Very, very specific side that you've chosen there, though.
How to alienate our entire American audience.
No, I would have loved to have had an ancestor in 1812 holding the torches, lighting the torch.
Yeah, that would be cool.
Yeah, thanks, Sonny Bunch, for allowing it.
Yeah, have ancestors.
It's weird that this guy feels like this is a weird thing from a lot of these kind of nobody cultural critics where they feel like they have the right to say, no, you need my approval to believe in X or Y thing.
No, I don't actually.
No, I don't.
And the arguments that you're presenting are complete rubbish.
Well, it's broadly, it's a leftist thing, isn't it?
It's a communist thing like that.
You have to start history afresh.
Oh, yeah.
You know, from Mao to Pol Pot, you actually have to declare war on history and your ancestors because there's something fundamentally wrong with it.
Right?
Even the idea that nostalgia is cringe.
No, it isn't.
The idea that if you wanted to turn the clock back in any sense, you're just an idiot and wrong-headed.
No, It's a war with conservativism at its essence with a small C.
Yeah, no, I reject it.
It's all part of the whole progressive arc of history.
That things, time moving forwards just means that automatically alongside that, things get automatically better.
And so if you think maybe things were better in the past, it's because you're irrational, illogical, emotional, unscientific.
You don't appreciate the benefits that modernity has given us.
Getting the comments thing that there'll be a new man.
There will be a revolution.
We'll start from day one.
Like the French Revolution even.
It's all wound up.
And you still get like pinkos, commies, whatever, socialists like this, subversives.
And it's all part of the thing, oh, nostalgia is cringe, bro.
It's like, no.
And now I'm really suspicious of you.
What you actually want.
And I mean, here is the whole thing kind of summed up in his response to, again, the straw man kind of response.
It's not even really that much of a straw man, to be honest, because the argument that's being presented is fair, where he says, response to, well, I bet you wouldn't say that to the Jews or the blacks, huh?
Would you?
Actually, a fair question.
I mean, does he have an answer?
Is this the sort of thing that Jews and black people and plenty of other ethnicities get asked to do often, to reject their entire history, to condemn everything that came before them?
Or is it just something that tends to happen to white European people that you need to condemn everything?
Well, his response to that is just, that's loser shit and kind of sort of gives the game away, which is a non-answer.
What game?
What were you talking about?
What game?
Can you decode the game?
No.
Yeah, I mean, our ancestors and grandparents didn't fight and die in World War II for the country to be the way it is.
So, you know, our ancestors would be furious at the way our country is right now.
So there is something to be said about our ancestors.
We're not respecting them at all right now.
No, and I'll get into why that is in a moment.
Of course, the present is a product of the past, right?
Just as a small child is a reflection of their parents.
So we are a reflection of our ancestors.
And so to wipe that away, try and do away with that wholesale, is an insanity.
And it never ever works.
It always ends in some sort of Maoist, Pol Pot-esque nightmare every time.
It's just, yeah, he's wrong.
Yeah, and then his last response to these strawman arguments is the oddest from a handful of bad faith hacks and morons you don't care about by Boston Massacre uncle.
Well then I guess you don't care about history at all.
At which point he just like, again, another non-answer.
But the thing is, if history is about the actions of people and what people did as history actually is, then if you don't care about the people, your own ancestors or other people's ancestors and what they did in history, then you kind of don't care about history unless you do like kind of in a Marxist way, see history as just all of these vague abstract forces, kind of wishy-washy, moving about in unpredictable fashion.
No, no, history is the history of people.
Especially if you're in America like this guy is.
Well actually what the people at Boston at the Boston Massacre did is kind of important.
That's an important point in American history.
So it's very strange, but this is quite a common kind of attitude that I see bandied about.
Like Bo says, it's the whole like new man, you've got to restart history.
But the question is, why would somebody want to promote this behavior?
And it's because they want to control you.
They want to disconnect you from the past.
And so I've got a few responses that I've written down here to this kind of you shouldn't care about your ancestors argument that's always stated these days and is kind of pushed on people through the media.
So, first of all, just understanding your past keeps you rooted in your culture and ties you to a greater chain of being and obligations that you have both to your ancestors and to your descendants.
If you recognize that you come from a place and a people that have developed in a very particular way, that makes you the heir to a legacy.
And that means that you have an obligation as well to pass that legacy on to your own children and your descendants, the further your children, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren.
This is kind of one of the reasons that people have decided that they really hate the boomers these days is because they are seen to have completely ignored that obligation.
So, that's one thing.
So, for your own posterity, you might want to care about the world that came before you so that you can better care about the now and make it better for the future again.
Yeah, and the very concept is kind of mad, right?
That each generation stands on the shoulders of the last, and that's actual progress.
That's what culture is, that's what civilization actually is.
So, to abandon that is meant to be a civilizational global experiment for people of European descent, and within a couple of generations, it has been completely disastrous.
So, there's the other reasons as well, which is, I mean, first and foremost, your ancestors are the reasons you exist in the first place.
If they didn't exist, if they didn't have children who then ended up having more children, who then ended up having you, you wouldn't be here.
Like, there's kind of attached to the broader argument that I see people have where it's like, oh, there was only a 1% chance of you being born in England or something like that, where it's acting as though your soul was just kind of in a big pot of souls that gets randomly chucked out into the world and allocated to a random baby instead of you being like the product of your parents deciding to have children.
That's a really weird one that I don't like that I see people throw about because it is a deceptive way of trying to get you to see things in this alienating, isolating fashion.
There's some other reasons as well, because loads of people could have been born a Nigerian or a scorpion or something.
You're just lucky that you were born English and black.
Actually, Bo, I couldn't have because neither of my parents are Nigerian.
Or a scorpion.
Or a scorpion.
As far as I'm aware, I've not checked the back of their heads for little zips where they might reveal the scorpions underneath.
And I'm not going to check because I like things how they are right now.
Thank you very much.
But there's another aspect of this, which is this: if you are taking pride in the achievements of your ancestors, then you're living off of their stolen valor.
You don't need to do anything in your own life if you have this perspective because you're just taking pride for things that you didn't do.
I disagree with that one completely, because if your ancestors did great things, you actually have a standard to hold yourself to.
And if your ancestors, if you come from a line of losers who just accidentally ended up having you through pure luck and chance, well then that's still good too, because that is the lineage you come from.
You should still respect those people, but you can then challenge yourself to be better than they were and to do greater things than they were.
So it's all about holding yourself to standards.
And then there's the broader societal aspects of all of this, which is that, again, this seems to only be something that white people are asked to do these days outside of a situation like Maoist China.
Because other people are very, very tied into their culture and history.
And it gives them a greater collective strength.
You can consider groups like Africans and the Jews and American Indians and lots of other people.
And whites are the only ones encouraged to abandon their history, mainly for the benefit of these other groups, so that we can feel comfortable giving them our legacy and giving them our stuff.
And with that, these historical grievances that these people play to don't go away.
So we're simultaneously asked to hate or ignore our ancestors while these people stand on their graves.
demanding our stuff for what our ancestors supposedly did to theirs.
That seems like a bit of a weird double standard.
And then also, of course, like everybody seems very interested.
Everybody else is allowed to be very interested in our ancestors as well.
And again, it's really because Boomer Orwell quote, I know, but it's very prescient.
He who controls the past controls the present, and he who controls the present controls the future.
And you see them do this all the time, the meddling, the meddling with our history.
You've read 1984, I take it.
Nope.
Haven't you?
Nope.
Have you read it?
Partially in school.
Oh, okay.
That means no.
I'm sorry, Bo.
I just know the quotes and the memes.
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed.
It's free on audiobook on YouTube, unabridged.
Everyone should.
Anyway, one of the main themes in that, one of the jobs that Winston, the main, Winston's job in it is to rewrite the past.
That's his job.
Is that the party has decided that something is haram, that something is now beyond the pale.
And he has to go back and either just destroy or rewrite every single article, every single book that says the thing that's now wrongthink.
Right?
And so, obviously, it's a work of fiction, but it's based on where, you know, where Stalin really did want to do that.
There'll be someone in the NKVD or something which themselves got purged.
You have to go back and expunge them from history.
So again, it's...
There's all those famous photos of Stalin with his advisers where each different variation of the photo, less and less of them are in it.
Right, yeah, they've been an old school version of shopped.
They've been shopped out of existence.
Yeah, not only are they dead now, but they never existed.
Right, so it's not really a new concept what these people are aiming at, what they're trying to do.
It's not only destroy any pride or any privilege you might have or anything from your history and from your ancestors, but that you never had it.
Not that you were wrong-headed to, but it never existed.
Well, it's like with the British Nationality Act of 1981.
It's sort of, you know, if anyone can become British, then what it means to be British means nothing.
So that's ruining our ancestors, our relationship with our ancestors by saying, you know, the three of us here are British, but then someone off the boat can then eventually get a passport that says they're British.
Are they just as British as us?
Well, obviously not.
It was like with Rishi Sunak saying that he was English and everybody trying to tell us that he was English.
He's not.
He's an Indian man.
It's very weird that there would be a kind of skittishness around that fact because he's obviously Indian.
He looks Indian.
He's Indian parents.
He celebrates Indian customs like when he celebrated Diwali at Downing Street.
And it was simply a form of gaslighting for the mass British populace to tell us that this tiny nerdy Indian man was in some way related to our ancestors because that's what it was basically saying is like if Englishness, as I believe, as is factually true, is related to your ancestry, if it goes back to Hengist and Horsa, the Anglo-Saxon invasions and all that.
What he's basically saying is that he's also got a claim on that legacy and that he's also got a relation to that in any way that doesn't start before the Empire and the Raj and his family's involvement in that.
He can say, you know, his family was involved in that, but that doesn't make him English.
No, well, it's, you know, if he is English, then he's saying that his ancestors came over to India and, you know, as the Indians love to say, you know, looted all their resources.
So it's to be them, I suppose.
Saying that that's his ancestors were the ones that did that.
You know, it just doesn't make any sense.
Obviously, he's not English.
Obviously, his ancestors are Indian.
They didn't come over.
And it's also like David Lamy, who one minute he's British and then he's Caribbean and he calls for reparations.
So if he's British, why would a British person call for reparations for their own people?
From himself.
It's because he's Caribbean.
So you can't be both.
I mean, that's always one of the biggest questions.
Well, if you're British, are you paying for the reparations or am I?
Or are you paying me reparations?
Who's actually...
He's paying himself.
Yeah, who actually has to foot the bill?
What a strange, sort of endless identity crisis it must be.
I remember seeing Ash Sarkar a while ago, and people can find tweets where she's saying, I'm not British, and then making an argument in another tweet saying that she is.
And so just playing around with the concept to try and win an argument at any given moment, it would just be...
It's not really an identity crisis for them when it's just completely dishonest bad faith, though, isn't it?
Well, right, yeah, certainly obviously bad faith, just obviously nonsense.
Yeah, but again, looking to the past, if we're not allowed to care about these things, if it's loser shit to care about such things, then why should it be of any concern whatsoever that Cheddar Man was initially shown or initially said to have had dark skin, for instance?
And this article from The Guardian changes the way that we think about our ancestors.
Well, why should that matter?
Why should that matter if I'm completely disconnected from them?
Or is that only in certain circumstances?
Only if I'm being proud of the sorts of achievements that they did, of the kind of civilizing missions, of the Industrial Revolution, of massive progressive leaps in philosophical thought, all of these things.
I'm not allowed to care about that.
But if I go back 10,000 years and find that this guy may have had a darker skin tone, which, by the way, is probably completely BS, apparently that means that, well, if your ancestors, who have no relation, by the way, to Africans either way, but if he had a darker skin tone, you have to now open your floodgates to the third world.
Did you see the beachy head lady thing we got?
Oh, yep.
Have you got that?
Oh, there you go.
Boom.
And the whole thing about this was all based around bunk science in the first place.
Because as you can see, obviously, even just from what's available of this, one of the geneticists who performed the research that was initially done for Cheddar Man said that the results were less than conclusive.
And according to others, we're not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human.
Now, that was back in 2018 when some of the scientific methods used to determine these things were still in their infancy.
But actually, science has progressed quite a bit since then.
And these methods are now far more accurate.
So I don't know if there's been anything new done with Cheddar Man, but I can say that Beachy Head Woman has been confirmed, shockingly, to have been a white, blonde, blue-eyed woman.
And this is an ancestor of the British people right now.
She was supposedly found in what, she was supposedly dated to somewhere between 100 and 300 AD.
It's probably the second century AD, the Roman period.
So Roman period, going back less than 2,000 years.
They initially wanted to tell us that she was from sub-Saharan Africa.
And this was one.
A plaque.
Outrageous thing.
I know.
Truly, the chutzpah.
This plaque was put there to commemorate this.
The remains of Beachy Head woman were found near this site of African origin.
She lived in East Sussex, 2nd to 3rd century AD.
Now, that's been taken down now.
Been taken down because it's utter nonsense.
It was in 2016, a series called Black and British, presented by Professor Olu Soga, who wrote that book, Black and British, which I assume he's going to have to go back and rewrite now.
And similarly, BBC are presumably going to have to go back and like redo this whole series now, or at least print a retraction of some sort.
Clearly, if they were honest.
Probably just memory holding it.
They're good at that.
Yeah.
That's what they do.
They suggested that the Roman skeleton of a woman found at Beachy Head was from sub-Saharan Africa.
Well, not just North Africa.
Not just South Africa, like might be explainable with the Roman Empire.
I was going to say, because the thing is, it's totally possible.
In fact, I think there is evidence that a very, very, very small number of people in the early Roman imperial period, after the legions of Claudius invaded, that you might get someone from as far afield as Syria, modern-day Syria, or Mesopotamia, or even North Africa.
A tiny number of people might have ended up in the British Isles in the second or third century AD.
Okay, that's possible.
But just to say that this woman looked like that and she's sub-Saharan, it was just entirely untrue.
There was no evidence for it at any point.
So that was just a liar.
Just malicious.
Here's the reason they did it.
Here's the reason they did it.
The statement in the show, David Olasoga's documentary series, told the story of, quote, the enduring relationship between Britain and people whose origins lie in Africa.
That was the whole reason to put this claim forward.
That was the whole reason for warping the history because whether they want it or not, people's ancestry does matter to them, even if they don't want it to.
But in this situation, it's kind of weaponizing it against you, where they say, well, actually, these people were brown or consorted and had the same kind of migration patterns as we see now.
Therefore, what you're living in is not a completely radical, never-before-seen period of history.
This is completely normal.
Don't look behind the curtains.
There's no man pulling levers.
This is completely normal.
And so they present this when in actual reality, according to the refined DNA methods that they use now, Dr. Marsh carried out the genetic study, said, using state-of-the-art DNA techniques, we're able to resolve the origins of this individual, shows that she carries genetic ancestry that is most similar to other individuals from the local population of Roman-era Britain.
The thing I read said there was categorically no African DNA in it.
None.
None whatsoever, because they also thought that she might have come from Cyprus and looked Mediterranean.
Also wrong.
Also wrong.
They've refined the DNA techniques and shock of all shocks, Britain up until five minutes ago looked like that.
Well, it's a deliberate attempt to try and distort our history.
And as you said, I think the key word you used, Harry, was to try and normalize migration.
Because the current situation we're living in is not normal.
You know, we've had migration since the 1940s, mass migration, arguably since Tony Blair, but also arguably before that.
They're trying to normalise as if all of this is how life should be when it's absolutely incorrect.
And that's why we need re-migration, because these people, their ancestors, their history is not in Britain.
They have their own history, their own ancestors.
They should be proud of their own history and their own ancestors and stop trying to invade and include themselves and enforce themselves upon us.
Well, the problem with that, though, is that the civilizations that their ancestors built aren't quite as comfy as ours.
And they don't give out free stuff like ours, do they?
Well, they like to claim that they're British, so they would argue that they built all of this if they're just as British as us.
What a shaky logic it is.
There's remains of a woman from the early Roman imperial period who looked like Helena Bonham Carter fell asleep on the sandbed.
Therefore, you can't have a country.
Therefore, you must have open borders and limitless invaders.
That doesn't add up.
That doesn't make sense.
Yeah, it's because a homogeneous population is a strong population.
And therefore, when you break that down, the country becomes weaker, and therefore it's easier to continue invading.
So they're just trying to destroy what it means to be English, what it means to be British.
But that's why we simply cannot allow that to happen.
It's all very deliberate and malevolent, isn't it?
Yeah.
Very deliberate, obviously so.
And obviously that's what we see here in England, but in America, if they can't just...
Because America's a very young country, still.
It's 250 years, nearly.
Nearly, but that's still very young compared to here.
There's public urinals in Paris that are like three times older than the United States.
Yes, that is true.
Again, just losing United States followers there.
But like, we're not.
It's all right.
Americans are known for being able to take a joke, right?
Hopefully, yeah.
Hopefully.
Hopefully.
We know you've got thicker skin than that, Americans.
Come on.
But yeah, in America, we have photographs of what a lot of these people looked like if you go into the late 19th century.
We have paintings.
We have their writings.
So you can't really pull this game with America.
People might try to.
The twacking group Israelites might want to claim that George Washington was a black man, but they can't really very well do that, can they?
On Twitter a few weeks ago, you've just reminded me, I posted there's a photo of both John Quincy Adams, the sixth president, I think he's the sixth president of the United States, and also Andrew Jackson.
There's photographs of them.
There's very, very old men taken in sort of the mid-19th century or like the 1870s or something, at the latest, something like that.
Yeah, and they were small boys during the revolution.
They were both sort of about nine years old, I think, in 1776.
So, yeah, it gives you an impression, gives you an idea.
It shows you what the country would have looked like demographically, obviously.
So they can't really pull this trick on Americans.
So in America, they'll just tell you that, like, Robert E. Lee is the most evilest man to ever live.
And they'll just tear down the statues of him.
And as they've done now, replace it with this woman that I've never heard of before.
And I'd not seen anybody really speaking about her before until this statue was erected of her, Barbara Rose Johns.
Now, her story, I looked into an NPR article about it, was that she supposedly in 1951 Organized a school walkout to protest segregated schools.
And this was organizing 450 students to walk out after they had lured the principal of the school off grounds to pull this remarkable thing off.
And then it was two weeks later the NAACP managed to catch wind of this and decided to represent them, put a lawsuit forward that ended up getting bundled in with all of the Brown v. Board of Education lawsuits that ended up with the Supreme Court case that desegregated schools.
Now, there's a whiff of shite about that story, frankly.
Just like the Rosa Parks story, the second that you look into it, you realize that, oh my goodness, this was a media-curated photo shoot that again was mainly pulled off by the NAACP.
Rosa Parks, of course, was a trained communist agitator, which you'll learn about if you watch my old video on MLK and the civil rights movement on the website.
So I get this, I've not had a chance to look into it very much, but I get the same kind of stuff with this.
But it just goes to show that they will tear down the idols of your ancestors if they can't just completely tell you to get rid of them altogether.
And they will replace them with these people.
So they don't want you to think about the past unless it's in this very curated way.
Robert E. Lee was a footnote in history.
Instead, who you should be looking up to is this brave, amazing woman who represents the post-war opening up of society in the way that they want to, in a way that Robert E. Lee didn't.
Robert E. Lee represents the old virtues: honor, virtue, he represents military greatness, he represents an aristocratic mentality.
That's not what they want from you.
Perhaps not strategically, but tactically, he's one of the all-time greats.
Plus, there's nothing wrong with remembering history, even if it's bad or embarrassing or anything like that.
There's nothing wrong with that.
Well, I mean, Robert E. Lee, I wouldn't even say, is bad, even though he was on the Confederate side or whatever.
I mean, he was asked by the Union to be one of their generals, wasn't he?
And the first choice.
Yeah, and the reason that he said no was because he didn't want to go to war with his own state and his own people.
Yeah, he considered himself a Virginian first and foremost.
A lot of people back in the late 18th century, early 19th century, thought that their country, they would say their country is their state.
Like, I'm a Virginian first, first and foremost.
Yeah, and he was the first choice.
He was Lincoln's first choice to lead the army of the Potomac.
And he, apparently, yeah, he had a soul-searching evening where he had to decide whether he was going to be on the Union side or the Confederate side.
So, yeah, it's interesting.
Yeah, some of his campaigns in the Shenandoah, some of the campaigns into the north he did, were remarkable pieces of military history.
Why would you try and pretend it never happened?
Rip it down, tear it down, get rid of it.
Well, that's not healthy.
Well, there's another virtue that you're not supposed to have these days: loyalty.
Loyalty to his people, to his kin.
They don't want you thinking about that.
They want you to be loyal to abstract values that can change in a moment's notice.
I mean, the other example of distortion or misinformation is George Floyd, the reaction to him.
And, you know, they painted him as some sort of hero.
But actually, if you look into who he was, he was not exactly a good American citizen.
If your heroes include assaulting pregnant women, using fake money, and swallowing a massive bag of drugs, then yeah, lionize him.
Why not?
I mean, isn't Fent even becoming yesterday's news now?
I'm pretty sure on street drugs I've read that Fent Fence kind of Kind of like yesterday's drug now.
There's even more illicit substances on American streets.
Fentanyl is so 2022, or something.
Yeah, fentanyl plus is the new market drug.
Please correct me on that if I'm wrong.
But anyway, yeah, so this whole like attitude has been actually seeded and implanted in people's minds for a very long time.
And longer than wokeness would have you believe.
People like to think that wokeness maybe started in the mid-2010s and then developed from there, reached its big excess and now is going down.
Although I would argue with stuff like this new statue coming up, maybe less so.
But the thing is, you can watch stuff like this.
It's a paid episode, so I can't show you here.
But there's a.
I showed his article on the 1919 British race riots a few weeks ago.
Willem Iverson, formerly known as American Krogan, currently has a very good series talking about Star Trek and the social engineering and preachiness baked into that series, which is only available if you're a paid subscriber on his sub stack, but I am, and it's very worthwhile.
It's an excellent series so far.
But this episode was the one that I watched this morning, the most recent one.
Daft Scandy's Noble Indies, where he's contrasting in Star Trek Voyager the differing depictions of Scandinavia, people of Scandinavian ancestry and their past, and people of American Indian ancestry and their past.
And this is something that you can see throughout lots of stuff, but Star Trek seems to be like a prime example, especially for how it's influenced a lot of actually very powerful people.
I mean, like Elon Musk and all these people seem to take their idea of this utopian, cashless, half-socialist future straight from Star Trek.
It's very strange.
These people need to watch something a bit less optimistic, if you ask me.
But it says to.
He says he is a Voyager fan.
That's new to me.
I'm not.
Oh, all right.
I don't like Star Trek.
My dad tried to show it to me when I was a teenager because he wanted to get me into it.
And I kind of liked all of the space adventure stuff, the Final Frontier, this kind of idea of going out and being an explorer and seeing new things and making these great discoveries and everything.
It was really exciting to me.
But then it came with a load of.
Even as a teenager, it's like, this is really preachy.
This is really, really preachy.
And I don't like all of the preachy stuff with it.
So I was more into Star Wars.
Yeah.
Because it was way more exciting to me.
I only like the William Shatner and Ennard Nimoy stuff.
The cheesy stuff.
The old stuff, the original stuff.
Yeah.
I've never seen any Voyager, really.
Obviously, but anyway, that's not the point.
But the interesting thing is the way that these different people are depicted is like: if you're white, your ancestors either didn't matter and you can put them behind you, or they were ignorant savages.
And the ultimate message is you should work to move beyond them and abandon them.
But then it's got another message for everybody else, which is your ancestors, they were wonderful, kind-hearted, noble.
They lived and were in touch with the land and nature.
And you should learn from and respect your ancestors and carry on their cultural practices.
That's been a defining message in media, probably since the 60s, because the original series of Star Trek also pushed that kind of mentality, sadly.
And the thing is, that second message of like the noble savage, oh, aren't they so beautiful and at peace with nature and such?
I mean, that does go back to the 18th century.
It goes back to Russo.
It goes back to.
It goes back to Russo.
It's been something that's been in European minds for a while, but it doesn't help to spread that message out to everybody through media blaring it into your brains all the time.
Media has always been television.
Films have always been to me the most effective form of propaganda because when you're sat there watching it, you think you're just watching your stories when you're at your most vulnerable because you're just passively absorbing it.
And we all know that stories are one of the best ways to convey values.
That's why stories have been ubiquitous throughout human history.
Go back to the Homeric epics.
Like, what values were they trying to imprint on people?
They were trying to imprint heroic, aristocratic values on people, and that influenced and was a product of the culture around it.
And so this kind of thing goes out, and you get all of these tech bros watching this, and this all other message, that second message about the noble savages imprinted on people as well.
And it encourages them to, even more than they might have already done, value foreign cultures over their own.
Makes me think of Aldous Huxley as well, Brave New World, the noble savage in that.
And that's like the 20s or 30s, is it?
He's writing that.
Yeah, I'm not saying that it was.
I'm not saying it was started by Star Trek.
I'm saying that this was a massive.
I'm agreeing with you.
It goes back longer than most people think.
Yeah, it was definitely pushed on people even more and more through television, where a lot of the television messaging was anti-white as well.
And just to finish up, what does it end up with?
It ends up with the kind of acceptance of the fact that you have no place in society anymore.
As we saw through this article that went very viral recently, The Lost Generation by Jacob Savage and Compact magazine, where he says here, he's talking about different white men in different fields, mainly in the entertainment and Hollywood industry.
And he talks about a university person here who was going for tenure, who was going for a tenured position.
And this is Ethan, an Ivy League educated social scientist, saying, I operated under completely false assumptions.
He says he'd always had a vague and naive idea that professionally everything would work itself out.
I was going to be a tenure-trek professor.
That was my expectation.
Like so many middle-class millennials in the Obama era, Ethan believed that he was on the right side of history.
He had entered academia after an unsatisfying stint in the corporate world precisely because he was interested in issues of inequality.
He wanted to make the world a better place.
I came in wide-eyed, bushy-tailed, but I felt like in the early 2010s there was a good reason to feel that way.
Society was moving in a direction that felt more fair, less caste-orientated.
After Ferguson and Black Lives Matter and then Me Too, as talk of diversity and representation and privilege swept across campuses, the universities responded with a host of new initiatives.
While faculty diversity programs had been in place for decades, these had been mostly ineffective.
This time would be different.
The new initiatives had very, very concrete goals, and it meant that people like Ethan, men like Ethan, were completely pushed out.
And as we find out in the article, he never got his tenure.
He never got the position that he felt was fair to him.
He was passed over for the sake of diversity.
But the fact is, if you take the position that he did, if he's interested in issues of inequality, well, that's the logical outcome of these beliefs.
If you take this hierarchical, put the foreigner, put the outsider over myself, who is just a deracinated, isolated individual, not attached to anything anyway.
I'm just a white man completely disconnected from everything.
I'm not owed anything.
If you take that position, well, yeah, you should just step aside for the sake of somebody else who's more deserving.
So he thinks he was eaten by the very beast that he helped create.
Yeah, these beliefs are the logical outcome of everything discussed above.
So if these are the logical outcomes of your beliefs, you may have been proper guised into it, but you can't go about whining about it afterwards.
I care so much about diversity, inequality, inclusion.
Oh no, I can't get hired anywhere because I'm a white man.
That's the ultimate result.
Yeah, I mean, the main issue with DEI is: number one, it shouldn't exist in the first place.
It should always be about merit.
If you're good for the job or you are the most talented person in the room, you should get the job.
It shouldn't be about skin colour.
And I always find that, you know, those that say are from an ethnic minority background, well, don't they also have their own homeland where they can go and be politicians or bankers or in education there?
The fact that they're in the UK and then pushing for what they believe is their right to the white man's job is just ridiculous.
It's not based on talent, it's based on the fact that you believe that you're owed something because you're an ethnic minority.
When in reality, our country, the white population, is set to be an ethnic minority in the next well, by 2060s or was it 2069, 2067?
2063 was one prediction, but it could happen sooner.
So what happens then if the white man is then the ethnic minority?
I mean, look at London, you're all we're already.
We don't get treated as nicely as we treated them.
And just look at Rhodesia, look at South Africa.
I was just going to say, just look at South Africa.
Yeah, it doesn't work the other way around.
Once we become the minority, we're then not put on top of the pie or anything.
Well, DUI is obviously, clearly, isn't it?
And the whole thing.
That's a shorthand for less white people.
It's stupid with that, isn't it?
And when you talk about meritocracy, that's one of the points of this article: the fact that every single time they were talking about diversity, it was at the expense of meritocracy.
There are so many discussions in this where people would say that they were involved in these discussions where it was like, well, this man's obviously the best for the job, but we can't hire him.
We can't hire him because he's not black.
He's not a woman.
He's not, well, he's a white man.
That's why we can't do it.
So it's at the sacrifice of everything.
And I mean, the funny thing is, the first thing in here is it's talking about screenwriters in Hollywood.
And it says in 2011, the year I moved to Los Angeles, white men were 48% of lower-level TV writers.
By 2024, they accounted for just 11.9%.
No wonder TV sucks now.
I'm sorry, like when you do that, it's funny.
You can't help but notice the pattern that whenever they do stuff like this, like, oh, white men are less and less of everything across the board, and everything's got worse at the same time.
Oh, I wonder if there's a connection there.
You haven't noticed a pattern, have you, Harry?
No, you're not allowed to notice.
You're not allowed to talk about it.
Noticing is the ultimate pattern.
I can't notice patterns.
As ever, I reaffirm day in, day out, I am retarded.
I have the inability to notice patterns.
Anyway, so there you go.
So all of that to say, nice and succinct, short segment from me, that you should care about the past because everybody else cares about your past and it matters today and it will matter tomorrow.
So don't let weird freaks tell you that you need their approval to appreciate what your ancestors did for you.
But the question is: so, say if you are a white man and particularly a straight white man and you're being excluded from these jobs just because you know you may be talented but DEI is there to push you to the side.
What is the white man supposed to do?
We need some kind of revolution or maybe a stronger belief in your ancestral ties will push back against this nonsense.
I think having a better understanding of time and place, where you come from, your connection to your own history can help encourage a better idea of in-group preference with people that can help you function better as a collective and it can help to engender trust between people of the same group.
And you see with other groups that that kind of in-group preference, that shared trust, the ability to say, we are on each other's side for this reason, not for abstract value reasons, again, which can change like that, but because we are of the same kin makes them stronger and makes them work more effectively.
It affects your behavior day to day.
So I always think that that's one of the reasons why they all do it.
So, you know.
We did it up until five minutes ago, and since then, the world's gone to shit.
You got some chat?
We'll go through those after the other two segments, I think.
Okay.
Is that a world record?
48 minutes?
Well, no, we were doing the hour and a half.
Oh, yeah, we were.
don't we?
Also, your segments, we'll see how long they go for.
Yeah.
Yeah, okay.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
Okay, so I thought I wanted to talk a little bit today about sort of the ongoing, I think it's really a problem, of being forced to pick a side in foreign wars.
I'm not for that.
I think it's a real problem where you're forced into sort of a paradigm where you must pick a side, whether it's the Arab-Israeli conflict or the Ukrainian-Russian conflict or anywhere in the world, that you have to pick a side and be all in on it at the expense of your own national interests.
It just comes up again and again and again.
I remember the other week, Faras was saying something and he was criticising, I think he was criticising Hamas.
I think he was criticizing the Palestinian side of that conflict.
And just to play Devil's Advocate, literally, I think I even said, just to play Devil's Advocate, said something to respond to him.
And in the chat, both sides, it was immediately insanely toxic.
Him being accused of all sorts of things.
You know, the classic thing of that if you're pro-Israel in any way, if you say anything that's pro-Israel, then you must be a Zio shield or something.
You must be in the pay of Jerusalem.
How was the 7K?
Or the other way around, the 7K.
It's good money.
it's good money or the other way around if you say anything that sort of uh well well there's like um i think of some maybe someone like uh nick griffin and tommy robinson Two ends of the spectrum there.
Tommy Robinson's so anti-Islam that he's essentially pro-Jewish.
I mean, he is.
Or Nick Griffin, you're so anti-Jewish that you end up on some level being pro-Islam.
I feel like both those positions, you've sort of gone wrong somewhere.
You've sort of missed, you've gone down a wrong turning, I feel like.
I'm much more familiar with Robinson than I am Griffin.
I know that Griffin has done interviews with that, what's his name, Mehdi Hussein?
Is that the guy he's done interviews with?
I've not really seen any clips from them, so I couldn't go.
I'm much more familiar with Robinson being a very fairly explicit Zionist.
quite proud of it as far as i'm aware yeah i just think both sides if you're like uh if you've got the nativist interests at heart um you shouldn't go you've probably gone wrong somewhere I mean, if you're supposed to be on the right, if you're supposed to be a patriot, a British or English patriot, but you find yourself wearing a shamagh and agreeing with George Galloway all the time, then maybe you've taken a wrong turning.
George Galloway, who, by the way, I believe is married to a Muslim and has like mixed foreign children.
Yeah, yeah.
So George Galloway, by his own children's interests, is not going to be on our side completely, even if he can be good on some things like the abortion question.
I just tweeted this earlier today, like someone saying to you, you have to choose between Islam and Israel.
And me just saying, no, thanks.
Yeah, how about no?
How about no?
What about my national interest?
It's not our war.
It's like in London, you see, well, we did see most weekends, there was some protest or another every single weekend in London.
And we've just had enough of all of it.
I don't care what side you're on.
I just don't want these protests on our streets every single weekend.
And yes, some would argue, but the UK is involved in X, Y, and Z war funding this and that.
But the issue is it's not in our interests.
And we should just be pro-English, pro-British.
We don't have to take our government's involvement in those for the most part.
And similarly, there's nobody else on my side.
So I have to take my side because nobody else is going to take it for me.
We've got enough problems here.
And there's a few arguments like, oh, it is still your war.
It does still matter to you because of immigration.
There'll be loads of displaced people from conflicts around the world.
So you must take a side.
You must have an interest.
Well, if we, I know we're not at the moment, but you know, if we controlled our borders, then that wouldn't be an issue as well.
I just, I mean, it's not a new conversation, is it?
I mean, I mentioned John Quincy Adams in the last section.
It's funny.
I've got a quote from him here from 1821 where he said, America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
Classic quote, famous quote.
The idea of in their time, in the early 19th century, it was pretty much a global conflict, global struggle between the English and the French all over the world.
And Americans, early people from the United States, would often be forced into a choice whether they were pro-English or pro-French.
And John Quincy Adams was saying, no, no, how about neither?
No, how about neither?
How about America first?
Coming back to your point about, oh, if we've implicated or been involved in a foreign conflict, that will lead to immigration.
That's completely incorrect because these people will still come to England regardless.
There are so many countries where there's not a war at the moment.
Take a look at, I know, India, Pakistan, parts of Nigeria, and they flood our country.
I don't see a mass war going on there right now.
Yeah, where's the war in Albania?
Yeah, Albania, Romania.
So, exactly.
So, you should debunk that.
It's not about us interfering in foreign conflict.
They will come regardless.
Just this idea, it also applies for the Ukraine-Russian thing as well, but particularly for the Arab-Israeli conflict, that you must pick a side.
I just reject that.
I'm just saying no to that.
I mean, this is a tweet I said.
I know recently I did a tweet where I talked about having to choose between Team Shapiro and Team Tucker, because you remember that thing at Amfest.
That was all tongue-in-cheek.
It's just a funny thing.
I say, well, all frivolities aside, I think Anglos, Europeans, Americans, Canadians, Australians need to be able to put their own countries first, i.e., being in favour of your own nation before any other nation, religion, or creed.
So, being both anti-Islam and anti-Zionist, it is frustrating that any criticism of Islam gets labelled a shilling for Zion, and any criticism of Israel gets labelled as apologetics on behalf of Islam.
We need to get over this hump, I feel.
Yeah, I just reject it now, despite the tweet I did recently about Team Shapiro and Team Tucker.
Yeah, I'm not Jewish and I'm not Muslim.
I haven't got any heritage of either of those.
So, why do I have to pick a side?
It's not in my interest, my national interest, to pick a side on that.
And I sort of refuse to, and I suggest other people do as well because it's just not helpful.
How is it in our interests in any way?
You do have interest in the Cherokee Sioux conflict, though.
Oh, right, yeah.
We know that.
That goes back deep.
And Mohawk, get it right.
Sorry, sorry.
The people, the Mohawk people, if you don't know what we're saying.
I'm completely.
I think we've gone mad, Lucy.
We all did DNA tests.
Okay.
And one of my DNA tests didn't show I had any Native American ancestry, but the other one said I've got like 1% from like Canada, from like Native Indigenous peoples of Canada, which is Mohawk, not Sioux.
Sorry, sorry.
So Mohawk, obviously, just so much of a footnote compared to the Sioux.
Yeah.
Clearly.
Or the cherry.
But I like to believe the one that said that he's a bit foreign.
That's the true one.
Okay, that's the correct one.
I have heard that anything at like one or even up to three percent may well just be sort of noise in the DNA.
That's what I'm telling myself.
That's my cope.
That's mine for your cape.
Did you have any?
Were you 100% British Isles?
No, I was...
You had some Scandinavian, didn't you?
Yeah, sure.
Shockingly enough, I'm a bit Danish as well.
A little bit of a vice.
But all the rest of it is English, which is basically the same thing.
Did you have much Irish in there?
I had no Irish.
No Irish, no Welsh, no Scottish.
Entirely English.
Nice.
Nice.
Have you ever done your DNA test week?
Not yet, but now I'm intrigued.
Yeah.
They're fun.
It's interesting.
It's interesting nonetheless.
So yeah, that was just really the segment.
It's not much of a segment.
Luckily, your segment went on for so long.
Well, that's because I made it nice and conversational.
But I just think that this is actually quite an important issue where you're not only, you know, it keeps diverting away from our own interests.
Our own national sort of civilizational, even racial interests are immediately thrown by the wayside because you have to pick a side.
That can be a distraction.
just a distraction yeah I just don't think that's we don't need to do that we don't need to do that I think you could also look at this through the lens of some people are anti-illegal migration, but pro-legal migration.
But you should obviously be anti both because the legal migration is, well, sorry, illegal migration is the distraction for what's really going on.
So while the small boats are coming in, you know, 700 today, 400 yesterday, for example, thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands are being brought in by a plane legally.
So that's a bigger distraction.
So instead of being, oh, just anti-illegal migration, you should just be anti-migration altogether, for example.
Well, I mean, it's like if they come in illegally, but after, say, five years, they're granted indefinite leave to remain.
So are they legal now?
Is that okay now?
Because they're still the exact same person.
What about just a legal status changes the character of that person and how they got over here and what they contribute or take from our country?
It's a complete nonsensical argument.
Yeah, I think distraction is probably the right word.
It's anything to stop the good, the necessary conversation from happening.
What's in our interests?
Yeah, I mean, there was something as well.
Yesterday I posted about, you know, Nicki Minaj coming out of the turning point USA thing.
Yeah, yeah.
I posted a picture of Julius Evely.
Real G's will know why.
And somebody replied to me saying, like, Harry, don't you...
Isn't it like...
It's such a...
Harry, she's the one who's drawn more attention to the genocide of Christian Nigerians going on right now than anybody else.
And it's like, I don't care.
I'm sorry, that's somebody else's conflict in somebody else's country.
It's a terrible shame that it's happening to Christians, but I'm sure they can look after themselves.
I'm sure they can organise in their own interests and fight back.
I care more about the bad things that are happening to my people in my country.
I care about the mass rape of underage girls by foreign grooming gangs in my country.
If you tell me you need to be concerned about this conflict, this conflict, this conflict, there's an infinite number of conflicts going on around the world at any one time.
And to me, apart from the ones that actually involve me and my people, they are all interchangeable.
I do not have the bandwidth to care about some conflict on the complete other side of the world involving people that I have no connection to.
Right.
Yeah, if there's some sort of internal civil war going on in Spain with like Basque separatists or something.
Yeah, it's not my war.
It's not my war.
If there was some sort of crazy French civil war with like southern monarchists versus Republicans in the north, I would stay out of it.
And by the same token, if there was something going on in Britain, well, there is.
It's no one else's business.
I don't want to hear from South Africa or Israel or something about how we deal with our own internal conflict.
Yeah, we need to look after, we need to focus, first and foremost, on our own problems.
I mean, the UK government will give more funding to, say, Ukraine than dealing with the rape gang scandal predominantly by Pakistani men.
And in my opinion, the minute this was uncovered, the whole lot should have just been deported.
They should not still be in our country.
I mean, we looked into a few weeks ago the trial transcripts that had been released and there was some horrifying stuff in those.
But again, it reaffirmed what we knew for a long time at this point, which is that it's not just the men organising this.
There are whole communities involved in this.
And these communities will travel from far parts of the country so that they can abuse these girls together.
And in some of these communities, like Bradford, like Rotherham, like the one that was organising a lot of it in Oxford from the 2013 transcripts as well, to me, that justifies mass arresting all of the men.
All of the adult men in those communities need to be investigated.
Because if they are not directly involved, then they would have some involvement of it just through knowing that it's going on in the community.
They are all complicit, judging by what I was able to read in that.
Absolutely.
So, and of course, we know the authorities covered it up.
There were lots of bribes going on.
You know, don't say this and we'll pay you money to keep silent.
But naturally, you know, I see that as an internal war in our country, and it's just not being dealt with.
It's being ignored.
So, yeah, I completely agree with you that why are we looking at Ukraine and Russia and Israel and, you know, etc.
Because we are not dealing with our own problems.
This is all a distraction from what's really going on in our country.
That's all that should matter.
No, absolutely.
I just couldn't agree more.
We haven't got the capacity.
We're not sort of, we haven't got the empire anymore.
It's not like we're the United States where we have got sort of a giant, giant navy, a giant, giant air force, and it's been our job for decades to be the de facto world police.
We're not that.
It's not that.
So we need to focus.
It's very, very sad.
It's not that I don't think it's very, very sad what's going on in the Donbass.
Loads and loads of Ukrainian men and Russian men have died in that conflict.
It's really sad and the plight of the civilians and stuff.
It's not got anything to do with the United Kingdom.
It's not got anything to do with us.
We shouldn't be spending money.
We certainly shouldn't be sending our boys over there.
Shouldn't be contemplating that, in my opinion.
Then again, the new appointment of MI6, I believe, Blaise Metrowelly, I don't know how to pronounce her name.
But Edward Dutton has been tweeting a lot about her ties to Ukraine ancestrally and how that might now implicate the UK's involvement.
Wasn't she something like a half or a quarter Slavic?
So again, going back to family ties, if she's got those family ties as recent as that, that implies at least one grandparent that's a full-blooded slav.
Then that could impact your thinking when it comes to foreign conflicts in Eastern Europe, like the one that's going on in Ukraine right now.
Does she feel some kind of tie to them?
Does she feel some kind of obligation to them?
I think that is an important consideration.
This is why you should be able to prove going back to at least your direct grandparents on both sides that they're all English or British if you're going to be having a very high up position within the intelligence and security services.
But even not just high up positions, but in the MI6, in order to do a summer internship, you have to be from black, ethnic, minority, BAME, ethnic, minority background.
And again, I think that's just a national security risk because even if it's a summer internship, it's still an entrance which gets you on the ladder.
And as we know, white men are being excluded from those positions, but they would be the ones that have our interests at heart because of their ancestral ties to our country.
So ancestry is, of course, critical, and that's why we should not have foreign influence in politics.
And I think that ties in well to our final segment.
If we would like to...
I was just going to say, you call it a circuitous, I'll call it an absurd perversion.
Yeah, absolutely sickening.
But yeah, we'll go to the last segment because I think that's a good segue.
We've got a little bit of time to actually talk about what you want to talk about.
Taking a sip.
So, yes, I mean, as we saw, I think nearly a month ago now, I did a tweet, which is just a standard tweet for me, nothing radical, nothing out of the blue, just stating that there should not be, well, not a single person born in Pakistan should be in the House of Commons.
Just a normal tweet for me.
Makes complete sense.
But I think the outrage it caused was because I tied it to Nisrat Ghani, and they would argue that she is assimilated, she's got an English husband and only has one child, etc.
That's where the outrage came from.
But it wasn't, number one, the tweet wasn't necessarily targeted just at her.
It was the fact that anyone born in Pakistan should not be in the House of Commons.
But as we can see on the screen, sometimes we do need to do blanket bans.
You know, I think we should have a total travel ban on anyone from Pakistan entering the UK.
And I'll go into the reasons why.
But the point I'm making here on the screen is it says UK universities restrict recruitment of Bangladeshi and Pakistani students.
And certain universities have put blanket bans, a blanket ban on all students from Pakistan.
And the reason mainly for that is because when they come here, they abuse the visas, they overstay, and then they become illegal migrants in our country.
And so if a university can place a blanket ban on everyone from Pakistan, that's a sensible policy.
You cannot cherry-pick and say, oh, well, this student is good, that one is good, but the rest are bad.
The same with Nisrat Ghani.
If she were a student today coming into England, she wouldn't be allowed to come.
the argument of well she's a good one well if the majority are bad you do have to policy doesn't allow you to pick and choose one or two good ones You have to do that.
Well, yeah, I think what people took from yours is they were trying, they were trying to force it into the mold of that you were taking a personal attack on this woman.
They wanted to interpret that you were personally attacking her, saying that she specifically was a bad person and therefore we should ban all of these people, kind of taking the individual and extrapolating it out across the whole group.
Whereas anybody with their heads screwed on who can read and has reading comprehension could see that you were talking in broad principles of the kind where it's like, well, yes, there might be individuals who are fine.
You didn't mention her character.
But when we're looking at things societally, when we're looking at groups of people, you do have to apply these across the board without exceptions.
There may be good ones here and there, but we don't have the bandwidth to be able to investigate every single individual person all of the time and say, well, you can come in, but you can't and we can make exceptions on these rules.
No, we need to have these blanket rules.
That's how the law works.
I think the reason why your tweet hit a nerve is because it goes right to the heart of the matter.
It goes right to the heart of the multicultural, multi-ethnic project, doesn't it?
It just goes straight to the heart of that, is that regardless of universities and other things, in the House of Commons, the legislative body, well, it's also the executive, isn't it, in the front bench, the executive, isn't it?
That shouldn't be populated by foreigners, people of foreign extraction.
And that is something that will pierce the heart of pro-multiculturalists, of globalists.
It's going right to the heart of the matter there.
So no wonder it sort of got them all in a tizzy.
Because you're just saying it explicitly.
It should be, our country should be governed and ruled by us and us alone.
You could point to like Aristotle saying that, oh, it's a stupid idea to be ruled by foreigners.
But really, it's just common sense.
You don't need to cite philosophy or anything fancy.
Most countries in the world do that.
Yeah, it's just normal.
I can't move to Vietnam, say, and run for office in Vietnam.
I would be ineligible, for example.
Do you want the patriarch of the next family over in your next door neighbor to come and make all the decisions in your house?
Or will he have different priorities to your family?
Will he maybe make different decisions to your family?
It just makes more sense to run your own life and run your own country.
It's a classic thing Machiavelli said in the late 15th century in the Prince.
He said, you know, there's a few things, a few pitfalls.
And it sounds really obvious when you just say them out loud, but it's like, don't rely on a mercenary army.
Don't outsource your fighting to foreign people.
Don't allow yourself to be governed by a foreign prince, a stranger prince, because he won't, obviously he won't have your interests at heart.
Obviously, it's just sort of it's common sense 101, really, isn't it?
Again, on like a smaller level, you can extrapolate it out to other things using real-life data, which is like one of the dark things is the level of child abuse that goes on with biological fathers versus stepfathers.
Stepfathers are far, far more likely to abuse the children of the families that they've married into if they're not their direct children.
Because there is a connection there of like, well, you're not really mine.
And if that happens on such a small scale, why shouldn't you expect that if you get an outsider to govern your country, that there wouldn't be a similar abuse of the system?
Well, just very directly, we see fifth columnists, cuckoos in the nests in parliament.
You know, for example, what springs to mind was when there was a debate a few weeks back or a few months back about cousin marriage.
You just get the Muslim independents just arguing for cousin marriage in the chamber, in the House of Commons.
Like, what is that?
What is going on there?
What a crazy, crazy nonsense.
Well, the other one was, um, I was trying to find a tweet, actually.
But there were two ladies, Labour MPs, one from Ghana, one from Nigeria, and they were both arguing about Jollof Rice in the House of Commons.
Jollof Rice is a spicy rice where the Ghanaians and the Nigerians each have Jollof Rice, and they say, well, mine is better than yours.
So it's like a kind of ribal.
It's almost tribal between the Ghanaians and Nigerians.
But the fact is, they are elected in the UK House of Commons.
You don't even know what Jollof Rice is, and why should you?
I was going to say, I was going to say, I don't know what that is.
Because it's totally irrelevant.
Yeah.
Okay.
Why on earth do we have two MPs in the UK House of Commons arguing about Jollof Rice in the chamber?
Like, it makes zero sense.
And here we go.
So I've got the quote.
So Iqbal Mohammed, he is an independent MP.
Obviously, I believe he's Pakistani.
He said he preaches, well, he said an estimated 35 to 50% of all sub-Saharan African populations prefer cousin marriage.
And it is extremely common in the Middle East and South Asia.
So obviously, why are you talking about sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South Asia?
In the UK, you're supposed to be a British MP.
Yeah, I know.
I mean, what an absurd thing.
So it's kind of a sickening thing to a negative.
I mean, we stopped all of the whole current cousin marriage stuff ages ago with like papal degrees going back.
Yeah, yeah, going back like centuries, if not over a thousand years.
Like we just don't do that.
We don't do that.
I think it's mentioned in B in the Venerable B.
Yeah, we've not done that for a long time.
Like the 600th or 7th century.
632 something.
Oh, sorry, Iqbal Mohammed is an Indian Muslim, it says here, but still an independent MP.
Yeah, and there's lots of other independent MPs from Pakistan, you know, advocating for Gaza that were just elected on Gaza.
So we've lost that sense of, well, it just proves the point of why do we have essentially foreigners in the UK Parliament.
Again, because we just don't have a strict, we didn't have a strict enough law in place to prevent it.
If you go to lots of other countries in the world, there will be a law on the statute books.
I can read it.
So it's the Act of Settlement of 1700, where it says that foreigners, so anyone that was foreign-born without English parents, were not eligible from holding high office or sitting in Parliament.
And that's only changed with the law at some point then.
Yes.
You'll never guess when.
So you have the British Nationality Acts of 1948 and 1981.
Essentially 1981 was when it's Thatcher, isn't it?
1981.
Well, it would be.
Sorry, go ahead.
Sorry.
No, it's fine, but basically it's we had this all in place in the 1700s.
So for anyone that would say, oh, Lucy White's tweet was racist, it's not.
It's actually, if you go back and look at our legislation, it was written in our constitution.
It's actually trad.
And it's just been erased.
So from, you know, 1948, 1981 British Nationality Acts, we have to repeal those.
And once we go back, that's how we restore our Parliament being what we would call British.
But nowadays, I feel I have to say, I'm English, because if anyone can be British, it means nothing.
Again, this ties into some of the stuff that I was saying, which is that all of this stuff, all of these attitudes were implemented five minutes ago.
On the timeline of how long England and the English has been around, like that's five minutes ago.
And in that time, the country has gone to the dogs.
And everything has got worse.
And we've allowed untold abuses and awful things to happen.
And that's not just been under the auspices of foreign people in Parliament.
That's also been under our own traitorous elite class.
But that's why this whole traitorous elite class, the natives and the foreigns alike, need to be cleared out ultimately because they do not have our best interests in mind.
They hate us.
So even the white liberals, I would argue, are actually more dangerous because they're the ones that hold the door open for mass migration.
So obviously we need to reverse migration through remigration.
But equally, those that are the traitors, you have to ask, why are you doing this?
Why are you deliberately trying to destroy our country?
And part of that is from what we said before.
If you don't respect your history or your ancestors or you're ashamed of it's essentially suicidal empathy.
Yeah, or it's suicidal empathy where they think we were a bad force in the world and therefore we must destroy ourselves so it never happens again.
Empire evil because India's share of global GDP went down.
That's the argument, isn't it?
For the whole 45 trillion thing is it's like, well, when they invaded, invaded, we were this much of the global GDP.
But by the time they were done, we were only this much of the global GDP.
And it's like, yeah, your economy still grew.
There was like this whole industrial revolution thing going on in the background.
These people are just stupid, but people let those arguments actually convince them because people are stupid, sadly.
You're right.
What kind of madness is that?
I get why somebody like, I don't know, like Don Butler or something would want to see us destroyed, or Clive Lewis or something, because they're consumed by racial jealousy or hatred or something or other.
But you get people that are supposed to be British or English, someone like Tony Blair or John McDonnell or someone or Jeremy Corbyn or Stella Crease or some people like that.
What kind of mania are they suffering from?
They're seeing what's happening to the country, what's happened over the last decade or two.
Like the cliff that we're accelerating towards and still going for it, still making those arguments.
What kind of madness is that?
With Blair and his types, I think people forget because he's done such a good job of painting himself kind of as like this middleman moderate over the past few years.
He's a sensible voice in the room.
People forget that back in like the 1970s, him and Jack Straw and those types, they were student radicals.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Trotskyites.
Yeah, they were Trotskyites.
And people forget that, because in the 90s, when New Labour came in, they presented themselves as, oh, we're the sensible alternative to rubbish Tory rule, we're going to make a...
We're communists.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Tony Blair was once on Desert Island Discs on the radio.
And one of the books he chose was A Biography of Trotsky.
I mean, tells you everything you need to know.
I mean, he was an interesting fellow, but I can think of better books.
You want to read that over and over again on a desert island for the rest of your life?
I don't know.
So, anyway, let's see, you've got some more links.
No, I'm just sort of thinking about Tony Blair.
I mean, he implemented the Human Rights Act of 1998.
The ECHR was enshrined into British law.
So if you look at all the problems with mass migration, especially illegal today, it all dates back to that.
Yeah, I think we've just had government after government that just do not put the British people first.
You've had the Boris Wave, which was horrendous.
And I don't understand why anyone today could still support the Conservatives.
Because if you look at the current shadow cabinet, Kemi Badenock has chosen Pretty Patel to be the shadow foreign sec.
And yet, Pretty Patel was the one that scrapped all these caps on migration and opened floodgates under the Boris Wave.
And so to put her as a shadow foreign sector date just shows you don't understand the damage of the Boris wave to put her on the front bench.
The only conservatives that I think are credible, well, is your figures like Sir John Hayes, who's been around since the 1990s, a true Tory, and now they've just been washed away.
Not that I want to speak about the Conservatives.
I think the issue is that there's currently, I don't see a current patriotic party.
We were speaking earlier about reform and this Bangladeshi candidate who's not even a British citizen.
Like, what on earth?
How is this even allowed?
How is it possible?
Yeah, well, I mean, you know, there's a number of movements, aren't there?
I mean, it's possible.
I mean, like, Advance, Restore.
There's things like Homeland, aren't there?
Or PA or Britain First.
There's a number of, or English Democrats, there's a number of small parties and movements, aren't there?
Yeah, Restore Britain, I believe, is the most, well, the most hopeful, the most logical, the most sensible that actually looks.
So if you look at Restore Britain, for example, they were just discussing this Bangladeshi candidate, and it's because of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which allows anyone from the Commonwealth with legal residence in the UK to vote and to be eligible to stand.
And so it's like, okay, well, then the logical response is you go back to this 1983 Act and remove it.
Repeal it, yeah.
Well, for me, obviously, Restore are not a party.
They're a movement.
They're kind of functioning almost like an NGO trying to draft up legislation or plans for legislation, have people work within them that can do research.
The best hopes, because at this point, where things stand right now, it is looking like it's likely to be a reform government after the next general election, right?
The best hopes would be if there could be some kind of, it's not going to happen, but this is wishful thinking.
It's Christmas, I'm allowed, right?
if there was some kind of reconciliation and reform, kind of had some internal reforms to how they operate, put all of the animosity with Rupert Lowe to the side and worked to implement some of the plans and draft legislation that Restore could put together.
Because that could be the best bet for...
Because we all know that politicians themselves, mostly all of their legislation, most of the figures that they get, most of what they have done is driven by the work of NGOs.
Like, they don't write their own legislation for the most part.
So Restore could operate as a genuine right-wing legislative force to provide those drafts and that work for our guys if they get in.
That could be the best bet.
It would take a hell of a mountain to climb to get there.
I don't think it's going to happen, but that would be the best bet because reform are the only electorally viable party.
At the next general election, at least.
And beyond that, perhaps new vistas open up.
Beyond that.
Perhaps, because it...
To break the back of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the Tories remain broken, and then reform a post-reform world.
You might get an actual nationalist or patriotic party and or movement.
I still harbour dreams of somebody uniting the right of all these small groups and parties I talked about.
You know, France, Restore.
Yeah.
All these things.
Yeah.
Is he a dashing bearded gentleman with his own breakfast show?
No, not me.
I don't have the cognitive capacity to.
All right, I'll do it.
Ask me twice.
No, there's a.
Yeah, I don't know, some sort of a governing body like FIFA or something.
Or like Lucky Luciano's Commission.
Reform the leaders of these smaller parties come together, sit round a table, and you get to keep your you get to keep your party, your family, your football club.
The governing body doesn't interfere with any of that, but you all push together and you stop going to war with each other.
So reform.
Reform that ever happened?
Reform the British right alongside football/slash mafia lines.
Yes.
Perfect.
Except without the end goal being like liquor.
and prostitution and numbers and drugs, it's winning at the ballot box.
It is, but then at the ballot box, before that, we need to do two things.
One, who should be eligible to even be a candidate?
And two, who should get the right to vote?
Because a lot of people do not work in this country or are not even from this country and have the right to vote, which is insane.
Because if you aren't paying taxes, you aren't contributing to the government budget.
And therefore, how should you dictate how it's spent?
I mean, if you look at the breakdown of the Muslim vote, so 16, the Muslims of working age 16 to 64 years old, 42%, I believe, do not work.
And while the argument could be, well, that's because they're women, again, misogyny, but also why are they voting then?
They're not working.
I mean, yeah, restricting the franchise.
I'm for that.
It only makes sense.
Yeah, people, I mean, in the ancient world, sort of the ancient Athenian or Roman Republican franchise was very, very, very limited.
Very limited.
Very few people were citizens, let alone eligible to vote.
You'd have to have a property qualification.
You'd have to have a stake in the state.
Yeah.
Kind of simply.
And if you look at the UAE, for example, United Arab Emirates, you cannot just become a citizen.
You might be a guest in their country, but you're not a citizen and certainly not with the same rights as them.
So I think this idea of us giving out citizenships, I mean, if you look last year, we gave 739 citizenships on average a day out.
The top 739 passports every single day.
And can you guess the top three nationalities, of course?
Well, Indian.
Indian, second.
Pakistani?
Yep, third.
Would it be Chinese?
Nigerian?
Yeah.
So if you think about that, so you have an influx of those Indians, Pakistanis, Nigerians, but then becoming citizens, being able to vote, being able to stand in election.
Someone made the good point on Lotus Eaters recently that what if China saw what's going on in the UK and said, well, we can just send Chinese agents over, win local politics, become MPs and infiltrate parliament.
You could also say that about Russia.
So it's not even an issue of race.
It's really not.
It's an issue of foreign interference.
This is national security.
National security.
A national suicide.
Yeah, and you see how these people organise.
I mean, even on when I was talking last week about Jersey on the Channel Islands, there are, for whatever mad reason, 700 Kenyans on Jersey Island.
And already, that sounds like a very small number, they already have an association to organise for their own interests.
Jersey's tiny.
Yeah.
Jersey's really tiny.
Yeah, but they're brought over on work visas and they say that, oh, no, we're basically modern slaves now.
Let's form our own organisation.
Presumably actually organised and run by some kind of human rights lawyer.
How is there even enough accommodation?
How is there enough beds?
I know, but even just when you get these small numbers in, they organise as their own group for their own group interests.
How is it any different on a broader national parliamentary scale?
Yeah, they can't integrate.
But also, if you look at this case of talking on my, well, Ken, that was Kenya, but looking at Nigeria, where Joshua Anthony was, you know, Miami the other day against Jake Paul.
Yeah.
And he's supposed to be fighting for Britain, yet he pulls out the Nigerian flag in the arena.
But I'm not blaming him because he's obviously Nigerian.
So he should obviously, he should have the Nigerian flag.
He just shouldn't pretend that he's British.
He's obviously Nigerian, and he knows that.
He has a map of Africa here, a tattoo.
Good.
You are Nigerian.
That's great, but then this pretense of...
It's the code switching.
It annoys me.
Yeah.
It's dishonest.
Yeah, but the thing is, they come to our country and they can be nationalists.
They can be, you know, there's always like these communities in England of the Pakistani community or the Nigerian community or the Indian.
But we, as white British, apparently we're not allowed to be nationalistic or patriotic.
It's a bad thing.
Yeah, it's a stigma that, again, a hump will have to get over.
We'll have to.
Yeah, but I think we should move on to the video and written comments if we've got time for them.
Samson, have we got?
No video comments.
So I'll go through some of the paid rumble rants and then we'll go through a couple of written comments and call it.
So Luke for my segment sent in a few saying, G'day, hope you're doing well.
We don't give Santa warm milk here.
We give him a nice cold beer to deal with the heat as he pulls his sleigh with six white boomers, big male kangaroos.
Interesting, it does freak me out that in Australia, summer is Christmas.
Yeah, I've never spent a Christmas in the southern hemisphere.
I've never experienced a baking hot summer Christmas day.
I would quite like to.
I mean, it would be interesting.
Have you ever done it?
Have you no, no, I've never done it.
I'd love to go Australia.
Have you been to Australia or whatever during Christmas?
No, no, no.
I've got family in Australia, so maybe one day on a Christmas, I'll just pay them a visit and we can all go to the beach.
I fancy giving it a go one year.
Yeah, office trip.
Luke again, I had said years ago that for a NAIDOC week, don't know what that is, sorry.
I assume it's something Australian.
Oh, National Aboriginal and Indigenous Day of Celebration, I assume.
How about the Aboriginals go out to the bush with no running water power, modern anti-venom and live like they did before we came if we're all so evil?
Well, I mean, mainly what they'd miss is the beer and the petrol that they sniff.
Luke, again, could you imagine?
It's true, look into it.
Could you imagine what would happen if we didn't exist?
Do people not realize how much of the modern world is created by us?
Approximately all of it.
Maybe if it's time, maybe it's really when you look at rounding up.
Yeah, all of it.
Basically, if you look at the cultural technological contributions of any country from outside of Europe or North America, from about 1500 onwards, literally it's all us.
It's all us.
Everything else that's been done across.
Northwestern Europe.
Yeah, Northwestern Europe.
Everything else that's been done has basically been slight variations on what we've done or just outright theft of what we've done, like the Chinese model of technological development.
Maybe it's time for us to, uh, take it away.
Going to Atlas Shrugged right there.
Marks Lives says, we need an early life check on Sonny Bunch.
Uh, the, uh.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's Joseph Addison Aldred says in regards to the original depiction of brown beachy head woman, that's Zendaya.
Did look a bit like Zendaya, actually.
A little bit, yeah.
Magnus says, having to reject the universalism of Star Trek has been heartbreaking, but I now vastly prefer Warhammer 40k.
Very based.
Also, it's not really universalistic.
It's a double standard.
It's universalism for Europeans, particularism for everybody else.
And when you look into it, that's how most programs and films were shown outside of some historical dramas for decades in the post-war period.
The 40K is reasonably based, though, right?
Yeah, no, no, fortunately.
Most of the Astartes seem to be Anglo-white dudes fighting a terrible, evil Xenos.
They desperately don't want it to be.
They really don't want it to be.
And some of the people in charge of it now are doing their best to try and, like, twist and morph it all into out of order and out of proportion.
But they can't.
It is what it is.
Yeah.
Right?
You can't change that.
I'll read a few of these written comments from the website.
Harry's white monster, really Zesty King, says, I went through the entire British educational system through to degree level without ever learning about the Norman Conquest.
I think that was missed out of my history module as well.
English Civil War or the British Empire.
No one's stopping you from reading a book, bro.
That sounds weird.
I love Zesty King.
I know him.
He's great.
That sounded really out of order and really mean.
I didn't mean it like that.
We did learn about...
You can learn about the Norman Conquest in your own time.
There's nothing to do with it.
But when you're growing up and when you've got access to TV and video games and everything else, it's the point of the propaganda being taught at university.
I get that.
That's the fair point.
That's ridiculous that even degree level, they're not talking about it.
It's only through travelling in the UK and reading its literature for three years that I finally know the cultural inheritance I possess and I know what is currently at stake.
That's right.
It also gives you a sense of perspective.
Michael Dre Belbis.
So Whitey is responsible for everything his ancestors have done, as said by people who can't take responsibility for their own actions.
True.
Cumbry and Kulak, very proud of my ancestors.
They were broadly collectively North Sea People's Apex Humanity on any metrics.
War, ideas, innovation, law, exploration, civilization, arts, building.
I am one thread in this tapestry.
That's a lovely, lovely way of putting it.
Do you want to read through some of yours?
Sure, let's see.
Sophie Liv says, yeah, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
That was always a dumb saying.
Yeah.
Yeah?
Yeah, right.
Pretty much.
Yeah, the enemy of my enemy has to be my friend.
No?
You said, no, yeah, that doesn't.
I don't buy it.
I don't necessarily buy that.
Zesty King says, it seems, Bo, that all you're proposing is simply not being a traitor.
Yeah, putting your own people's interests first was always a default throughout human history.
Yeah, I mean, where's the liar?
Yeah, just stop being a traitor.
It's too much to ask.
It's that expression which we hear a lot, which is, why is it only white countries that have to be multicultural and multi-ethnic?
Yeah.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
Yeah.
It's just ludicrous.
Why isn't there more white representation on Cambodian TV?
Why not?
Why not?
You know, it's stupid, isn't it?
these countries have their own tv channels their own authors their own everything so the fact that they have to try and squeeze their way into owls is well you are starting to see this kind of advocacy and rhetoric being used in japan you A little bit.
Obviously, they have immediately gone and turned the other way and said, no, we're going to elect an anti-migration party.
But you're starting to see this kind of thing promoted in Japan as well.
And I can only assume it's because Japan is looked up to as still a very, very nice country, somewhere that is homogenous and has its own culture that's distinct from other people's and people like it and they appreciate it and they respect it.
And the people in charge of all of this just see nice things and want to break them.
I'm going to Japan next week, so I should get some...
Respect them.
Real life perspective, yeah.
I will respect them.
Yeah, you need to do a catch-up on that new Japanese Iron Lady Prime Minister woman.
Yeah, we need to figure out what's going on.
See if she's actually really based.
Did she keep her promises on?
Going to be a Boris Johnson.
She was a metal drummer in the 80s.
Is she going to?
Which is weird.
Is she going to pull a maloney on us?
Yeah, that's what we don't want.
Or is she going to keep it banned?
She's going to keep Bannon photos of her with Epstein.
Oh, yeah.
That was weird.
That was disappointing, wasn't it?
Yeah.
Do you want to read through your comments?
I'll let you read them.
Just read one or two.
Yeah, yeah.
Just real quick.
Mona Kendon, Blair's a lunatic.
End of.
True.
Cumbrian Kulak.
Thank you, Lucy.
You may think little of it, but the mind is today's battleground, and your statement does so much to undermine the psychological and political narrative that has taken literal decades to cast.
Sovereignty and belonging are foundational to people.
It pushes them to battle.
You have struck a stunning blow on their monster.
A champion for our people.
Be just and fear not.
Here, here, inspiring words.
Yes.
And Alex Ogle, one of the Lucy, you don't need to speculate about China's infiltration of British politics.
You only need to look at the example of Canadian politics where Michael Maher, video taking part in a CCP celebration, was elected a Conservative MP and recently crossed the floor to help push the Liberal Party closer to an outright majority without an election.
That is incredible.
And from what I'm aware, isn't the CCP's main tactic not to infiltrate your politics by getting their people elected, but just to put Chinese spies in bed with the politicians?
Well, there was a case, I think, a year or two ago where two conservative staffers in Parliament were found guilty of spying.
Oh, yes, we covered that.
Yeah, I did a segment.
So it's not always as obvious as, you know, this is a Chinese.
This man has a sudden Chinese girlfriend who's way out of his league out of nowhere.
Yeah, but it's a standard of him, I suppose.
Yeah, I mean, as we say, it's this global standard.
Other countries have their people governing.
It's just common sense, as we said, which is why I hit a nerve.
I just cut straight through and said we should be governed by our own people, which makes sense.
Every other country does that, and so should we.
Just one final point.
Those two guys never went on trial, though, did they?
That was the story.
That was a big part of the story that their trial collapsed.
I mean, it was almost certain.
It was almost certain, it seems, it was alleged that they were spying on behalf of the CCP, but they never actually went to trial.
And we need to, did they move, did they stay in England or did they move over to China?
I think they're still here.
Oh, okay.
All right.
All right.
no yeah they they didn't go full uh that would be cambridge that would be the most i've actually went and lived no but um All right, then.
Well, that's all we've got time for.
We've run over a little bit.
Thank you very much for joining us today, Lucy.
Would you like to tell the audience where they can find you and get updates from you?
Yep, you can find me on X Twitter, as some people like to call it, Lucy White, or Lucy Jane White One is my handle.
And it was great to spend my afternoon with Harry and Bo here.
So it's been fantastic.
It's fine.
No, it has.
It's been great.
Although I must say, I was quite sad I didn't have a Santa hat.
There's still time.
There you go.
You can end the podcast.
We all know what we're wishing for this Christmas.
Our country back.
A lion.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
Dad feelings.
Anyway, so thank you all very much.
Thank you for joining us again, Lucy.
Remember, three o'clock, for those who are fans, Firaz is doing Real Politique live for you.
So make sure to check that out in 22 short minutes.
Take care.
We'll see you again tomorrow for the last podcast of the year.