The Lotus Eaters dissects Suella Braverman’s 2026 defection from the Tories to Reform UK, questioning Farage’s strategy amid her 77% name recognition but 46% unpopularity. Meanwhile, the Home Office’s AI "goth girl" Amelia—promoting far-right grievances like the 1833 slave-owner compensation—exposes a dystopian shift toward surveillance and thought policing. Shabana Mahmood’s reforms, including 40 new facial recognition vans and scrapping jury trials for hate crimes, mirror Bentham’s panopticon, critics warn, as AI errors and racial bias deepen societal distrust. Farage’s recruitment risks co-opting establishment politics, while the government weaponizes symbols like Amelia to justify authoritarian control, eroding civil liberties in a 1984-esque spiral. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to the podcast of the Load Seats for Tuesday, the 27th of Jan, 2026.
I'm joined by Nathan Bow.
And now I've just read the date.
Man, it's been a long January, hasn't it?
Feels like it.
A lot has happened, and we're still in January until the end of the week.
So, you know, let's see what happens today.
Anyway, today we're going to be talking about how the Tories are just bleeding out, man.
This is actually kind of great to watch.
You know, premier outlet of the Zero Seats campaign.
We're very pleased to see the Tories just literally laying on a park bench in a winter snow with an unstaunchable wound, just looking up at the sky and just looking at the stars and just wondering where it all went wrong.
Are we not?
Yeah.
I think we are.
It's a great image.
Love it.
Love it.
And they deserve everything they get.
They deserve it.
They completely deserve it.
We're going to be talking about how the media has discovered the Amelia meme and they're not happy, which, again, just good day, right?
It's a good day.
And then we're going to be talking about what?
So another Or Willian nightmare.
Jesus Christ, this country.
We have an update on it all.
Yeah, well, you know, so things are going in the right direction.
We're just nowhere near them yet.
But anyway, let's begin.
Alright, we need to talk about, we need to have a conversation about Suella Braverman.
Do we?
I love it when people frame it that way.
We need to talk about this.
As if you're in trouble, you're mum.
Yeah.
House meeting.
House meeting.
We need to talk about the Braverman question.
Have it.
Okay, so the news was yesterday that she has sort of formally defected to reform.
And it's not really a surprise, that one, particularly, is it?
Because, you know, her old man, Othello, has been reformed for a while.
She's been openly unhappy with the Tories ever since her time in government.
So it's not much of a surprise.
I suspected this would happen at some point.
I think that's happened.
I think a lot of people are like, oh, I thought she was in reform.
Yeah, already.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
So a few of the headlines.
Braverman accuses Tories of betrayal as she defects to reform.
What?
The betrayal you were a massive part of, love.
Yeah, what?
Talking about.
Who betrayed who?
Yeah.
Tories betrayed you.
You betrayed Tories.
All of you betrayed us.
Which one?
I mean, she's not wrong that there's a lot of betrayal involved, right?
There's definitely a betrayal here.
Yeah, I'm not.
I'm not.
I'm not sold on it.
Anyone who doesn't recall.
I'm sold on it.
She was the home secretary from late 2022 to late 2023.
Under Rishi Senak.
Yeah.
Well, very, very briefly, wasn't it?
Under Boris.
But anyway, mostly under Rishi Sanak.
Yeah, yeah.
So, you know, one of the worst times for us being invaded.
Yeah.
Boris began the Boris wave.
Senak carried it on.
250,000 Indians in a year under Senak.
Do you feel enriched?
What were the odds though?
What were the odds?
First, Prime Minister of Britain.
He brings in 250,000 Indians.
That's crazy.
You haven't noticed a pattern, have you Carl?
I mean, I just think if I was not English.
It was installed by the Bank of Paraguay, right?
As the Prime Minister of Paraguay, the President of Paraguay, and all of a sudden I was like, okay, a quarter of a million English every year.
They'd be like, but you what?
What are you doing?
This is you helping out the people who are like you at our expense.
Why are you doing this?
You know, and for some reason, that's just out of bounds to talk about.
It'd be racist, wouldn't it, to notice, much less say anything about it.
And if I came out and was like, yeah, but you understand, we need the top talent.
What are you saying?
That Indians are better than English people?
English people are better than Paraguayans.
And I'd be like, oh, I mean, that's the only way you can interpret that.
Like, I'm literally saying I have to bring them here because you're terrible at your jobs.
You know, what are you talking about?
Anyway.
Start celebrating St. George's Day in Paraguay.
St. George's Day in the Paraguayan presidential palace or whatever.
Like it'd be a bit like you'd be like, okay, don't think this integration thing's going as well as we thought it was.
Paraguayans notice it and aren't happy.
Oh, they're all racist.
You accuse them of being racist.
Anglophobes.
You've got to understand.
Let's hear what she herself said, just a little clip.
I believe that a better Britain is possible.
And because I believe that is possible, today I'm announcing that I resign the Conservative Whip.
Oh, don't be mean.
Of course, people have got to cheat on me.
Oh, don't tar.
They're at a reform conference.
Of course, they do.
Let's look like it's genuinely like a load off our shoulders.
I've done it.
Done it.
I resigned the Conservative Whip and my party membership, a party membership of 30 years.
It's gone.
It's over today.
And because I believe with my heart and soul that a better future is possible for us, I am joining Reform UK.
It's all about you, Sean Tar.
That's enough Indian jokes.
So let's have a quick look at the headlines, what various outlets and organs said.
Breverman's predictable defection is Faraju's biggest political gamble.
Yeah, I don't know about that.
No, she's a really safe one.
Yeah, relatively.
So if he's looking for, if what's going on in Nigel's mind, his calculation is that he just really wants household name recognition figures, then it's not a gamble at all.
It's exactly what he wants.
If that's what's going on in Nigel's mind.
I mean, that's a fair point, but do we know how much of a household name Breverman is?
Because there was some polling to indicate Jenrick is essentially unknown to the household names.
Really?
Yeah, yeah.
I didn't see that.
More than half people have never heard of it.
Basically, nobody knows who he is.
So your point's perfectly valid, but does it play out in reality?
Let me check YouGov's fame and popularity.
I think she surely she's more famous, more well-known as a household name than Jenric is being actual home secretary.
Being twice sacked, maybe.
Right, so 77% of the people, according to YouGov, know who she is.
Oh, okay, okay.
So that's a lot, isn't it?
That's a lot.
Yeah, that's household name territory, I'd say.
46% of them dislike her.
Well, so that's the thing, isn't it?
It's like having that Nadeem guy or her.
It's all very well to have a household name in your ranks, but what if they're despised, though?
But Nigel is worse.
63% of people dislike Nigel.
Yeah, it is.
Only 14% of them actually say that they like her, and then another 15% are like neutral on her.
Oh, interesting.
So it's like, I mean, I don't think she's like dead weight or anything.
No.
And I think, so I'm actually more kind to Sweller.
I think that Nadeem Zahawi is dead weight.
I would agree with you there.
Why would you take him?
But I think Sweller is actually the better of those Tories who were in government during this period.
Okay, well, let's get into that.
That was the bulk of the segment of the take.
I'm of the mind.
I'm of the mind.
I know I watched the morning show.
If anyone watched Breakfast with Bowie this morning, you would have seen it already, know my take.
I consider her among the worst traitors.
If there's a cabal of traitors that ruins the country, people like from David Cameron through Boris and Rishi and James Cleverly and Pretty Patel and on and on and all those.
She's just, in my mind, she's just in that cardre.
She's just one of them.
Yeah.
And it's kind of gaslighting or it's kind of like a media spin thing to try and make out that she isn't.
I just don't buy it.
So there's an easy comparison to make between her and say Pretty Patel, right?
And Pretty Patel would put on a good face, talk a good game, and made everyone think, oh, wow, she's really hard, right?
Glad she's home secretary.
And then it was Pretty Patel under Boris who starts cranking open the floodgates, right?
And isn't apologetic for it, sort of, and then it throw that out there, which is mad.
Yeah, and stands by it, which is like, okay, that is mental.
Swella Braveman is basically the other side.
So Swella Braveman, actually, if you listen to the way she talks, she doesn't come across as like being a hardline boss bitch or something like Pretty Patel.
But actually, when you interrogate her opinions, they are really quite far right.
I mean, she wrote a Telegraph article like a year ago saying, look, I'm not English.
I can't be English.
You know, Rishi Sunak's not English.
You know, you can't just change your ethnicity.
And moreover, she, at the NatCon speech in 2023, so a good couple of years before this has happened, she did basically go off a reservation and say, it's Rishi Sinek.
He wouldn't let me do anything.
I'm a lawyer.
And in this speech, she says, I could have got rid of this law, this law, and this law.
And this would have meant we could actually have done it.
But Rishi said no and shut me down at every point.
And when she's delivering this on the stage, it felt like you said, it looked like she'd been freed from something, right?
She genuinely had this kind of like uplifted attitude of, I'm just going to say it, screw it, I don't care what happens, right?
And so I do, and I do think that she is actually very right-wing.
And I do think she actually didn't want to do the things that Sunak's government did.
I actually do believe her on this.
I don't.
Well, you don't.
I feel like that's red meat.
I feel like her media team around her said, cynically said, you say these things, throw out red meat to the right of the Tory Party, all those things.
People don't.
She's been on this, she's been on the right of the Tory party for a very long time.
Which isn't very right, though, is it?
Well, I mean, you know, it's as right as you're going to get, right?
So in the current environment.
So, but the point is, you know, when it came down to the question of ethnicity, she came down on the right side of it.
She's always coming down on the correct side of these issues.
So, and for considering the sort of milieu she's ensconced in, that's actually better than you'd expect.
So, I'm more charitable to her than you are.
For what that's worth, and in my opinion, isn't worth anything.
Well, I'm because the sorry, just finished.
Because in the final reckoning, she was at the helm at the home office when we were invaded by millions of people.
Yeah, but she didn't look at the floodgates, right?
And in her telling of it, she's like, Well, I was trying to get it down.
I was trying to, but Rishi would just literally, I'd go in the cabinet meetings, I'd sit and go, Look, Rishi, I need to do this.
And he would be like, No.
So, and then she ends up resigning.
So, you know, I'm not saying that she's perfect or anything like that.
And, you know, a lot of your points are, I think, are valid, but I'm less angry with Swella Braveman than I am with Boris Johnson, than I am with Rishi Sunak, than I am with Pretty Patel, than I am with Robert Jemrick, actually.
You know, she's done less damage than Jemrik has.
Jemrik smuggled in tens of thousands of Afghans under the cover of night and put a bloody legal injunction on against reporting on it, as well as being the immigration minister during the Boris wave.
Like, she has got a plausible argument.
No, I was trying to stop this, right?
She's got a plausible argument for that.
Jemrik used to be an open borders lib.
She wasn't.
So I'm just saying, I'm not saying that, you know, she's not culpable.
She is definitely culpable.
She was in the thing.
But I think she does have a narrative here that argues.
No, I was trying to get it sorted.
And she has been consistent on this for a couple of years now.
Go on, Nate.
Well, so, I mean, I would agree.
I can't argue with those points, right?
Can't argue with those points, but there's a few sort of like asterisks there and asterisks there.
I mean, I would say I agree with what you're suggesting, Beau, is that a member of her team has probably been quite savvy and suggested, yeah, this is where we need to go now.
You know, this is where we need to go.
Because you're right, like she has been for a good few years.
She's been saying these things.
She's doing the rounds on all these podcasts.
I've watched her on these podcasts.
And she does, she says the right things.
And she's quite amenable.
She's quite likable.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
She's personal.
Yeah, she's not con.
She was quite nice.
Yeah, she's not offensive, you know, but she says the right things.
But all that's kind of besides the point, really.
You know, it's all well and good saying these things.
It's all well and good doing these, positioning yourself as this right-wing individual.
And as you said, I mean, yeah, the right-wing of the Conservative.
What does that mean?
I mean, geez, like they are, they are as milquetoast.
Conservatives' Accountability Crisis00:15:32
I mean, they're basically, they are basically Labour in the Blair years.
So they're not right-wing.
You know, so her being right-wing of them is like, well, that's, I mean, small win, I guess.
Best you're going to get in the current parliament, right?
I know, but we should, I always got to live by your standards.
And so I look at that and I go, well, that's, that's pathetic.
I say that's weak.
That's weak source.
You know, yeah, you might be right-wing of the conservatives, but you are pathetic and you are weak.
And your opinions are not, they're not aligned for the current political climate.
Sure, but I think that the environment that they're in circumscribes the positions that they can even conceive of.
Yeah, I guess, I mean, but then also, it's like, how much damage are you going to do to a reform now?
Because I've watched your sit-downs with Dan, and they're very, very good.
But one point that you've made consistently, which I wonder, and I've said it before, now, obviously, on a podcast with you, so I do wonder how you can chalk this up now, is that Nigel did have, doesn't anymore, did have the best possible avenue to change everything because he was going to have a parliament of newbies.
They're all under his wing.
Well, they're not now, are they?
No.
And I agreed with your point.
I thought that was brilliant.
Absolutely great, salient point.
But now you've got factions.
The problem that now you've got issues.
Yeah, yeah, no, no, I think you're right.
But the problem that Nigel is also facing is having a government of newbies also means a government, this is the argument he's making to take in all these Tories, government of inexperienced people who don't know how Whitehall works, right?
And so he is saying, you know, basically think of the first Trump administration.
They went in, accomplished nothing because of this massive institutional resistance they didn't know how to overcome.
And Farage has made the argument that that's why they're doing this.
Now, I'm not saying it's persuasive.
Frankly, I would rather it if they just went as a government of newbies and just passed legislation that just essentially destroyed whatever came before, right?
So it's like, oh, we would have to wrangle, well, I'll fire them.
I'll literally dissolve the legislation, get rid of that.
But he does stuff.
We'll figure out what he did and then we'll create it anew.
You know, I would rather they go in like root and branch like that.
But I don't think Farage is.
So I agree with what you're saying is on the sort of visage, you know, the veneer of what he's doing is suggesting we need experienced people because we need to understand how things work.
But that to me is that entire statement is predicated on him still playing by the previous administration's rules.
And we're not America.
You know, Parliament is fully sovereign.
He could completely sack everyone in Whitehall tomorrow if he wanted to, if he was Prime Minister.
And so this to me is actually worse than the previous statements he was making where he was going to get businessmen in to manage business and health people to manage health.
I thought that made sense.
Why are you going to have a fat minister to talk about health?
It's absolute nonsense.
I'm talking about someone who's not an economist to talk about the economy.
I mean, this is just insane.
So him now positioning himself as, well, we need experienced people.
It's like, yeah, if you're going to play by the current status quo, that's bad.
Moreover, okay, there have to be like when during Brexit, the civil service was 95% remain, right?
95%.
But that 5% must be like, Nige, you're Mr. Brexit.
We would love to advise you.
Hire us as advisors, and we will tell you who the hell needs to go.
And trust us, we're going to slash the hell out of this thing.
Like, does it have to be former Conservatives?
Could he not actually take those sort of oppressed Brexiteers in the civil service?
I mean, I don't know.
You know, who knows?
The thing about the civil services is the so-called five-wise men.
What is it?
The Cabinet Office, Foreign Office, Home Office, Defence.
And what's the other one?
I can't remember.
But they're like the permanent secretaries of those things.
I hate the fact there's permanent secretaries in this civil secretary.
Just fire all of them day one.
If you have to pass a piece of legislation to do that, so be it.
So just a quick thing.
I watched Dominic Cummings' podcast about this with Spectator.
And he was saying, basically, the problem is they're not directly accountable to the ministers anymore.
In previous eras, it would have been like, you know, Churchill would have gone in and be like, right, you're my lackey, you're my squib or whatever.
You do exactly the same.
But now they're essentially above the ministers and kind of contain the ministers by the way that Blair restructured things.
So Cummings was saying, look, you have to just go in and make everything directly accountable to a minister again.
So you just literally get entire areas of the Kwangocracy and say, right, this minister is the dictator of this Kwango and this area now.
So if he wants to just point at you and fire you because he doesn't like the look of your face, then he can.
You know, that's the kind of dictatorial power ministers should have over these other areas of governments because we can actually get rid of ministers.
Like as the people, we can replace a minister by voting them out.
And this is something that's going to happen at the next election, by the way.
The Labour Front bench is going to all lose their seats.
Sorry, Gen Musk.
I'd like to address the angle.
Oh, good news, really.
I'd like to address the angle of Breverman, which you've said, her defenders saying that she was trying to do the right thing and was simply hamstrung by Rishi.
That doesn't hold much weight with me because she was in that position for like a year.
And you get loads more money for being Secretary of State.
You get the fleet of cars, you get access to the various mansions, you get treated like royalty, Westminster royalty.
It'd be a massive ego boost, wouldn't it?
That the media are hanging on your everywhere.
But yet, she would have known very, very quickly, maybe even day one, but within a few days or a few weeks, she was going to be hamstrung by Rishi.
And yet she stayed there for a year.
That doesn't add up to me.
And the idea that she's better off in the inside, how is it better?
How is it better off?
Better off for a bank.
Yeah, right.
Better off for her and her career.
If I was in this position, I wouldn't just leave.
I would do everything that I could from the position.
Because, I mean, ultimately, that's the cockpit of power.
You may be being constrained by Rishi, but you might be able to do something, right?
So it seems like it is better to be in that position and be frustrated with it because there may be an avenue for change than not be in that position, right?
So I'm not saying that you're wrong, obviously, but conversely, there is a more charitable interpretation, which is, well, I'm here.
Why would I just quit?
Because then I can't do anything.
So there is a rationale to it.
But on the other side, of course, you are, of course, correct that you are suddenly British political royalty and you get all of these benefits.
But I feel not inclined to be cynical towards Sweller over this.
I would be cynical with a lot of other politicians, like everyone in the Labour Front, Keir Starmer, I think is very taken in by this.
But she's made so much noise and has done consistently for so many years now from basically the most right-wing position you can expect in the way that Parliament works now that I'm actually more inclined to take her word for it.
Well, I would say just no, you don't have to.
No, no, I can't.
I searched my soul and I cannot.
Well, I would say I don't.
I actually don't.
I'm not bought in by that because what she got to lose after the last election.
You know, what has she got to lose now about saying these things?
Nothing.
She knows that the Tory party is dead.
She knows.
To me, it's a calculus, right?
Well, calculated statement of.
Hang on, hang on, let me, sorry to interrupt you, but I've been preparing for all of my Dan's political chats with me.
And I was looking up.
Actually, both her and Jenerick are set to lose their seats to the Tories.
What?
Their seats are dead.
Tories?
They're Tory stronghold seats.
Good lord.
That's the point in it.
Don't get me wrong.
Well, yeah, right.
It is marginal, right?
But it's something like 40 and 46% Tory and then like 37, 34% reform.
So it is a massive reform percentage.
But these are very homogenous Shire Tory.
You know, white English constituencies that they have.
And actually, it might be that they don't just bring all of their constituents along with them.
So Nigel Frye might have found himself a couple of duds.
Maybe.
Which is a possibility.
I mean, call me cynical.
I just can't.
I don't trust her.
I don't trust her.
I don't think she should have.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't try it.
I feel like it's all just a political spin.
See, that's how I feel about Jemerick.
I feel a lot more about Jemerick than I do about Sweller.
Because Jenrick has been all over the place.
And he was proudly, oh, yeah, I brought in 30,000 Afghans or whatever, and all this sort of stuff.
We got a million people in a year.
Jemrik was proud of his immigration record.
But all of them were bad.
I mean, Nadeem Zahawe was like, yeah, Somalia is basically entirely funded by remittances.
Brilliant.
It's like, you, what?
Yeah.
But that's what I mean.
By comparison, Swella Braveman was a Brexiteer.
She's always been a bit F-natty.
And now she's the one who came out, you know, a couple of years ago, she was like, no, no, this is all terrible and I hate it.
And then she came out being like, no, I'm not English.
And, you know, neither's like Rishi Senak or whoever.
You know, only English people are English.
And now she's here.
And it's like this, she's been consistent on being right-wing.
And coming out of a political party where you've served in the government, you've been in for 30 years must have been difficult, right?
That's a lot of relationships that are getting severed.
She's been getting really angry messages from longtime friends who are like, you just betrayed our party.
How could you do this?
You're going to kill us.
This is a knife in the back.
She's getting it.
And so, you know...
It's got to hurt Kemi, isn't it?
It's got to hurt.
Of course it is.
Well, we'll get into the bleeding in a minute, right?
But the point is, like, Jemrik has publicly been all over the place, whereas Swella has actually been on a consistent trajectory.
So I, and, and Jemrick, like, you know, Jemrik began the process of mass immigration, you know, and she claims that, oh, I was trying to stop it.
Maybe she was, you know, of all the people to believe on that, maybe she is actually the one.
But, like, she's just been consistent.
Okay.
She doesn't read as an enemy to me, you know, whereas Jemrik has got that enemy sense.
What about looking at it through the lens of that people like us would like to see a program of mass re-migration?
Yeah.
If you ask Swella Breverman, are you in favour of a policy that sees mass remigration to the tune of millions?
I guess that's quite.
I suspect she would look on you aghast and say, of course not.
How dare you?
I mean, anyway, let's move on because we've got time's moving on.
Swella Brethren exclusive.
The Tories should not be anywhere near power again in my lifetime.
Okay?
I mean, true.
Both Tories and Labour feel reform heebie-jeebies.
So let's get into the how it must have hurt the Conservatives and what Labour supporters must think and the Labour Party must think about it all.
Yeah, you can like Kemmies, they're bleeding out, aren't they?
You must have had that feeling whether you're just playing a board game or whether you're in a game of football or whether you're like losing a group of friends.
It's a horrible feeling, isn't it?
Knowing that your support and your luckability is just ebbing away and there's nothing you can really do or say.
Nothing.
It's just ebbing away from you.
The game is just moving away from you inexorably.
It's a horrible feeling, isn't it?
The ship that is sinking and you have no control, no power.
You just see the water coming on and on and down.
I think I hope that after the local elections in May, both the Tories and Labour will get trounced and that both Kemi and Sakir will be in trouble.
They'll have like leadership rivals and things very, very seriously at that point, both of them.
Well, just a quick thing.
Actually, it's possible that Kemmy doesn't, right?
Because actually, well, who should like all of the people who would have been the leadership contenders are going over to Fraj.
Like, the Tory right basically is in reform now.
Who would be challenging Kemi Badlock?
And there was, was it Prosperity UK or something?
Some like Anasubri-esque interest group sprung up in the Conservatives where they're like, let's go back to colourblind fetterism, guys.
And it's like, yeah, I think that ship sailed, actually.
I watched the Telegraph, was it the Telegraph podcast?
And Tim Stanley had gone down there yesterday and he was like, yeah, these guys aren't going anywhere.
And I say that as the wettest Tory in existence.
Possibly with the exception of Fraser Nelson, right?
Tim Stanley, you know, Kemi is mummy, right?
He's like, yeah, they're not going anywhere.
And, you know, there's no energy left in the Conservative Party.
And I think we're dying.
And it's like, no, I'm not joking.
This Telegraph podcast was really good.
I love it.
That's great.
I know.
i know i was just like listen self-aware Yeah, exactly.
And it was because he'd gone to this Prosperity UK interest group in the Tories that he was just like, this isn't the future.
It's like, yeah, you guys lost.
Sure.
I mean, the Tories have still got a few, like, Priestly Patel's still there.
I saw her just the other day, a day or two ago.
She came out saying very, very hardline stuff that she's still totally within the Tory Reform National Socialist.
I mean, she's divorced from reality, but I mean, she could take over from Kemi.
There's one or two names still, but I take your point that the real hardliners, for what that's worth, have jumped ship at this point.
The actual challenger was Jemerick, and he's already gone.
So, you know, they're so Tories forced to retract Brethren's mental health claims.
So when it first happened, the Tories made a statement and they said about, we've been worried about Suella's mental health for a while now.
I did not see everyone was like, listen, this is not the time for mean gold politics.
They retracted it quickly.
They said, oh, we put that out in error.
I'm sorry about that.
But it was.
Yeah, right.
Yeah, I doubt it was actually.
She's Ken Coleman.
She's a lawyer, former lawyer, right?
Oh, Sweller is, yeah.
Yeah.
Probably best not to say stuff like that in public.
Yeah.
Yeah, so the mental health angle has been in the news a fair bit.
Yeah, but that, again, just that's the dying party lashing out.
You know, that is like, oh, yeah.
It lashes out whilst it cries in pain.
Yeah, kind of.
This is the dying animal just flailing now to do any damage on its way out.
Like, Kemi called like an all-hands meeting or whatever, get every MP in.
And so Sweller must have been there.
She doubtless would have given them the sort of like blurry background HR lecture over Zoom.
And Sweller's just like, yeah, you know what?
This is, I'm out of this.
You know, this is not saveable.
And they're just the artery has been pierced, man.
You can't get the blood back in.
I wouldn't be surprised if by this time in three years' time, there's 50, 60 of them, Tory MPs that have joined reform.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, Nigel did say that there's going to be some sort of cuff cut-off, but I don't know if he'll stick to that.
But I wouldn't be surprised if dozens, dozens more defect to reform before this is done.
There was this one article here in the Financial Times I thought was interesting.
I mean, it's a bad take.
But I thought it was interesting.
Nigel's Radical Shift00:04:32
The guy said, he actually said, I don't understand, so at least he was honest.
But he said, there's an opportunity for both the Labour government and the Conservative opposition to paint reform as something altogether scarier, as a party representing the extreme and nasty dregs of the Tories.
For the Conservatives in particular, there's a fantastic opportunity to portray themselves as both the renewed and detoxified alternative to a Labour government that is to the left of New Labour and a reform party that embodies everything that is extreme and unlikable about the Tory party if they want to.
Doesn't he think it's 2011?
Yeah, so claiming the centre ground is not a good strategy.
The David Cameron strategy.
It's literally the David Cameron's.
A bit out of date, isn't it?
Yeah, a little bit acronymic.
If only they were extreme.
If only they were extremely, yeah.
This is the point.
If only they were everything the mainstream media thought they were.
If only.
Well, that's the point, right?
I don't think they realise how radicalised the country has become under the things that they've inflicted on us, saying, oh, look, they're the evil, nasty party that are going to deport all the migrants.
Oh, brilliant, great.
Sign me around.
You know, brilliant.
Nigel Farage, weeks of being called a racist, his polling went up.
It's like, I have no idea.
Nigel Farage is a Nazi plus three in the polls.
It is funny to see the disconnect between the left's criticisms of reform and Nigel and the reality of what he says and who he is and their policies.
The disconnect there is sort of crazy, isn't it, really?
Okay, so like, how much of a risk is it?
Then let's just talk about just from the reform side.
Very briefly.
Very briefly, yeah.
I mean, it's my opinion.
I think all of our opinions, most of our viewers' opinions, that we don't want that.
We wanted reform to be an actual alternative to these people.
Yes.
And it's just increasingly obvious, isn't it, that it's just that's not the case.
That's the defense that he's having.
He's constantly having to defend his position now.
Like that is in every single interview, it's like you Tory 2.0, you Tory 2.0.
If you're explaining yourself.
Yeah, I mean, this is a position you shouldn't have even had to take.
And what are we not hearing when he's defending it?
What are you going to do about the boats?
What are you going to do about the U.S.?
What are you going to do about the economy?
Not saying any of that is.
Headlines are Tory 2.0.
Let me explain why I'm taking in a bunch of ex-Tories who have failed and are about to lose their seats.
It's like, why?
Everyone wanted an insurrectionary party.
That's what they wanted.
England loves an underdog.
It's an underdog.
That's what we wanted, was it?
We need different people, really, a different view, a different politics.
And so as it looks now increasingly, should Nigel enter number 10 in three, three and a half years' time, we will get a government which is literally a Boris and Rishi mishmash of people.
The exact same individuals.
Is that what we're going to get?
New boss, same as the old boss, right?
Yeah.
I mean, there's this link here where it's like Nigel's, you know, cat shadow cabinet is sort of shaping up.
And it's just, he's giving, he looks like he's going to put in all the top jobs.
All those Tories.
Good times.
So is that what you really want?
You out there watching this?
Is that what we really want?
I thought it was exactly what we didn't want.
I thought that was the exact raison d'être of reform was to be something different.
Unless he comes out and does something very radical, to me, it shows a distinct lack of political acumen from Nigel Farage doing all of this because it shows that he himself has such a massive disconnect from his actual base voters.
Completely.
His voter base.
Like what they think of him and what he thinks of them.
And they're completely misaligned.
Unless he comes out and does something radical.
We're out of time.
I just don't think it's in Nigel's DNA to do anything completely radical.
So, okay, we'll move on.
He's going to have to tweet some really racist things to win me over, I tell you.
Anyway, so Luke says a bunch of things.
Sorry.
Luke says, Good day, everyone.
We might be having something similar in Australia with the Liberals, the national splitting, running a Conservative Party in half.
Well, unfortunately, for the sake of time, I can't go through it all, but it's something I will look into at another point because I think this is a part of a kind of series of political events that are inevitable and essentially dialectically locked in.
That this is what happens.
The Liberals who are conservative have to admit that they're libtards and they need to go over to whatever your equivalent of the Liberal Democrats are.
That's what's going to happen.
Dan covered all the Australia stuff recently.
Protestors for English Rights00:14:57
And there was another one.
I can't find the mouse there.
Sigil Stone says reformed should be named the Benedict Arnold Party for loyalty and fellowship.
Benedict Arnold was a patriot, a hero.
Anyway, let's move on.
How to lose your US audience in ones with.
I tell you, he had a really exciting life.
It was.
It was a fantastic, very interesting life.
He was, yeah, he was like a man of action.
I like mania.
Yeah.
Yeah, just, you know, I like that kind of patriot.
Anyway.
Right.
So the media has discovered Amelia, which is nice, because we like Amelia because she's fun.
So this was the government's Pathways de-radicalization game that you can find out on the internet.
I think they take it down eventually.
Didn't?
It was still up a few days ago, at least.
Yeah, we've all played it.
We all enjoyed it.
And as you can see there, that purple-haired young lady there.
So it's about a bunch of college or university-aged students who are in university or in their, I mean, it looks like they're in a university.
16, 17-year-olds.
Part of it.
In college.
17.
Doing their A-levels.
And they're not happy with the state of the world.
The state of the world is bad.
I've noticed.
And yeah, they've also noticed this.
Hang on a second.
What's happening here?
And it focuses around a young man.
I can't remember his name now.
Charlie, I think.
Charlie.
Charlie, yeah.
Right, okay.
Who's like, hmm, this isn't going great.
And I'm getting replaced.
And Amelia, this purple-haired young lady, is a golf babe.
Is like, actually, guys, I think I'm a far-right extremist.
Why don't you come and be a far-right extremist with me, Charlie?
And Charlie, being a 16-year-old man, has got the option of being like, no, I love Kier Starmer and everything he's ever done.
Or am I going to go to the protest with a hot golf girl?
I mean, you know, I know what I would have done when I was 16.
So just, you know.
So anyway, this was the sort of breakout star of this.
And I mean, as you can see from the framing of it, navigating gaming, the internet, and extremism.
So they're targeting you, our audience.
So please go and play this.
It's great.
Free youth-centered interactive learning package.
Oh, wow.
I can't wait to play that.
Like, just you can see exactly the kind of by the way, it's not really a game in any sense.
Don't expect a game.
It's not a game.
No, no, no.
We had fun playing, but it wasn't.
But it's just click this, yes or no.
What were those fighting fantasy books where it's like choose your own adventure?
So go to this page and go to this page.
It's basically that in the game.
The lamest possible version of that.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I had a good time with it.
So, yeah, you're Charlie here.
He's just, you know, going around in his big city.
And as you can see, he's getting, you know, great replaced.
And then he meets Amelia, who's like, hang on a second.
She's based and clearly watches the Lotus Eaters.
And so she explains why everything is politically against us, how Britain is being destroyed.
And Charlie's like, wow, you're making a lot of good points here.
And no matter what you do in this, you get basically lectured by a HR ma'am at the end of it, where it's like, no, Charlie, you're a bad boy.
The thing is about the game itself is that it's game.
It's doing heavy lifting there, innit?
Yes.
They never explain why anything is bad.
Why is Amelia wrong?
There's no semblance of an explanation of anything.
They actually frame it as this is happening and this is real.
And they're like, but you can't, that's bad.
You can't notice that.
It was the weirdest thing.
Yeah.
So bizarre.
The thing Article was to build on exactly that.
It's that it never says, you as Charlie, do you choose to do something criminal and illegal and insane or not?
No, it's like it jumps that being illegal or a terrorist.
Like, do you click on a link that's just about English civil rights?
Yes or no?
It's like, well, what's wrong with that one way or another?
Do you go to like a peaceful protest with a placard, yes or no?
It's like, what?
What?
That was it.
You accidentally get into a fight at one point and it's like you get arrested.
It's like, but that's not your fault.
It was an accident.
They even explicitly say it's an accident.
Emilia mentions that veterans are getting a bum deal.
Yeah.
Correct.
Yeah, like, how is that?
What's wrong?
I mean, I'm against that.
Yeah.
This is the point, right?
Amelia is proposing that Charlie has democratic rights and that he can exercise these constitutionally under the framework that currently exists.
Right?
He can have the opinion that he doesn't like mass immigration.
He can go to a protest about these things and he can do various other things and vote for whoever he wants.
But Charlie, notice he's framed as being someone who can be reached.
Notice how this isn't pitched at Amelia herself.
She's already Chief Argo on, but she's already too financial.
She's chased.
Exactly.
She's already agreed, no, the system is working against us.
And no, I'm against it.
And I'm going to use my democratic, I'm going to exercise my democratic rights to activate away from that.
And they're like, okay, yeah, we can't persuade her because we are destroying the country and you know, we want her dead.
So can't win her over, but Charlie is naive.
He doesn't know anything about politics.
He doesn't know anything about this.
So we can get to him and be like, look, just that's evil and scary.
That's terrorism.
It's like, well, why didn't you arrest her then?
You don't arrest her because it's not terrorists.
What it is, is you're just trying to scare young people who don't know anything about politics.
Don't want, oh, you don't want the government coming after you.
What are they going to do?
Nothing.
Because Amelia doesn't get anything.
She's done nothing wrong.
You've done nothing wrong.
This is all just a big terror tactic.
Yeah.
Well, that is exactly what it is because, I mean, everything you do is perfectly within the bounds of the law.
It is, as you say, just entering into the democratic process.
Basically what democracy is.
You attend a group standing up for English rights.
It's like, that's fair.
That's fine.
Nothing wrong with that.
What's wrong with English rights?
Oh, there you go.
What's wrong with English rights?
Then you go to, you know, and it is, it's a peaceful protest, but you again, you accidentally get in a fight, but they say you accidentally get in a fight.
So there's nothing wrong with that either.
It's like every step of the way, they're trying to disenfranchise you from engaging in the democratic process as an English person for English ethnicity.
Bingo.
It's sorry, just a quick thing.
That's it, right?
That's the thing.
Because if you do that, you can lawfully win.
Yeah.
You can win.
They're terrified of it.
Their victory is dependent on the idea that you don't engage.
If you don't engage, if you don't vote for the right-wing party, if you don't stand up for your own rights, then they win and they continue taking everything that you have.
Politics belongs to history belongs to those who turn up.
Yes.
One of the things I thought was really quite cynical.
I don't know if he was going to get onto this, but it's framed as this game, quote-unquote game, is framed for between 11-year-olds up to I think 20, 21, 23-year-olds.
So if you took this in good faith and you really were truly naive, you're not like a 16, 17-year-old who's starting to notice, but you're genuinely an 11-year-old who just wants to be good and do the right thing.
Then this game is truly pernicious, like it's truly evil.
You're actually trying to get inside the minds of relatively small children.
Yes, that is literally what they're trying to do.
I mean, that's really, really horrible.
And the other thing I was going to say is that we joke that it's a meme, it's a trope about noticing.
But that is really what this is.
Charlie's crime is noticing.
Yes.
Is hearing Amelia and hearing her?
That's his crime.
Yes.
And the point of the whole thing is say, look, don't go down that road because you'll be a terrorist.
And also, once you go down that road, we can't get you back.
Like, we can't persuade you that the country isn't being destroyed.
So just keep on the straight and narrow and be a good boy.
That's what it's all about.
But I mean, this was a great screen from it.
It was like Charlie, Amelia, Charlie's close friend, has made a video encouraging people in Bridlington to join a political group that seeks to defend English rights.
Yeah.
There's literally nothing wrong with that.
We have various other interest groups that are defending Muslim rights, Jewish rights, minority, you know, black rights, whatever it is.
Or all those protests happening for years now.
Reparations and all this sort of stuff.
And the only way that this could be problematic is if they would say, well, there aren't English rights.
English people don't have rights in their own country.
Therefore, the implication by this is that Amelia, by stipulating English rights, has done something racist.
That is the bad part.
This is entirely framed.
That English rights is a racist.
It's wrong think.
It's wrong-headed.
It's not okay.
Yeah.
You can't have rights in your country.
Advocate for English rights.
That's how it's framed.
Everyone else gets rights, but you don't.
Not for me.
Which is kind of ironic, really, because if you think about the concept of modern rights, they are English rights.
You could describe human rights as English.
Fundamentalism.
Yeah, fundamental.
Literally Magna Carta, habeas corpus, free speech, all this sort of thing.
These are English inventions in political tools that we invented that other people have gone, oh, God, I want that.
Oh, these are human rights.
And it was John Locke, really, who turned them into universal human rights.
But the point is, they didn't come from somewhere else.
You could literally describe the concept of human rights as English rights, which just makes this all the more ironic.
But anyway, so the point being, everyone was like, well, Amelia seems cool.
I like Amelia.
And she started becoming really, really popular because AI, there are a lot of problems with AI.
A lot of slot produced.
But what it's good for is political propaganda.
Because you can create a political meme that's relevant really, really quickly with very little effort.
Let's watch this.
Hi, I'm Amelia.
I'm English.
And I love England.
Oh, no.
I like having fish and chips and a pint at the local pub.
I like Shakespeare and Dickens, Tolkien and Lewis, Harry Potter.
I like pork sausage and dogs and fashion.
Haram!
Haram!
She's so adorable.
But also, she doesn't say, I hate foreigners.
Can't disagree.
She doesn't say, I hate exactly.
What this is, is a positive statement.
It's like, no, no, no.
Look, I'm English.
I like being English.
I like my country and I like the attributes of my country.
I like the culture, the customs, the commonalities of the country that we all share.
You know, I also like fish and chips.
I also like, you know, these authors.
Like, you know, this is very wholesome, actually.
And that was the thing that really, I think, sparked the popularity of the Amelia meme is that she's wholesome.
I mean, look at, like, this is just the sort of thing.
smoking well yeah sure but like it's that choker mate She's 16, bro.
Is it?
You told me.
I suppose she is supposed to be Childish Contemporary.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
The point is.
They're in college.
The point is, it's a very positive meme.
Yeah.
It's very positive.
It is.
Like, this is, like, you know, I just searched on Twitter Amelia, and there are tens of thousands of these sorts of memes.
But this is just this sort of general framing.
It is just like, no, we will win.
We'll have a better future.
England is good.
And actually, we don't have to listen to the sort of, you know, the people talking us down.
And then people started doing this sort of thing.
There have been a lot of these, but these sorts of infographic cartoons, the British government borrowed 20 million in 1833, which you can imagine how much that was, to compensate slave owners to the abolition of slavery.
The massive sum was 40% of Britain's annual budget at the time.
Repaying this debt was known as the Slavery Abolitions Act loan and took generations.
And it was paid off in 2015 over 180 years later.
So you have all paid to the ending of slavery, by the way.
And that's a completely true set of statements.
And these have been going around.
I've seen these on Facebook and everywhere, right?
And this is actually a really good educational tool for kids to learn your history, which we don't get taught properly anymore because it's all nastiness.
You're evil.
You're vile.
Don't get taught that.
Decolonization.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You can see where the British government's like, well, don't listen to Amelia because we can't get you back.
You know, if you start listening to, and these are completely true, by the way.
This is all 100% true.
Well, from the point of view of prevent, talk about your all-time backfires.
Oh, yeah.
And they've noticed this, right?
They have noticed this.
The Guardian isn't happy.
The Guardian is not happy.
I mean, look at that subline there.
The avatar created to deter young people from extremism has been subverted and it's breaking out of niche online silos.
Well, hang on.
Is it being subverted?
It's the character you created.
Yeah.
She's doing exactly what your character said.
Oh, yeah, actually.
We're actually, well, we're not subverting, are we?
No, it's literally.
We're running with it.
Word for word.
Amelia's like, I'm going to go protest English rights.
Here's some factual thing about history.
And they're like, honestly, this is subversion.
No, no, it's not subversion.
It's you didn't understand the target audience, right?
That's what this comes down to.
You thought that you'd be like, yeah, don't go over there because they're bad.
And people would be like, oh, yeah, no, English rights and, you know, good history and stuff.
No, no, I can't have that.
It was just that what you were trying to condemn was appealing, actually, naturally appealing to the average person.
It's like, yeah, no, I would like it if just some nice person was like, yeah, no, England's good and we deserve it.
It's okay to be English.
I'd love some rights.
That'd be great.
Yeah.
In my own country at all things.
Like, I love how much this has been a rake on their face.
But the thing is, they're really bothered by her viral potential, right?
If you're unfamiliar with Amelia, they say, the chances are you'll soon encounter one viral meme or another inspired by her on Facebook X or X where her reputation is going.
And that's the thing.
I first encountered this on Facebook.
Did she?
Yeah, yeah, scrolling feed.
Just, you know, various, you know, because there are always recommended ones on every social media platform.
And that's where I first encountered this, however many weeks ago now.
And so that's what got me paying attention to this thing.
They are bothered by the spread of this.
And I think in particular, the little infographics where it's like, here's a positive fact about the British Empire presented by a wholesome character.
The oranges of the character are ironic, to say the least.
An early iteration of Amelia began life in a counter-extremism video game funded by the UK Home Office.
It's great.
The subversion of the character has exploded across social media.
The volume of Amelia posting has gone from roughly 500 a day when the account first introduced to the world to roughly 10,000.
Why aren't they happy about this?
I mean, on Wednesday, there were 11,000 Amelia posts on X alone.
But they used our tax money to make this stupid little game.
And now we're spreading the message for free.
Why are you unhappy with this?
You don't have to take any more of our money to do it.
We're doing it for free, free of charge.
Monetizing Hate?00:05:34
If they were confident in Amelia's message, they wouldn't have a problem with it, would they?
Well, if they were confident it was bad, right?
That's what I mean.
You know, if it was like genuinely like Nazi stuff or something.
But the problem is, they accurately characterized the message of the far right.
That was the problem.
Or just the census, or just censuism, even.
I mean, they call it far right.
What they call far-right, you know.
Yeah, right.
In their heads, they're like, oh, yeah, Amelia believes English rights and stuff like this.
Oh, no, bad.
But it's like, if it was Amelia was like, you know, Nazi propaganda, I hate Jews, I want to kill all minorities, wouldn't have had the same effect.
That's getting clipped.
But yeah, no, no, absolutely right.
Like, there's one bit, it's so milk to it.
There's one bit, isn't it?
I mentioned it about the veterans where Emilia says to Charlie, like, basically, have you noticed that loads of veterans are homeless or living in penury whilst boat people come over and get given a house?
Something like that.
They literally don't say that's not happening.
It actually is happening.
Yeah, yeah.
But you're not allowed to notice that.
And of course, it's framed that Emilia is a bad person.
She's in the wrong.
It's all mentioning it.
Yeah.
Just mentioning it.
And so they've misread the whole situation, haven't they?
Exactly.
Because in their minds, Amelia occupies the same position as Hitler, right?
And so they're like, well, I can't believe that you like this character.
It's like, okay, but she's not Hitler.
She's actually a very normal person in this country.
Every, you know, normal people are like, why the hell is this happening?
Why am I a two-tier citizen?
Why do I have to pay for these boat migrants?
Why are all these foreigners in my town center?
Why can't I get a house?
Why am I taking her?
Like, everyone's asking these questions, and she...
Why can't I get a job?
And she is just an avatar of those frustrations.
She's not Hitler.
And they thought that she was.
And this is the point.
Again, like, the funniest thing, no one's changed anything.
They're angry about the way.
I mean, I guess they've made her less angry looking.
Made her less northern.
Yeah.
Do you notice in the original thing?
She's a lass from all, isn't she?
And in all the memes, she's posh now.
Yeah, that's a good point.
Other than that, but okay, we'll allow it.
Other than that, it's just the same character saying the same things for the same reason.
And this got to LBC.
Man, do they melt down?
Andrew Maher is not happy.
Andrew Maher.
Andrew Maher is not happy.
It's so funny.
It's not going to give him an ameurism, is it?
I mean, it might at his age.
Amelia is an AI purple-haired goth girl originally created for an anti-extremism computer game generated by the Home Office.
But now, an increasingly outspoken, anti-Muslim, flag-waving so-called English patriot.
She has become very popular.
And here she is in action.
I'm Amelia.
I'm English.
And I love England.
I like having fish and chips and a pot.
And it's hayless.
I like pork sausage and dogs and fashion.
This character.
Notice how they cut the Muslim guy out.
Leering over a shoulder, right?
But then you have this Doey Gammon.
I don't know.
What do we call this guy?
Like, you know, then we have this very angry guy who's going to explain Amelia to us.
This character has essentially been taken over.
And it's staggering that how quickly this has proliferated across the internet.
The middle of last week from nothing at the start of January, there were 12,000 posts involving this character in one day.
Other thing that's perhaps most damning about this is Elon Musk himself has now retweeted an account which has created a cryptocurrency behind this particular meme.
So you can now get an Amelia coin because, let's face it, right-wingers need another cryptocurrency.
Elon Musk is now promoting that.
And this is monetizing hate.
This is one of the clearest examples we've ever had of somebody trying to make money out of right-wing hatred.
And okay, we get hatred from all sides on the internet, but this is very clear where this is coming from.
And the AI account, for example, Andrew suggests is English.
I'm of high confidence those videos did not originate in England.
They were made outside of the country as disruptive tactics through deep fakes and other technology.
Sorry, monetizing hate.
What did the Home Office do then?
Well, the game.
I mean, I guess they didn't monetize it, but is it hateful?
Like, sorry, I just don't see the hate.
He's so angry, isn't it?
Hope Harder, Pico Butterball.
Yeah, exactly.
Greasy head, dude.
Something like a shower.
But this is a wonderful disconnect, right?
So they're like, I mean, you've got this, yeah, yeah, very unappealing-looking, angry progressive.
They're monetizing hate, they're monetizing hate.
And then, oh, well, let me check out this Amelia meme.
And it's just like, I like England.
England's good.
I like sausages and dogs.
The disconnect.
Oh, no.
We should exercise our democratic rights.
It's like, oh, yes, this is hate now, is it?
So, yeah, they literally have no argument.
And you can see, I mean, look at that face.
Look how worried he is.
Look how stressed out he is.
No, you can't share the AI generated cute Amelia meme on the internet.
No.
The very idea that you might have any sympathy for a veteran is hate.
Yeah.
And like you're monetizing hate.
And it's like, well, all I'm saying is you can go and buy our goth girl mugs, right?
Seamless.
Yeah, seamless.
How good is that?
You know, I mean, you know, I'm not saying that we're monetizing hate because I don't think anything that we're doing is hateful, but we are monetizing it.
So go buy our mugs.
Monetizing Hate00:15:02
Let's move on.
Great.
Boom, mic drop.
Yeah.
Small, small price of $14.99.
Yeah, it's a great deal.
I just love that Andrew Maher is the one shilling our mugs for us.
We're monetizing hate.
Yes, we are.
Shop.ludseys.com.
Sorry.
Oh, dude.
Right, where aren't we?
It's a few super chats, no?
Yeah, yeah.
Hewitt says, Amelia's a wet.
I don't want food in pubs, I'm known women.
No, no, no.
You can have women and food, honestly.
Is Dan on tomorrow?
Can he explain why it takes a century and a half to pay back a $20 million loan?
Well, it's called inflation, actually, because interest.
Sorry, interest as well.
But, you know, $20 million in 1833 is God only knows.
It'll be the equivalent of billions, wouldn't it?
Can I borrow that mouse?
The mouse?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Sorry, I just can't.
I need to scroll down a bit.
The engagement says, Amelia should have told the shouting creditor to go home with his goat.
Yes.
Well, we couldn't help but play it as like a dating sim.
Like, whatever's most likely to get us in with Amelia, that's the option we're clicking.
You wanted Charlie to, yeah, the same here.
You know, he's like, you know.
I don't want to cock block Charlie.
Exactly.
Anyway, right, let's carry on.
Right, so the Orwellian nightmare continues.
I thought I'd do an update, really.
So last time I was on, I was talking about the just the state of the state, effectively.
But things have changed.
Things have moved.
And it's worth an update, basically.
So, quick recap.
Quick recap.
We've got this is what happened last time.
So, no, this is all out of order.
Oh, God.
Never mind.
Basically anyway, what happened last time?
Facial recognition happened in Croydon and they made it was like 100 arrests in one day.
Pretty mad.
Pretty mad.
On High Street, wasn't it?
They were just arresting people every few minutes.
Who were they arresting?
Actually, criminals.
Oh, legit criminals.
Yeah, legit criminals.
That was a bad one.
Yeah, it was quite crazy.
But the take from my last segment was, what is the point?
Basically.
Well, I mean, I'm up from getting 100 criminals off the street.
So here you...
Well, ah, but they're not.
Because they're arrested and basically let go because we have a massive backlog.
The prisons are full.
And the prisons are full.
They have about a 5,000 capacity of leeway.
It's not much.
So that was the take.
It was, why are they doing this?
And then the ultimate take was, well, they abolished jury trials.
They make the state more controlling the judiciary and they take away your fundamental rights as an Englishman as instilled on the land with the Magna Carta.
So that was the take, right?
Because that was the last update.
But we've had some movement.
We've had some movement.
Good or bad.
Oh, it's terrible.
Of course it is.
How did I know?
It is terrible.
It's not good at all because Labour are insane.
Shabana Mahmoud proposes AI panopticon system of state surveillance.
Love the fact.
Love the fact that they've come out and just said it.
I mean, yeah, I guess it's great the mask is just off.
For anyone who doesn't know, I'll just quickly say the Panopticon.
I actually talked about that in one of my theses.
I think it was Jeremy Bentham, I think, first came up with it.
It was Bentham's prison.
Yeah, but Foucault talks about it all as well.
It's the idea of some sort of prison setup where you're under surveillance 100% of the time.
And you're not sure if you're being watched or not as well.
That's sort of the sinister way.
But you have to assume you are.
So pretty sinister.
But the premise is you are in a prison.
Yeah, no, that's the point.
That's the take home is that.
Everyone's in prison.
Everyone is in prison.
And everyone is each other's jailers.
And everyone is being watched.
And so this is just a quick statement from this article where she said it.
So in the comments reported on Monday by The Telegraph, Mahmood Mahmoud said she wanted to use artificial intelligence for surveillance and she proposed minority report style policing.
AI and technology can be transformative to the whole of the law and order space.
It's like, right.
When I was in justice, my ultimate vision, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve by means of AI and technology what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his panopticon, that it is the eyes of the state can be on you at all times.
is genuinely mad so when i said i mean you weren't over egging it no Oh, no, no, no.
When I said the Orwillian nightmare continues, oh, no, we are.
This is not dramatic.
This is insane.
Orwell undercooked it, if anything.
Yeah.
Yeah, Big Brother was just mildly watching you.
At least there might be a little outcove in your apartment where you might be able to get away from the eyes of Big Brother.
But if Mahmood had her way, you wouldn't even have that.
It's mad.
it's crazy so it it's fascinating to me that she just comes out and says it which i think is heavily reliant on um their the statement alone and saying it so publicly is predicated on her belief that the native population and just general british people are dumb and are not right and don't I think this is good, right?
Maybe they think, oh yeah, no, no, guys, we're going to have the panopticon.
We're just constantly being surveilled in minority style report, minority report-style policing.
Let's get the AI to just arrest you in advance of the crimes you're going to commit, wherever you are, whatever you're doing.
Isn't that good?
It's like, what do you mean?
Isn't that good?
Well, that's going to get our numbers down in the way that David Lamb is like, yeah, I want to abolish jury trial because we've got this backlog.
We need to get the numbers down.
Guys, it's all about getting the numbers down.
It's like, no, it's not, you fucking lunatics.
It's about what you're doing to our country.
Like, this, you know, I don't care if you've got a backlog.
Hire more people.
I don't know.
Deport a bunch of foreign criminals.
I don't know.
I don't care.
I don't want to be in this.
The very fabric of our society, our civil society being destroyed.
Yes.
Yeah, it's awful.
David Lamy and Shobana Mahmood.
Well, communists.
Communists, psychos, pinkos, just nut jobs.
It's what they've always wanted.
Totalitarian or authoritarian.
Instantly.
Yeah.
Literal phabies.
You know, you can't overeg this enough.
This is dystopian hellhole stuff.
Complete power of the state.
I mean, that's what communism is about, isn't it?
Is that the individual is subsumed into the greater project of the state.
Yes.
And the jury, the jury trials was essentially like the last bastion of civility, right?
You know, you're judged by a jury of your peers.
It's like, that makes sense.
Yeah, cool.
Absolutely brilliant.
Fine, cool.
So they can say you're actually not guilty from hate crimes because you said a naughty thing online or something like this.
Well, that's now going to be removed, isn't it?
So the state can ultimately be the arbiter of every single part of your life.
I mean, why would the why would you ever like, I mean, literally, someone in the British government uttered the line, the eyes of the states can be on you at all times.
It's crazy.
So yeah, yeah, it's like it sounds, I mean, it's literally what Orwell was talking about in 1984 because it sounds so evil that only the villains would think this way.
And yet they're like, yeah, I really want to create Bentham's panopticon across the entire country.
It's like, we're not prisoners.
They're on a prison island.
Yeah, literally, the Americans are constantly mocking us, being like, oh, yeah, prison island.
It's like, okay, well, yes, but only technically, right?
I used to argue against this.
Now we're kind of, oh, yeah, they are.
Relinquish a little bit of your take there, maybe a little bit of a point.
I have to concede that they are turning the entire thing into a prison where they have the eyes of the state on us at all times.
Yeah, I have to concede that because that's literally what the government is doing.
That's the other thing about Bentham's Panopticon.
Again, Foucault talks about it as well.
The idea that you don't necessarily know that you're under surveillance all the time, but you must assume it because it could be the case.
And in fact, we are each other's jailers, though.
That's sort of a key point to it.
It's not necessarily like some evil person sitting in the home office literally watching you.
But that's practicality.
We're all right, yeah, just because that's not practical.
But now they've got AI.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, that's what this.
So she continues.
So similarly, in the world of policing in particular, we've already been rolling out live facial recognition technology, but I think there's a big space here for being able to harness the power of AI and tech to get ahead of criminals, frankly, which is what we're trying to do.
But that's people who tweet.
That's tweeting and all manner of thought crimes.
One other little point is that your bigger meta point is absolutely spot on.
The ultimate goal is just complete dominance, surveillance, and authority and power and all that sort of thing.
But also, just a bit below that is the idea that the police or the home office have just got targets that they need to be able to say on a bit of paper somewhere that arrests are up.
Well, that's the thing.
That's the thing.
Not crimes are down.
Yeah.
You're right.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
Two very different things.
Skipping ahead to one of my last little points here.
So this is what happened literally two days ago yesterday now.
Sorry.
Police to get 40 new life live facial recognition vans and AI help in sweeping reform.
So this is part of a bigger police reform situation.
This is like the combine out of Half-Life 2 where they have drones flying by scanning for people.
Like, it's just insane how this is genuinely every dystopian entertainment product you can think of.
They're getting.
And no one voted for this.
No.
Who voted for this?
Where was this in your manifesto?
I was going to say, I don't remember the pledge in the Labour Manifesto to do this.
Yeah, page 10, Panopticon, reborn.
Project Panopticon.
What?
Crazy.
Absolutely crazy.
And so she's trying to frame this as, oh, fighting crime in a digital age with analog methods.
That's what they're currently doing.
It's like, okay.
No, they're not.
Bullshit aren't.
They're not even doing that one.
90% of crimes go completely uninvestigated.
You are not doing this.
Like, if there were bobbies on the beat wandering around, I would feel a lot better about things, but they just aren't.
Like, sorry, you're not doing that.
You are lazy, and one of the reasons they love policing online crime is they can sit on their fat arses in an air-conditioned office or a heated office and not have to actually, oh, if I go out there and deal with the urban youth with a machete, I might get stabbed.
I'm going on Twitter patrol.
Sorry.
The urban youths are someone else's problems.
It's the lowest hanging fruit.
It's so easy for them.
Yeah.
So this is part of what she said anyway.
You know, new proposals, biggest shake up in policing in decades, and it'll do nothing.
Current number of 10 vans will rise to 50.
So they've already got 10.
Brilliant.
Oh, great.
Again, who, sorry, when was this a thing?
The National Center on AI.
When did that come into existence?
Brilliant.
Love it.
Yeah, great.
Like, what?
What's the oversight on that?
Who's paying for that?
How much does that cost?
Well, what's the democratic accountability on that?
Who's in charge of it?
Well, the idea that AI is infallible, it isn't.
No, no, no, no.
Absolutely not even close.
Not even close.
Grock is wrong about the simplest of things all the time.
It's just a large language program type thing.
It's a probability calculator.
And in China, in fact, there's loads of accounts of where their facial recognition has just got you wrong.
They just got you mixed up with someone else.
And then you get a knock on the door or whatever.
Or you're just fined.
You're just automatically fined for something.
You had nothing to do with.
Just the AI mistook you for someone else.
Just a quick thing.
AI, large language models.
They're just probability calculators in what is the probability of this being correct in this sequence, right?
And if it gets one wrong, which, of course, as a probability counter, it must get some wrong, right?
Necessarily, it will be wrong some of the time.
Otherwise, you're not probability calculating.
It's just correct, right?
So you will get some wrong.
And then it goes off.
And this is why you get those, like Chat GPT, tell me about this.
And it will just make something up out of nothing.
And they call them hallucinations, right?
In the business, they call these AI hallucinations where it got the probability wrong and then it ran with it and gives you like, yes, no, that, that, that, and there are memes of it.
That berry's safe to eat.
And it's like, oh, you're correct.
That berry isn't safe to eat.
You need to get to a hospital.
You know, like, it's just like, yeah, okay, thanks, AI.
You're going to trust this with your liberty.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
Well, we're paying for this to the tune of 140 million.
This is additional.
So we're already paying a lot for this already.
But this is a new thing.
So £140 million will be invested in new technologies.
And this is one of the most cynical things.
They're like, oh, it's going to free up 6 million police hours each year, the equivalent of 3,000 officers.
It's not right.
You need to not investigate burglaries.
They don't do anything anyway.
They need you to hand out crime numbers.
95% of burglaries go uninvestigated.
95%.
What an embarrassment.
96% of car thefts in London, no resolution.
about your phone thefts i mean christ they probably do phone thefts in london come on yeah don't Don't care.
We're not even going to write it down.
It's insane.
It's absolutely insane.
And so, again, this is another part of it.
Shibanima moves to announce police overhaul with 999 response targets and cuts the red tape.
So this is going to be part of it as well, right?
More targets for things.
But you're not.
You're not getting to the root cause of the issue here, right?
This is all just a shuffling of deck chairs, moving things around.
And again, another one here.
Sorry, girl.
So we could quickly say, well, the root cause is, or one of them, is millions of new people with a culture of higher criminality.
Let's not talk about that or address that or reverse that in any way.
That's off the table.
Yeah.
And but moreover, this is the managerial state taking what it thinks to be just decisions in order to make multiculturalism work.
It's like, no, multiculturalism works with a tyrannical government.
That's the only way.
Wow.
So, yeah, you're right.
So, this is the Michaela School blown up to a state size.
Unfortunately, yes.
That's exactly what it is.
So, the Michaela School, famous, I don't know why it's famous for being some strict disciplinary, diverse, yeah, but not in the way that it's being done.
Yeah, not in the way it's being done.
And that's what this is.
This is the ultimate managerial micromanaging to stop people from noticing or having issues with one another.
It's just, and again, remove any worse, could it?
Like, all the time, everywhere, the eyes of the state will always be on you, and we will pre-crime you.
Well, yeah, that is literally, that is what they're trying to do is pre-crime, is to say, well, do you have a do you have a probability of committing a crime in future?
FBI's Centralized Control?00:04:04
Well, we'll pull you in, basically.
It literally couldn't get worse.
That's mad.
And so, this is another one: police forces to be slashed in sweeping reforms.
Great.
So, what are we doing here?
Like, what is this?
What are we actually doing here?
Anarcho-tyranny is what it is.
And then they're like, oh, well, we're going to make the British FBI as well.
Oh, good.
So it'll be centralized.
What's MI5 do then?
What?
Good question.
I thought we had MI5.
Well, the FBI, like, MI5 takes on the position like the CIA, right?
Well, no, that's more like MIC.
Well, I thought that both were in that space.
But okay, fair enough.
But the point is, the FBI is like a government tool, right?
Isn't the FBI just literally set up by executive fiat?
Yeah, it was.
Like in the 20s, after the Red Scare in the 20s, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, where they just set it up and it could just be undone by fiat.
Could be.
You know, they'll shoot you, but you know, what are you going to do?
But the point is, like, you know, this kind of highly centralized predatory bureaucracy, like, what's our job?
To hunt down threats to the system.
Oh, brilliant.
You know, that's just, that's great.
That's so good.
Glad that's.
Well, what's so amazing about this, they're going to call it the National Police Service, right?
Doesn't actually work in Scotland either.
So Scotland police has to, you know, work with them.
Oh, they must be outrageous.
So it's a separate thing.
Just England and Wales.
Yeah.
So it's like, oh, well, great.
Brilliant.
Scotland's lost the outrage.
Look, we've got this amazing thing for England and Wales, and Scotland doesn't get it.
Isn't this us being racist to the Scots?
Why don't we include the Scots in this?
Why aren't you banging down the door saying, hey guys, we want the Panopticon and the MPS?
You might get loads of John Dillinger-style criminals that are bouncing across the Scottish border all the time to escape an invasion.
Oh, damn, man.
And so the things that they're going to focus on, we've already got institutions that focus on them.
Yeah.
So, I mean, organized crime, terrorism, fraud, online chart.
We already have forces that deal with that.
It's easier for the managers if everything is centralized into one building.
I only have to make one trip over there.
Well, that's the point.
Everything gets centralized because it's just easier to deal with.
You're Shabana Mahmood.
I don't want to have to speak to five different departments.
I want to speak to one department and make them figure out where that percolates down to to make my orders enacted.
So that's literally what this is.
There is already literally, I think, like what is it called?
Like the serious crimes something or other.
Which is, yeah, how does this nightmarish, isn't it?
It's nightmarish.
Doing the same thing with the councils.
They want to like, oh, we've got to suspend a bunch of elections, not because we're going to lose them, but because we want to create like massive councils and bring you further away from the point of executive decision, right?
And it's so the entire mindset is basically what they would like is have one command and control center in Westminster that they can just walk into and have just boards of screens and be like, right, I want to do that, I want to do that, I want to do that.
And so I never have to leave this room.
That's what they're aiming for.
And they get to live out their dream of being Stalin or Chairman Mao, essentially.
Yeah.
That's what it all is.
I mean, what nearly every leftist has in mind.
Yeah.
We're already one of the most watched countries on the entire planet.
I think we are the most.
Yeah.
Well, this is going to crank it up even further.
How can you beat total the eyes of the state on you everywhere all the time?
How can you beat that?
Well, I mean, AI pre-predictions, can't you now?
In the future.
Yeah, geez.
But that's what they want to bring in.
The AI prediction stuff.
It's absolutely mad.
And you sort of jumped ahead a little bit to my main point: at the end of the day, you know, we're looking at this from a very realistic standpoint, obviously, in terms of their aims.
But if you're being super charitable, maybe a cynical outlook, but still, definitely that is their aim, is authoritarianism.
Centuries of Surveillance00:06:22
Because you just, the cure to this, because the symptom is societal degradation, right?
Just get rid of everyone.
Just get rid of everyone.
Mass remigration.
That's what I want.
Get rid of these people.
Because at the end of the day, right, if you've got a backlog, you've got foreign criminals in prison.
You've got this huge backlog.
You're now having to get rid of jury trials because again, you can't keep arresting people because there's like a year, several years' worth of backlogs.
It is insane.
Just get rid of these people.
Well, that's the one thing they will not do, though, isn't it?
Because when you look at the crime rates per capita, and that's per capita amongst native English and Welsh people, it's very, very, very low.
Yes, it is.
Very low.
This is the thing.
We had a high trust society.
All of this is indicative of a complete cultural breakdown, a complete inversion of what we once had.
It's all gone.
And this was this built over centuries, centuries.
They would agree with you on that and say, yeah, that's why we have to do what we're doing.
Yeah, the only way we can now stop crimes.
They don't see that other option right there.
Well, they can't.
I mean, how could we send back millions of people that we invited to come here and ruin your country?
Have to micromanage it.
And so this all boils down to this is my sort of side anecdote here, which I think perfectly exemplifies my point.
Is this guy absolutely awful?
Awful, awful, awful stuff.
Truly terrible things, right?
Asylum seeker guilty of doing some heinous acts on an 80, you know, on an 18-year-old.
Genuinely terrible.
Name of Shiraz Malik.
Yep.
Yep.
And 10 points to any guesses on whether they maybe hid his asylum status to the.
Oh, really?
Really?
Did they?
Didn't they?
What was the background of the judge?
I'll show you that.
Judge ordered jury not to be told that the Pakistani why is he seeking asylum here?
It's actually Pakistani national, right?
Yeah, he's destruction, but he's an actual Pakistani national seeking asylum here.
We give hundreds of millions of pounds in aid to Pakistan who also has a nuclear program and I believe maybe even a space program.
This is insane.
What?
Judge.
How is it possible to be?
Oh!
I'm recognizing a pattern here.
How is it possible to be a Pakistani refugee?
Pakistan isn't a war.
Like, what are you?
I'm a refugee from what?
Oppressing the Christians?
Oppressing women?
What have you done?
Why are you a refugee?
And why would you not tell the jury that either?
Yeah, what's the justification for that?
Yeah.
What's her name, just out of interest?
Shant.
Niamal Shant.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So sick of this man.
But hey, look, it's an authoritarian's wet dream, I guess.
So, you know, we're living it.
Can't help but know, says it's Shabana Mahmood that's bringing in the panopticon, too.
Just is it just okay?
Thank you.
Hate it.
Hate it.
The engaged view says, yeah, it's a digital star chamber.
That's a great point.
It's a very good point.
You're perfectly right on the money.
Yeah.
I mean, we abolished the star chamber in the 17th century.
So we had a good few hundred years of liberty.
We had a good run.
It's sent centuries.
Centuries and centuries of cultural cultivation to generate a society where you can literally just could, you could, you could just walk out your house and leave your front door unlocked.
Oh, man.
We used to do that all the time.
Kids could go out and play and you'd be like, I just come back when the streetlights go on.
Well, now society's falling apart so much the streetlights don't even go on.
I mean, it was only in like big cities that you'd lock your doors.
Like in villages, you wouldn't lock your doors.
You'd lock your door.
You and I, I believe, grew up, something I did, grew up in like suburbia.
And even in the 80s and 90s, it was like it was fine to just play out until dusk.
And like no one was worried about anything.
Nothing was going to happen.
And that's only 30 years ago.
Nothing did happen.
That's only like 30 years ago.
That is centuries.
I can't stress it enough.
It annoys me.
It makes me genuinely upset that it is centuries of strong men because that's what it all boils down to as well.
Strong men, strong English men that have cultivated that society.
And just these bunch of wet, effeminate losers have just thrown it all away on the altar of diversity.
I hate it.
I hate every single last one of those phrases.
And it's so hard to quantify the sort of spiritual degradation after losing it as well.
It's like, look, you don't understand, right?
And I know that in your countries, you're constantly on your guard, right?
I know that Somalians are on guard in Somalia from being taken advantage of or someone doing something crazy.
I know that in India, you're on your guard.
I know in Pakistan, you're on your guard.
But we used to be at our ease, right?
Yeah.
We used to literally relax.
I'd just walk out of my house.
I'd go for a walk in the forest with the kids.
Or I'd just go down to the local town and just, you know, all right, Harry, yeah, should we go get a drink or whatever?
Like, we didn't worry about danger.
We had a safe country.
And you, like, everything, like, the way that you looked at the world was entirely different to the way I know you guys look at your countries.
I know that we were different.
That we essentially swapped low crime and high trust built over centuries for the liar that diversity is a strength.
So that we can put diversity-built Britain on a 50p coin.
But the thing about that and it's a liar.
But the thing about that, I'm worried about measuring this at all, right?
Because you're like, oh, low trust, high trust, low crime.
So, okay, well, and this is why Salika can't say, oh, no, crime's falling in London, guys.
Crime's falling in London.
It's like, I don't care if there's zero crime in London.
I don't feel like I'm at my ease in London, right?
You can't measure it.
I can tell you whether I feel at my ease there or not.
I don't feel at my ease.
And until I feel at my ease in the rest of the country, I don't care what the crime rates are.
I don't care what the numbers are.
This is not about measurable things that you might be able to win on.
This is about me saying that's not the country I want.
And until I get the country I want, we're going to keep going.
Why Not The Country I Want00:08:06
Right, let's go to the video comments.
And now another special video for our friends.
Oh, Doggies.
Love it.
I was as impressed as Bo's Breakfast Clubs.
I am.
Hey, just think.
Bo's Breakfast Club.
It's BBC without the nancery.
The BBC, Bo's Breakfast Club.
8 a.m. every day, every weekday.
I'm more than happy to get more pet videos.
Oh, here we go.
Yeah, Michael Penco is so cute.
Yeah, it's a dormitor.
And now here's a snowy dog video for Bo.
I tell you, it's been a long time since I had snow like that, hasn't it?
Where is he?
I should know.
Is he in New England somewhere?
I can't remember.
Sorry about that.
It's going to be North North America somewhere, isn't he?
To get snow like that.
Let's go to the next one.
Hello, everybody.
I've created a substack known as a Dominus Oak.
It tackles a very serious problem that has come to my attention, which is government is the problem.
It's not politics.
It's not politicians.
It's specifically the system itself.
We've made a mistake throughout history and formed governments based on his stuff of ideology and not survivability.
So I explain and tackle that.
Please check me out.
Well, you've won me over a tire.
There's a great bit in the Oliver Stone film Nixon with Anthony Hopkins as Nixon.
I'm sorry.
Where a protester says to him, You don't want the war.
The Vietnamese don't want the war.
And he's like, So, why does it go on?
He says, Well, maybe I can change it from the inside.
Maybe I can tame it.
And she says, Sounds like you're talking about a wild animal.
And he's like, Maybe I am.
Yeah.
I mean, you know what's interesting?
I remember reading, I was listening to a podcast maybe about the protests against Nixon and how they would be like throwing bricks at his presidential car and stuff like that.
And it's just like, God, imagine if that happened now.
They get shot.
They barricaded the White House.
He couldn't get in and out of the White House, the president.
Not with ease, anyway.
That's how lax things used to be, how open and trusting the civilization was, right?
I mean, it used to be in the 19th century, you could just walk into the White House and there's an account of a Japanese visitor who's just like, what do you mean?
You can walk into the Emperor's Palace.
It's like, yeah.
It's like, okay, that's wild.
You know, how do you explain that to someone who literally lives in the imperial system of Japan?
And you can just see how much things have changed over the time.
Anyway, not for the better.
Yeah, no, for the worse.
Way for the worst.
This is hella.
I've seen this before.
Can you explain why you retweeted this, Jamie?
You called it a generational banger, but it is a banger.
You're wrong.
There's no right-wing art host, not one.
Charlie Bent Yaster is posting edits of a self as Amelia and your blackpilling.
Brilliant.
See, this is what AI is good for.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, political parody.
It's actually great for it.
I find Twitter very funny most of the time.
Yeah.
Personally.
I know it could probably be quite a horrible place if you're getting ganged up on all the time, but it's usually funny to me.
Yeah, yeah.
Lars says, Island of 5 arrives safe and sound in the mail today.
Looks superb.
Well, I'm glad you got one because they are very nearly sold out.
So basically, if you're desperately need of one, get it while you can.
Seriously, there's something like 90% plus sold.
So good luck, basically.
California refugee says, I just want to see Bo's Britain, don't we all?
That clapping went on so long, it started feeling like when the crowd refused to stop clapping at Stalin's speech, fear of being gulaged.
Yes, a bit of a thing.
And I saw that Sawyer had said, oh, yeah, the Tory parties tended to a bit of a sort of political cult around Kemi and it's toxic.
It's like, very well.
Yeah, you know, you joined reform.
The cult of Nigel.
I'm not throwing shade because sure, you've probably got to have a bit of political cult to get anywhere in politics, but like, okay.
Anyway, thanks, Cossie.
Oh, no, that was that one.
Michael says, must say English British politics is far more fascinating than US politics.
It's like watching an excellent drama series or espionage movie with backstabs and double crosses, rap bags and house bags, double agents, sellouts, etc.
And the we essentially have a football match.
Yeah, but it always ends with more foreigners being crammed into the country and more of our rights being taken away.
Right, it's not funny.
Yeah, yeah.
That's the thing about the American system is it's very much not exactly a two-party system, but in essence, it's a two-party system, right, in the United States.
And so whenever you don't have that, including Britain, there's just much more meat to it, right?
There's much more to play for.
It's much more dynamic.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But the way the Republicans and the Democrats have sewn it up.
Yeah.
I mean, we used to be essentially a two-party system.
You knew you were getting Labour or Tories for 100 years.
But you don't know that now.
So actually, we are entering into an exciting phase of British politics where things change.
Alex says, Bravenan's assessment of Sunak telling her no, no, no is paralleled by Boris Johnson in his autobiography unleashed.
He mentions being PM and going to Senate for some support as Chancellor for an idea to make a change.
According to Johnson, Sinek would invariably reply, no.
Well, the thing is, I think it's important to remember that Sinek is Goldman Sachs's man inside the British government.
So maybe he's, you know, on the phone and he's like, look, Boris said this.
Should I agree to it?
No, obviously not.
But Beau's suspicion of her claim is slightly misplaced as Sinek was Chancellor and controlled the purse strings.
And also when Sinek was prime minister, as much as people deride Liz Truss, at least she was fairly elected as a leader to prevent Sinek getting in.
And then Sonak just got in anyway.
So yeah, no, good point.
And honestly, I am more sympathetic to Sweller because she has been consistent.
If you remember the Liz Truss affair and how she was removed, that really was, honestly, it really was, wasn't it?
Like just such a blatant, just a blatant exercise in whoever controlled Sunak.
It's just in plain view.
Yeah.
No, Truss, whether you like her or not, two-to-one win over Sunak.
The members had made their choice, and then she goes, should you not have another election?
No, we're just going to put Sinek in.
Yeah, well, yeah, that was just the cherry on the cake.
Should we not have like, no, no, we're just putting the Goldman Sachs guy in.
Yeah, it couldn't have been more blatant.
It really couldn't have been more blatant.
No wonder the Tories, even your average sort of not really politically interested person, even they, your average person was like, oh, I can't vote for the Tories now.
What was that?
What was that you just did to us?
Yeah.
You're kidding me.
So the next one is, I don't know if Sweller would support mass deportations.
Well, I had a bit of a Google one.
We were talking about this earlier.
And Sweller, I couldn't find mass deportations, but she has got, you know, various sort of like things from years ago saying two-tier policing is bad.
Here's a three-point plan to end immigration and things like this, right?
So again, she's been consistent.
What is it?
Maybe not worth.
Well, I don't know.
Boris was quite consistent until it came to the Cameron.
You can say it's very easy to say something.
Yeah, I know, but Boris was a liar.
Lucas Mustache says, if it was Sweller Jameric, maybe Kruger, you can make a redemption argument for them, but bring in greasy swamp creatures like Zahawi and Doris, Doris, it's hard to say that reform isn't Tories 2.0.
Yeah, I mean, to be honest with you, they're really weak picks.
I wouldn't have taken them in a month of Sundays.
Can't even understand why he would.
Ed Miliband Harting Enoch Spinning Grave says, Has anyone noticed, hey, it's renewable energy?
I don't know what you're complaining about.
Has anyone noticed that Pathways is just the plot of 1984, told from the perspective of the thought police?
It's like, yeah, I suppose it is, actually.
Winston, we gave you O'Brien at the end, you know, where he's explaining to Winston, you know, you had every opportunity not to.
Furious Dan's Athena Theory00:03:37
Yeah, no, absolutely.
But what I said earlier, it's actually more complete as a surveillance apparatus than what George Oyo described in 1984.
It's more complete.
Oh, yeah.
Like in 1984, he could go out to the countryside and find a sort of a quiet grove somewhere and be free.
Or a little outcove where the video screens couldn't see you.
Right, in his diet.
But she wants 100% all this work.
100%.
That's much more surveillance than even Big Brother.
It's so awful, man.
And it's imagine sending this back 50 years and being like, we have a Pakistani or Bangladeshi home secretary who wants Bentham's panopticon and pre-crime, future crime.
Like, imagine what their fate.
But no, you're not.
How could you do that?
Not what our soldiers died for.
And if you object.
It's not for any of them.
Go back to Margaret Thatcher and tell her that's what you're going to end up with.
She'd be like, no way.
And if you object to it, you're considered a real problem.
You're a potential terrorist.
Furious Dan says, Amelia's rise is what writers call the revenge of the straw man, when a character has made a shallow takedown of a viewpoint ends up resonating with audiences more than the author's mouthpiece.
And that's exactly what has happened here.
Perfect description, really.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Belt says, foreign disruption tactics, doesn't this imply that having multi-ethnic, multicultural nation is a weakness as existing tensions are easily exploited?
Also, I've seen all of these Amelia memes, obviously, and I don't see any reason to think that they are foreign-generated.
No, no.
It all seems to be English nationalist accounts using them.
It's just there are a lot of them online because people are paying attention.
Yeah, just no reason to think it.
California refugee says, Amelia is accidentally turned into the far-right equivalent of 72 virgins for jazz self-deleters.
Russian says, I love England.
This is literally monetizing hate.
It's so funny, man.
It's so funny.
Jordy Salzman says, on substack, Joe Carter has an interesting theory about meme characters being the old gods reawakening.
Nordic gamer as Apollo, Giga Chad as Thor, wifejack as Freya.
He notes that Amelia has naturally accrued the domains of wisdom and war.
Furthermore, so like an Athena.
I was about to say Athena then, that would be, wouldn't it?
Yeah, that would, yeah.
And actually, that's kind of how people are using her.
And Athena in the ancient world or in classical Greece was massively popular.
Oh, yeah.
Massively.
Like colossal statues of her and things.
Yeah.
Can we have a colossus of Amelia?
A gold, a polished golden colossus of Amelia.
When we win.
When we win.
He actually says, yeah, there's a palace Athena, the grey-eyed daughter of Zeus's awakening.
Well, I mean, like, this is the thing about archetypes and inevitabilities.
Like, humans don't actually change that much from era to era, even if the technology and the society changes.
So the same people do the same things and produce the same archetypes.
I think that's what's happening.
White Rider says, they made the character, we just set her free.
How's he wrong?
Nothing more infuriating, says Isaac, than logging on to X in the evening and then seeing left-wing rage baiters turning up to the party extremely late and completely missed the mark on the Amelia thing.
It's not even about the Pathways game.
Amelia is just something far-right incels came up with to make them feel better so they can dream of interacting with a woman.
It's like, no, no, it's just people like symbols that seem to be favourable to them.
It's literally that simple.
The Home Office's choice of Lotus Cedar's Purple for Amelia was fantastic, says Adrian.
Amelia's Far-Right Fantasy00:02:18
Great point.
We should have monetized that.
We should have monetized that more.
Furious Dan says, Jeremy Bentham, in my book, I invented the Panopticon, a prison that produces endless suffering.
Shabana Mahmood.
At last, we have created the Panopticon.
Inspired by my favourite book, Do Not Create the Panopticon.
I mean, not even.
I hate the brass balls on her.
Just come out and say it as well.
But that's the thing.
I don't think she understands that what she's doing is wrong.
I genuinely think from their perspective, they're like, well, we've got to get the numbers down.
We've got to get the backlog done.
Like, we've got to do all these things.
It's like, okay, but you are spiritually destroying the country.
Do you understand?
I wonder if she's read Bentham.
I doubt it.
Of course not.
I doubt it.
I mean, what person really would ever read about the Panopticon and think, yes, I like that.
That's good.
Well, imagine such a person.
What kind of cabinet would they end up serving in?
Probably look a lot like Keir Starliner's cabinet, right?
So maybe we've found the most evil people in existence.
Optional Scott says, I used to work for a CCDV company that had facial recognition.
It was only good with white faces.
And funnily enough, whatever the developers were asked, whenever they were asked to volunteer their faces for the training tool, no one did.
Do you know why it's good with white faces?
No, go on.
Because genetically, white people are actually incredibly diverse.
That's why.
On a genetic level.
We are incredibly diverse.
That's why you have so many different ranges of eye colour.
Hair colour, hair shape.
All of it.
White people as an ethnic, as an ethnos are incredibly diverse.
One of the most diverse ethnicities.
A few years ago, they were complaining that facial recognition software is racist because automated cars and stuff like that wouldn't detect black people.
And one of the issues was light reflection off the skin.
So obviously, we're going to have the most light reflection off of our skin because we're light-skinned.
The darker you are, the less light reflects off your skin, which is why you're dark, actually.
So it's which is why you're perceived as dark by other humans.
So there's also the light reflection issue, which we had a few years ago.