Matt Goodwin faces intense scrutiny in this episode as hosts dismantle his new book, Suicide of a Nation, for alleged AI hallucinations and contradictory messaging regarding Reform UK versus Restore Britain. The discussion critiques mainstream media narratives about white South African persecution under the ANC while analyzing Goodwin's perceived gatekeeping of political discourse. Ultimately, the segment argues that ceding fact-checking to leftist commentators allows them to dominate the narrative, urging a return to rigorous standards to prevent opportunists from diluting right-wing values. [Automatically generated summary]
It is Wednesday the 25th of March, year of our Lord 2026, and it is day 31 of me offering to plait Harry's hair.
Still no budging on that, sorry, friend.
Okay, well, it's either that or maybe get you a couple of little pigtails down either side, turn you into right little sex pots.
This is a very specific fetish that you're appealing to right now, and I don't want any part of it, frankly.
Okay, well, maybe that's what you get up to in London, but we're not in London.
Well, neither am I, but okay, right, fine.
So, um, oh, also, the chat has stopped working.
We don't know why, but it has.
So, if you go over to something called therumble.com, you can chat there if you want to chat to people.
If you're chatty.
Right.
You're going to be telling us about South Africa, and then Harry and I are going to come in like the dambusters and drop excrement all over Matt Goodwin for two segments.
So, with that.
I mean, he smuffers it all over.
Oh, and also, also, live event.
I'll be mentioning that.
Okay, good.
So, I'm going to be talking about how the media is lying about South Africa, because you may have remembered Trump's refugee plan, and it's all about that.
And it's one of the most dishonest tricks I think I've seen the media try and pull in a long time.
But before I get into it, it's worth mentioning, Lotus Eaters has a live event.
It's in Swindon, if you can brave coming here on the 11th of April.
There are still a few tickets left.
I think it's close to being sold out.
I think the VIP ones, they're either gone or almost gone, but the regular tickets, there are still some of those.
What did the VIP get?
I don't know, maybe they're going to show my hand or something.
I don't know.
Oh, there you go.
Nobody's told me.
Please watch.
Hang out with us, I think, is the idea.
I don't know.
But yes, it's going on.
If you'd like to come and listen to us live and have some fun and meet some of the other people in the audience, that is the place to do it.
But with that out of the way, let's talk about this.
So all the way back in, I think, May of last year, wasn't it?
Yes.
Lots of South Africans, white South Africans, went to the US under Trump's refugee plan.
I thought that this was a good idea because white South Africans are clearly living in a dangerous country for them because they're persecuted as a minority by the black majority and the ANC government.
What's the demographics of South Africa?
I mean, is it like 5% white at this point or something?
I'm not entirely sure, but I think it's small enough that the majority there is able to, you know, really persecute people.
And the laws we've covered on this podcast are quite shocking, to be honest.
So why are we pursuing the same demographic plan here?
Good question.
This is sort of what's in store for us if we carry on.
There is no redemption.
But that's not the focus.
What the focus is, is that lots of media outlets like this one started arguing that, well, white South African refugees that they put in inverted commas there choose to head home instead of living under Trump.
They're trying to, you know, turn it into Trump bad.
Also, South Africans are lying about being persecuted, even though we have the videos and we know the laws.
And look at the state of this.
The Trump administration's crusade to, in quote, save white South Africans from supposed persecution is backfiring.
Instead of embracing his invitation to America, growing numbers of those same expatriates are buying one-way tickets home, disillusioned by the violence, fear, and brutality in Trump's United States.
As opposed to the peace and harmony of South Africa.
Yeah, which is one of the most absurd things I think I've ever heard.
And I might actually skip ahead quickly and just show people how South Africa has degenerated.
This is a very good account on X that shows you, you know, 2009, 2025, how everything is just going backwards.
So I wonder what has happened here.
What sort of change in governance has happened here?
Diversity.
Yes.
I say diversity.
I mean, it loses much of that, but.
Just look at the state of it.
It's terrible.
And things like this as well.
So you could be, you know, a white South African living in this farmstead.
And then as time goes on, all of a sudden, your neighborhood just turns into a shanty town.
I was going to say, is that just a shanty town pops up?
Yes.
And then all of them living in squalor end up looking at your farmstead and wondering, oh, why do you have it so good?
Exactly.
And of course, that's how we know about lots of these farmland murders.
And of course, lots of different reasons.
How could you live there?
I mean, your threat of home invasion has got to be high.
Exactly.
And that's why I think Trump offered the refugee plan in the first place.
And I think that that was perfectly reasonable to do.
And even things like this.
Oops, I did not mean to do that.
Oh, it's gone.
Never mind.
But it was a road that looked perfect, you know, perfectly flat.
And then within 12 years, it looked like a dump.
But the BBC even got in on this.
A bunch of, by the way, interesting names here.
Dan, do you want to try and help us pronounce some of that?
No problem.
Unchecki Ugabona.
Possibly.
Kekistan, Simba, and Basmati El-Atik.
Mubarak Abdullah, Bellatwine, and Blessing Aruguba.
Flawless.
But my point being here that maybe there's a touch of an incentive here to undermine the narrative that white South Africans are persecuted because, as you can probably guess from their names, they're probably not white South African.
But they're talking about how thousands of white South Africans abroad, including in the US, are returning home despite President Donald Trump alleging that they're being targeted.
A claim that the South African government denies.
I mean, it's undeniable.
At least 12,000 have checked their citizenship status in preparation for a permanent return.
South African relocation agency has reported a 70% surge in inquiries over the past six months.
And one thing I did want to point out here is without an actual number for the number of returns, a 70% increase could be from two people to three people.
So that doesn't really mean a lot in isolation.
You'd need more numbers than you've got there to make any conclusion of it.
But all of this stems from this Reuters article that is titled Trump Says White South Africans Are Persecuted, Some Are Returning to a Better Life, which is a bit unfair, I think.
So what South Africans always tell me is that it is a great life out there when you're not getting murdered.
Like people who live in the Western Cape, for example, I hear lots of good things from there.
But if you live in downtown Johannesburg, I'd be a little bit worried.
Yes, I don't know.
I don't know South Africa.
Women just aren't expected to stop at traffic lights in Johannesburg because they just will be murdered eventually.
Yeah, it's not a safe place whatsoever.
So, this is obviously a politically motivated article and the source of these other ones as well.
And I couldn't really believe what I was reading because it's obviously absurd.
We've covered extensively the farmland murders, the nature of the violent crime as well.
Malama chanting kill the boar, explicitly inciting violence, and the ANC not doing anything about it because they're saying, oh, it's just a cultural thing.
You know, it's not actually calling for violence, despite the fact that he talks about killing the boar, seizing their farmland, and was in court for a long time for shooting a firearm at one of his rallies, which I think gives you the impression that maybe he means it.
I mean, if I were to sing, I don't know, burn the Jewish ambulance, I'm pretty sure I'd be arrested within five minutes, let alone killing anyone.
Yes, so they're obviously being allowed by the ANC that are sympathetic to Malama and, you know, help facilitate the crimes against the white population by bringing in all of these laws.
The most recent one was the land expropriation bill, where they could just take land from white people and not even give them any compensation for it.
And so you had just groups of black people turning up, just trying to swindle people out of their land, from what I've seen of the clips.
And of course, the local officials as well responsible for it are corrupt.
And so they'll give out parcels of land in exchange for kickbacks from people who already own it, which is not good.
But there is some hope because the head of public relations at Afri Forum, which is a great organization, basically represents the Afrikaner minority or the white minority in South Africa and has done some great work.
I know that they were invited over to the US at one point and the ANC made a big fuss saying, oh, they're traitors, blah, blah, blah.
But when your government is facilitating the conditions for your people's eradication, I think it's fair that you do something about it personally.
You're talking about South Africa, Strill, or you went back to the UK?
I mean, both apply.
So one of the things that he points out here is that the original Reuters article that spawned all the false claims is based on the testimony of only three returning white expats.
So some great journalism there.
One who left the US for the US in 2003.
So I imagine their experiences in South Africa would have been a bit different from modern South Africans in the first place.
One who left for the US 20 years ago and one who left for the Netherlands at an unspecified time.
So that is not a good enough sample of people to say that lots of South Africans are returning.
That's free people.
And they're also people who seemingly left various other places.
One of them didn't even go to the United States.
So it doesn't really make any sense.
Fundamentally, it's not enough people to fill a black taxi.
So what's the story?
No, there's no story.
They're inventing it.
And this is what the media does, and it's very egregious.
And another thing that he points out is based on the comments by the Minister of Home Affairs, that a thousand people have reclaimed their citizenship.
No race or country was specified by the minister.
And there was also no indication that these expats used President Trump's refugee offer in the first place.
So this is another additional thing where they're trying to say that, listen, we're having people return.
But that could have been, you know, non-Afrikanas, non-white people.
So it doesn't, again, mean anything.
And this is all being orchestrated to create this artificial narrative that actually, you know, South Africa is not so bad.
The real nasty place is the United States.
And it's very convenient if you are left-wing because you can not only say, oh, Orange Man bad, Trump's America is evil and they're killing people, blah, blah, blah, which is obviously sensationalizing the situation.
But also you can say South Africa is good, they're diverse, they are nice people, they don't murder white people for the sake of being white.
No, they don't take their stuff.
It's a nice place.
It's better than America when obviously I would rather be a white person in America than South Africa.
And I know parts of South Africa are very secure.
They're basically living off the grid with their own infrastructure.
Little orango place or whatever it's called.
Irania.
Irania, yeah.
There are also other places like that where they can live a normal life.
But still, there's this looming threat of people storming in and potentially doing you harm for the sake of who you are as a person.
And at least in parts of the United States, you can live a relatively safe life without that fear.
Although I wouldn't live in Chicago if I were you.
So he carries on to say that the original article cites comments from SA expats from a Facebook group as evidence, and the comments are only of 10 people and seven are from Europe and three from the USA.
And again, there's no specification of their race.
So this is just I don't know what your impression of this original Reuters article is at the minute, but to my mind, this isn't.
There's been no attempt here to do some actual journalism.
It seems like cherry-picking.
It does, yeah.
It seems like they had an agenda.
Because I can believe that there is probably a portion of people who have come over from South Africa to other countries who are massive S-Libs, who don't see a problem with what's going on in South Africa and they want to return to kind of like rub it in other people's faces as like a fulfillment of some racial utopia.
I can believe that because those people do actually exist.
The Reuters article doesn't seem to be pointing to those types and also seems to be, like you say, just trying to craft a narrative that it's the refugees who came over who are doing that, where it doesn't actually seem to be those specific refugees who came over who are thinking of returning.
Yeah, and it's not to the point as well whereby many South Africans are like, yes, this is an existential problem and we need to do this for survival.
There are many people of South African origin, white South Africans, that buy into the narrative that, no, the ANC were good.
Nelson Mandela was a hero.
And he's literally a terrorist.
Evidence Against Apartheid Laws00:06:56
I know, yeah.
Of course he is.
It's annoying that we have statues of him in Britain.
It's like, I'm sorry, but this is not a good person.
Do we have a statue of him?
I don't know.
I would expect London.
Oh, yes, we do, yeah.
But yeah, it's very frustrating.
And there is a lesson here outside of South Africa as well: that even though they've underwent some of the most egregious racial conflicts in the white world, there are many white South Africans who still believe in this quite left-wing liberal idea of, you know, it's wonderful that the ANC have taken over apartheid.
You know, it was awful.
It wasn't that, you know, it made everything work, but it was mean and they weren't the same as us.
Or did even the blacks of South Africa have higher life expectancy under.
Yes, I mean, and from the pictures that we saw there as well, you can see the thing got me.
I mean, I did a segment a while ago on South Africa, it must have been a year ago, and it was about their sort of power supply.
And because their power network is so unreliable, they gave everybody an app to see when the power was going to be turned off in advance so you can plan around it.
They call it load shedding, yeah.
Yes, but what the locals actually did was whenever they realized that the power was going to be turned off, they started pulling off all the power cables, stripping the copper, and selling it so that it never came back on again.
I mean, that's some big brain moves right there.
I've heard about people going to electrical transformers and taking the oil out to use for cooking, which is not advised, by the way.
I also believe that the reason for some of those pictures that we saw of the roads having been pulled up was that they literally break up the tarmac so that they can sell it off.
Yeah, yeah, of course.
This is the kind of thing that is going on.
And if you are used to living in a European-level civilization, and then all of a sudden your tarmac's getting dug up and your electrical wires are being pulled up, I can see why someone would want to leave.
Yeah, it's worth remembering that for some populations, the future does not exist.
So, another thing he mentions in this, I'll try and find where it is around here somewhere.
Yes, furthermore, the article fails to acknowledge or provide evidence against the very real issue that drove thousands of white South Africans to seek refugee status in the US.
Racially discriminatory laws.
I've seen evidence that there are more racially discriminatory laws now than there were under apartheid against white people, by the way.
Brutal farm murders, the kill the boar, kill the farmer chant that the government refuses to condemn.
And it reprimanded the new US ambassador to South Africa this week when he declared, when he dared, sorry, to condemn it as hate speech.
Because, yeah, obviously they're calling for people to die.
In Britain, this would be clear incitement to violence, probably even now.
An entire population, no less.
Yeah, exactly.
And a government threatening people with confiscation of their property based on race, all these issues remain.
And it is true.
These are undeniable things.
The laws are out there.
You can read them.
But you don't necessarily have to take my word for it.
I actually interviewed Ernst Van Zeyl, the spokesperson for Afriforum.
Very interesting interview.
Quite inspirational, really, because the things they're going through in South Africa to us seem very extreme.
But he talks with far more optimism about their future than we do.
So perhaps it's good to put things into perspective.
Is he one of these sort of Cape Independence guys or something?
I don't think so.
I don't want to speak for him.
But what they have done is they've released last year a document just talking about all of the things going on in South Africa and clear evidence.
We're a little bit zoomed in here.
But it talks about the race-based laws and all sorts of things, all the policies that are targeting white South Africans, talking about their economic and property rights or lack thereof, the open violent rhetoric against them and the evidence of that.
The fact that they're trying to marginalize Afrikaner schools as well and suppress their ability to have an education in, say, their own language and things like that, as well as just general political suppression.
The evidence is all here.
You can find this document in the reading list on our website for this podcast.
So if you want to have a look for tangible evidence, here it is.
We're not making it up.
Also, look at some of our old segments.
There's more than enough evidence there.
There's some very horrific things that you can see for yourself.
But you can also just look online.
Here's a non-white South African.
And he says, this is his words, kill all white colonial settlers in South Africa.
All 4.7 million of them.
I want them dead one by one.
Kill all that group of politicians for their role in upholding whiteness in South Africa.
I want anything anti-black and in the way of true liberation of black people completely annihilated.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Dutch not arrive in that part of Africa first?
Before the Bantus, yes.
They did.
And they're also responsible, along with Britain, obviously, in building it into a functioning civilization that the ANC, quite frankly, has run into the ground.
And the fact that they're able to live first world lives in a country that's actively hostile to them is just testament to how effective they are as people who uphold civilization.
And we should view it in those lines.
People like this guy, he's not building civilization.
He's not building infrastructure, is he?
All he knows how to do is to take things.
And that's exactly the problem, isn't it?
But yes, I wanted to just draw attention to this because it's a very egregious thing.
And, you know, it's even to the point where I'm not going to show it, but an attorney was just murdered, a white attorney, in broad daylight because of the extent of crime.
Just a white lady murdered in the street outside of a court.
That was just a recent thing that happened.
So yes, it's a very real problem for white South Africans.
And despite what the media has been saying, there is a problem for them.
Targeting the Gamer Demographic00:07:21
They should be helped as much as they can.
And I think that Trump's refugee programme was a good thing, good option.
There are plenty of people in South Africa that are weathering it out.
And I have nothing but respect for them.
Great.
Do we have any of those chatty things?
No.
Not yet.
No.
None of the chatty things.
Right.
We might as well combine our chatty things because those are.
Yeah, works for me.
Oh, here we go.
Right, you need a mouse.
Yeah, go on then.
Oh, I did a thing.
I'm sorry.
Oh, Josh, what have you done?
It's got a forward button on the side.
These new mice have buttons on the side.
For some reason, they've equipped the office with gamer mice.
Oh, yeah, it's got buttons on the side, doesn't it?
Yeah, after what I'm saying.
I'm just going to say the gamer word.
Oh, my.
Nothing really stops you normally, does it?
Right, okay, so I thought we'd have a chat about Matt Goodwin.
Oh, that was supposed to be a clever intro there.
I'm going to.
Let's try that again.
Once more from the top.
Once more from the top, so it works for the YouTube.
So I thought we would talk about Matt Goodwin.
Fuck it.
Right, third time.
This is definitely going to work this time.
I'm hovering the button.
Right.
So I thought we would talk about Matt Goodwin.
There we go.
It worked.
Right.
Oh, he worked twice.
It's like buses.
Yeah, so Matt Goodwin of Reform Fame.
I mean, he's currently of Reform Fame.
He used to be a writer for Hope Not Hate and an academic studying the far right.
Containing the far right.
Containing and infiltrating.
He also used to sit on anti-Islamophobia board meetings and trust meetings with Nick Lowells of Hope Not Hate as well.
Oh, well, that is important.
Nick Lowells has tweeted about this and said, why did you not care about the grooming gangs back then, Matt?
Which, despite my disdain for Nick Lowell's, is a pretty good question.
Yes.
That is a very good question.
Clocks.
Wow, indeed.
So, yes, so he's been doing a little bit of a media tour lately, and he's been sort of going around.
And, you know, he did this one on Pete McCormack's show where he was talking about a whole bunch of stuff.
There are some standout moments for me.
I mean, a big one, basically what he's doing in this episode is he's coming after the online right, people like us, and he's coming after Restore.
And he's got a whole bunch of contradictory claims in there.
The main one is that Restore are taking their votes, and also nobody has ever heard of Restore.
Sorry, let me just get you straight here.
Right, Dan?
You're telling me that noted containment expert Matt Goodwin is attacking everyone to the right of him.
Yes.
Yes.
Very interesting.
There was one, I mean, I'll take you through some of the arguments and some of the clips shortly.
But I mean, this one just stood out for me.
And this is why I named the episode after it.
But he had basically spent 10 minutes at this point basically explaining why young people can't get anything they want because we need to appease the low salience boomer voters.
By low salience in this case, I just mean people who pay very little.
So if you're watching this, you are a high salient voter.
You engage in politics regularly to the point where you watch podcasts on perhaps a daily basis about the subject.
But what they really want is they want the people, because it's a bigger number, the people who pay attention to politics maybe once a month, if that, maybe around election times.
And for whatever reason, Reform got themselves into the case where they think that they need to actively push away the active online right in favor of the occasional voter.
And that's probably why they have all of these sort of bingo hall aesthetics.
Yes.
I've been seeing that.
It does for a very long time.
It's sort of like, oh, you know, do you like cruises?
Do you like going to the bingo?
Do you like collecting your pension?
Vote for reform.
Yes.
It's very targeted on a demographic that I am not.
But one of the consistent things, like you're saying, is him attacking the online writers, basically people who he's implying have never been outside.
They've never spoken to a voter before.
But the thing is, in Matt's own ground game for Gorton and Denton, it was terrible.
Well, there's a video of him where he's going like, Keir Starmer's a robot.
Where he sounds like Alan Partridge.
Yeah, it was the most partridge thing I've seen outside of an actual Alan Partridge show.
And as well, where he's doing the boomer face angle for his camera phone, and he's going like, so we're outside and it's absolutely chucking it down out here, but we're still knocking on doors.
Oh, my goodness, can you believe it?
Ah, no, I can't believe that you go outside, actually, Matt.
Well, the thing is, he attacks people being online, but he's more online than the rest of us.
If you look at his tweeting, I mean, he's not quite Elon Levins, but he's pretty close.
Well, you know, when you're feeding all of your tweets through LLMs, it makes it very easy to tweet a lot.
It speeds it up.
But anyway, so on Pete McCormack's show, he's got this good dynamic where he's got his son who doesn't say a lot, but when he chips in, he just goes straight to the hub of it.
Because Pete's kind of going for precision and Matt's going for evasion, and then Connor, his son, is just doing compression.
So the first clip I'll play you is this one.
Abyss and think you're going to change the country by becoming ever more extreme because the person you have to win over is not the 21-year-old.
The person you have to win over is the 55-year-old average voter in Tamworth or in any other swing seat.
And I can tell you, if you go and knock on their door and you say, Look, I'm so angry with this country.
My main policy offering here is mass deportations.
I guarantee you, those people, you'll meet some people who will say, Oh, yeah, that sounds okay.
But then those people are almost certainly not, they're already going to be voting for the party that happens to be leading in the national opinion polls.
But you'll get a lot of more other people who are simply going to close the door in your face and say, That shit sounds extreme.
So reform just giving up on the 20-year-olds.
No, because they're more they care more about the 55-year-old.
Every reform, I was in Milton Keynes last.
So, anyway, there's any blusters and bumbles because you can't get, but I mean, kind of cuts it straight to the heart of it there, which is, yeah, you've just spent 20 minutes telling us that you can't give young people anything they want.
And also, there's the false claim that young people want deportations and old people don't, which is not there.
I mean, there will be plenty of boomers in the comments saying, I want the deportations as well.
Yeah, what about all of the disenfranchised voters who've just clocked out for the past 30 years since Blair?
Yes.
Well, no, no, they did come back for the Brexit referendum because they finally thought this was something that could make a difference.
Betrayal of Real People00:04:42
So, they showed up for that.
They completely changed the outcome.
Everybody thought it was a lock.
All the betting sites, all the political parties thought that Brexit was an absolute lock for Remain.
The voters, the sort of voters who have basically opted out, came back in, changed politics, and then ever since then, all the political parties have been like, Yeah, we are going to ignore that game-changing block forever, and we're just going to haggle over the centre ground, the median voter.
Not just ignore them, stab them in the back, actively betray them.
Yes, actively betray them at all times.
Um, and and this is just one of many exchanges that I don't think really went Matt's way.
Because, I mean, you know, Pete's in our sphere, but he's he's a little bit at the front of the curve on some of this stuff.
So, this is a relatively friendly, I mean, I mean, he's very friendly with Matt Goodwin, but it definitely did not go the way that Matt was sort of hoping it to.
And you can kind of tell the discussion that Pete and his son had afterwards, because then he comes out with this: you know, the online leads the offline, lose the online right, and you'll eventually lose the offline right.
Um, same for the left, but I mean, it's, I mean, this is this is ultimately the problem.
Everybody's online these days, you know, my parents are online, and they're in their 70s.
Well, this is a problem with the idea of simulacrum, because it is both true and untrue at the same time that the online world is its own little closed-off community.
It has those aspects to it, and it is easy to fall into echo chambers.
But ultimately, at the same time, behind every tiny little profile picture that you're looking at, except for the ones that are obviously bots, right?
Let's not discount that bots exist, but most of them are going to be real people behind those, right?
And those real people also live in the real world with the rest of us.
Yes, we live in the real world, and there is an influence that goes out to the rest of the real world as well.
All of the views on YouTube aren't just numbers, they are people.
Well, if anything, so there is an influence there.
So, if Matt Goodwin wants to attack the online right, he will also, by dint of doing that, be attacking the audiences of these people.
Oh, yeah, so that's exactly what he's doing.
We're going to take offense to that.
At the same time, people that come from the podcasting world normally are more normal people than the SW1 people that are constantly connected to one another and live in their own little bubbles.
Like, most podcasters got into podcasting, particularly political podcasting, because they felt like something was unaddressed.
I've spoken to many people, I'm sure you have as well.
I mean, it's the reason probably both of us are here.
We're here.
Exactly.
You know, I left academia to be here because I saw the problems unaddressed in politics as being more important.
So if there is a pull from the real world to the online world when problems aren't becoming addressed, presumably that would also translate to, you know, some of the most dedicated voters, the people that care the most being those online, those that are most likely to show up.
Those most likely to be activists.
That is exactly the mistake that Matt Goodwin and so I don't know if this is Matt Goodwin's mistake, whether he truly believes it.
But I mean, certainly Nigel Froge hates the online, right?
He absolutely hates them.
So whether Matt Goodwin is just picking that up and running with it and trying to intellectualize it, but a part of what Goodwin's trying to do in this interview and other interviews is basically separate our audience from us.
Now, how do you believe that it fundamentally works?
Do you believe that the reason people watch us is because they don't have their own opinions and then we give them an opinion and they're like, oh, good enough, I'll take that.
Or is it, and I'm pretty sure it is this, because I've seen comments over the years that say this like a million times.
People, what they actually say is, you've articulated something that I was thinking, but they're busy doing their office job and they know that something's not right and they got pieces of it together.
And then because we think about it all the time, we articulate it in a way that resonates for them and that's why they watch us.
That's exactly it.
Yes.
There's no way it could be anything else.
One last thing before we move on to your next link as well is that I think one of the big problems that reformers had over the past few months with their messaging is that after basically leading the polls all year last year, they thought that they had it locked in for 2029 and believed that those polls were guaranteed numbers and that those voters would stick to them no matter what, which made more sense when they didn't have competition from their right like Restore has become.
Gatekeeping Reform Careers00:14:37
But they're still in we're winning lads mode.
Well, and they've decided that the best way to take on attacks from their right is not to address them and not to try to actually improve their policies or their messaging somewhat, but instead to just attack, attack, attack, attack, and pretend as though the polls aren't turning around.
And in fact, the polls have turned around a little bit.
Keir Starmer of all people has started to get better numbers in the polls recently, probably because of his handling of the Iran conference.
I would say so, yeah.
And as a result, there's just a kind of like sulky whininess coming from.
There's a lot of that in this.
They're attacking from the left as well towards Restore, which is a really terrible strategy because actually most people in reform, I think, are sympathetic to the arguments.
Most people who support reform think that they're going to do the things that Restore are going to do.
They don't realize that reform have explicitly ruled out a whole bunch of stuff.
They're also, the messaging is a bit schizophrenic in that you'll have Matt Goodwin and Nigel Farage saying, no mass deportations.
No, no, no.
That's bad.
That's a political impossibility.
But then you'll have Zah Yousaf saying, we're going to do mass deportations.
We're going to reverse the Boris.
That is literally the reason why they kicked Rupert Lowe out.
I know, yeah.
Well, it's also contradictory within the same people because I'll get onto it in my next segment.
But Matt Goodwin is like, you can't campaign on mass deportations.
You can't campaign on any of these things.
And then at the same time, we'll release a book called Suicide of a Nation, where he's complaining about mass demographic change.
I've got a bit of that.
There's one more link that I want to play you, another bit where he just fell completely flat on his face.
And that was when Pete asked him, okay, well, what is British then?
Be given as much respect if they decide to go into the trades as if they decide to go into university, that they are treated with decency and fairness in a country that puts them first, unequivocally and unashamedly.
What is them?
Like, puts them, like you've talked about putting the British people first.
Is it the British people?
Is it the English people?
It's a conversation I find even uncomfortable.
But like, what is them first?
Well, people who belong to this country who are tax-paying, law-abiding British citizens and prioritizing them in everything that we do.
But what if it's a British Muslim is a lobbyist?
So basically, the answer he gives is as long as you've got a bit of paper.
As long as he has said isn't the definition of British in the past as well.
So he's just contradicting.
Which your whole schizophrenic point is if Tony Blair or Boris Johnson gave you a piece of paper, well, you're British then.
And look, ultimately, what is reform?
Reform is a mechanism to prevent re-migration.
It's blocking the space that should be filled by a re-migration party.
That's ultimately what it is.
And actually, you sent me a brilliant link when you heard I was doing this.
I mean, this just absolutely lands the point.
And, you know, when I was campaigning on the streets, one thing that I was thinking about, because at the time we had a bit of online hurrah about, you know, new parties being formed and all the rest of it, I was thinking how utterly absurd it would be to watch some of those people campaign in Gorton and Denton, right?
Knock on the door.
Boom, boom, boom.
Hello.
Where are you from?
Oh, I'm from Restore.
All right, what do you believe?
Yeah.
You should be deported.
We believe in mass deportations.
Oh, oh, right.
Oh, what else do you believe?
We believe in remigration.
Oh, what's that?
Let me tell you something.
It's completely divorced from political reality.
The people who are pushing those ideas have never canvassed, have never campaigned, have never spent a serious amount of time with the British people.
The idea of political failure and national embarrassment, Matthew Goodwin, insulting somebody else's political ground game, going out canvassing.
That's absurd.
But I mean, he's telling you here, this is the point of reform.
It's to prevent re-migrations from taking place.
And you've got to remember, I mean, we made this point earlier.
The reason that Frage has now admitted the reason that Rupert Lowe was kicked out of reform was because he started talking about deporting the grooming gang communities.
Not just the individual grooming gangs, which maybe reform will pretend that they might do at some point, but the whole communities who knew it was going on.
And that was considered so extreme, not only did they sack him, but they made up criminal allegations against him to try and get him jailed.
That is what reform is for.
This is so tone-deaf to the mood of the public as well.
Like, it's to the point where we can be walking down the street and people recognize us and we talk about mass deportations all day.
So these British people are just not British or something.
Like, they're just not real.
They're not a real voting bloc.
Of course they are.
And in fact, it's got to the point now where even some left-wing people on lots of other issues are sympathetic to the idea of deporting large numbers of people.
It's got to the point now where I can basically start talking politics to any white person in this country.
And if it comes to immigration, and I talk to them about my ideas of who should be deported, I've never had someone disagree with me ever.
I talk to a lot of people as well.
And it's just absurd.
Like, this is probably the most popular policy in Britain at the minute is deporting the people that call it.
And the purpose of reform is to stop it.
I'll show you.
Well, just my own little anecdote there.
A few weeks ago, I was at the pub and ran into a guy I'd not seen in a few, maybe a year or two, really.
And he told me that he was voting green at the next election.
As far as things are going right now, he sees green as the viable, like, anti-establishment because he considered himself anti-establishment.
At the same time, he said that he'd found my Twitter account, and I was like, oh, God, here we go.
And he said he didn't disagree with anything I said on it.
Not a clear overlap with green policy there.
No, there isn't.
But that's the thing is that young white voters, relatively young, I'm not so much of a spring chicken myself anymore, frankly.
You and me both.
relatively young white voters can be flipped rather easily because what they're looking for is anti-establishment.
What they're looking for is something outside of the union party.
So Green is legitimately anti-establishment and the only other one is Restore.
But one of them is sane and one of them is batshit.
Yes.
So we know what reform really cares about.
It's stopping remigration.
This is Matt pretending to care about careers of people who he doesn't like.
And I feel very, very sorry, if I can just lastly say, I feel very sorry about the young activists between the ages of maybe 18 and 30 who have just wrecked their political careers by going down this cul-de-sac.
They could have been really interesting, important people in our country's history.
They could have been really significant people.
And because they became detached from political reality, they've lost all relevance.
That seemed like an attack explicitly on Connor, to be honest, didn't it?
It seems possible threat is what it does.
It does as well.
Because in that equation that he's laid out, he's just said it like political reality is some floating abstract thing and not really what he's talking about is the preferred politics of the M25 game.
Yeah, and we're expected to believe five minutes after he lost a by-election for stalling his political career to the point where Danny Kruger went on TV the day after and was sort of floating the idea of basically chucking out the party.
We're expected to believe that he's deeply concerned about Connor's political career rather than his own.
I don't think it was Danny Kruger.
It was the other one.
Oh, I forget now.
Yeah, but there's so many former Tories.
It's difficult to crack, isn't it?
Yes.
Either way, I know the one that you're on about.
But yeah, like basically, he's saying, oh, you've better worry about your career, better watch out for your career, talking about that sort of stuff.
Well, the thing is, there has to be people gatekeeping the careers, right?
So is that you and your buddy, Matt?
You and your buddies.
Oh, yes, it is.
That's what it is, Matt.
That's a threat.
I mean, if you want to do your part to ruin your career, a good way to do it would be to come to our live event that is on the segue.
Yes.
On the 11th of April, we're having a live event, so you can come along and you can watch us talk, and also you can talk to us.
But back to Goodwin's point, the idea that the genuine right, as I'm going to call it, and that's a little bit loaded, but I don't care.
That's how I see it.
The genuine right, the people who actually believe what they're saying and have the courage of their convictions, I think people are so aware of politicians lying and people in the political sphere lying that people seek that out.
And there's always going to be people supporting them.
You know, this platform wouldn't exist if the audience didn't believe that we were saying what we actually truly believed.
And of course, why wouldn't we?
We're not politicians.
But this is good.
It breeds a stock of people who, by disposition, are honest with people and communicate their convictions in a truly heartfelt way.
That's what we want in politics.
All comes back to how you think the political system works.
So, Matt, in this series of interviews he's been doing, he's basically of the view that it is party sends a message to the media and the media sends a message to the voters, and that is how opinions are formed.
Whereas we think, no, actually, there's a network and a narrative is created, and that goes to the voters, and then that goes to the parties.
And people are actually looking.
I mean, his model probably did work in the 80s when there's about like two different parties that you could choose from.
You know, they would set the navigator, but it doesn't work that way around anymore.
And he spends the whole time basically.
I mean, the whole series of interviews that he's doing is a series of essentially gatekeeping.
What he's trying to do is to say, if you are a watcher of the online right Lotus Eaters or whoever it is, you need to disassociate yourself from them because they're not serious.
Only I understand how politics really works.
And he goes into this a bit here.
And this is essentially the core intellectual justification that he has for the position that he's got.
There was an anti-establishment political party once upon a time, and it was full of ordinary people.
It was full of plumbers, farmers, electricians, workers, people with people with very little political experience.
And it captivated the mood of the country.
And it took off in the polling, and it did really, really well at a national legislative election.
Okay.
Was considered to be the first real populist movement in post-war Europe.
And that movement was the French Pugetist movement.
Anyway, cut a long story short, it didn't really work out for them.
But this is the core of the whole thing for him.
You need to have people who are academics who have studied these things, former Tories.
But essentially, the establishment politics, it's made up all of lawyers and former journalists.
That's essentially what you get in the House of Commons.
And apparently, if you're a lawyer or a journalist or a former spad, then that then entitles you to then leap into the political realm and you're now a serious person.
You can get things done.
Although, quite evidently, we've been doing that system for whatever it is, 30 years, since serious people, since generals and businessmen and other sort of leaders stopped going into parliament whenever it was in the 80s or 70s.
Now it's just lawyers and journalists.
Apparently, they are serious people, but Restore are not going to be that.
And he compares it to this sort of tradesman party in France.
Thing is, that's not exactly what Rupert Lowe is going for.
He's looking for capable people who have actually done something in the real world.
I don't see why somebody who has successfully run a business or built something or operated something, those are the kind of people that you actually need.
And this thing where, you know, it's only going to be academic lawyers and journalists is right.
I mean, that is his core argument.
That's what everything comes back to.
The other argument he makes, obviously 10622.
Let me just find this.
There you go.
Yeah, okay, he's close enough, whatever.
Sophistication and the grasp of political reality.
I'm going to go out on a limb and just irritate a lot of people.
But you have what I see further to the right of reform, which is a lot of people who, on the one hand, care deeply about Britain.
I know quite a lot of them, I think, because they've been involved in and around my writing community for a while.
Like, I understand why they've got to the point they've got to.
Well, why is that?
I mean, let's say clearly, we're talking about people who've moved from reform to restore.
Yeah, yeah.
I think those, I think a lot of those people want something that is even more radical than the program that is being offered by a party that happens to be number one in the opinion part.
I mean, let's just tackle that.
Restore's version of radical is nothing more than what everybody of every political persuasion would have considered normal 20, 30 years ago.
And there's also what reform's own voter base think of their activists.
And yeah, it's what they want, isn't it?
It's what they think reform is going to do.
And he is describing that as radical.
You have to be so within the Westminster bubble to think that what Restore is proposing is radical.
I mean, it's only radical if you're within that sort of narrow bubble.
But again, I mean, this is, I mean, I'm just playing a short clip here.
He keeps on hammering this point, detached from reality, lack of sophistication.
Basically, you guys don't know what you're doing.
It has to be somebody like me.
I'm the only one who really understands this stuff.
And you can't have anything you want, basically.
So he's just gatekeeping.
We've never written an AI book used.
And, you know, I've not lost to a CBB's presenter.
It's absurd.
Like, he's a political failure now, right?
Framing Restore as Radical00:07:42
And he's never coming back from this.
Like, he's getting attacked from both the left and the right.
And even some people that previously supported him.
I think it was Bull, David Bull, wasn't one of the people.
Oh, yes.
You're right.
Or at least intimated.
Right.
Now, that clip I showed you earlier where he did his little sketch that he's obviously been practicing in the mirror, the one about knocking on a door if you're a restore.
Oh, not the first one where he goes, aha!
No, not that one.
But yeah, that one where, was it Winston Marshall found that absolutely hilarious and was falling all over the place?
So Matt, at this point, in this stage of the interview, he breaks out his killer gag routine, expecting to see Pete and his son Connor absolutely falling all over the place with laughter like Winston did.
Didn't go down quite the same this year.
So how does this go?
Let's just work.
Because I knocked on 7,000 doors, okay, myself.
So how does this go?
Okay.
Hi.
I'm from Restore.
Oh, not heard of you.
What's your policy?
Mass deportations.
Oh.
Oh, right.
Okay.
That's quite hard.
What do you mean?
We just want all these people out.
Who?
Well, you know, people who aren't part of us.
We want remigration.
You want what?
Remigration.
What's that?
That's where we basically force everybody out.
Right.
Okay.
that sounds quite extreme to me that sounds quite actually that sounds pretty nuts to me I don't think you framed it how they've been framing it, though.
That's exactly what people have been saying online.
People online or the people from the party?
People who are claiming to lead.
I mean, poor Matt, that was his killer line.
But building up to this moment.
It's such an absurdity.
Just like, I'm just from Restore.
They've got more policies than that for a start.
And also, rather than just saying, you know, just repeating the words at them, they could be like, yes, all people who have come here illegally, all criminals, all people who aren't contributing financially to the country.
Who wants it's just like, do you want to pay for foreigners to come here and be financially dependent?
Do you want criminals here?
Like, any sane person is going to be like, okay, that sounds quite reasonable.
And that's their policies, right?
Matt's framing it like because Steve Laws has put out a few positive tweets about Restore, that he's the one coming up with party messaging.
He's not the one choosing how they're going to spin the rhetoric.
I'm sure that there's going to be a lot of careful consideration how they're going to present it to people.
I wonder if the difference, does Matt Goodwin have children?
Does Winston Marshall?
Maybe that's the reason it lands with them, but the reason it doesn't land with Pete is like, I mean, Pete's my age, and I'm seeing Pete's house.
It's a nice house.
And people like us, me, him, and Carl, we can probably get through it.
We could work from home, live in our nice houses in a nice part of town.
We could probably get through this.
The next 30 years won't be fun.
But as soon as you introduce the element of, oh, actually, shit, we've got children, suddenly there is literally no way of getting around this.
And I suspect that's the difference as to why this line didn't land here.
I've got a couple more to set up the key distinction.
So let's just hear him telling us about how extreme Restore is.
What I see happening around Restore, again, people who might say they would be open to voting for that movement, I'm not making a judgment about those people, but the people I see trying to organize that political movement are too extreme, are too strident, are detached from political reality, do not understand what and how the average voter really thinks, and have been very sloppy with their language and have insufficient political experience.
But I'm saying the stuff that's going on over here is batshit crazy.
British people, British people will never, ever, ever get behind Restore in a big way.
It will never happen.
What will happen is it will be 1979 and it will be standing 300k.
Okay.
So pretty clear.
Restore is completely extreme, utterly radical, can't be trusted.
It's nuts.
It's mental.
It's out there.
So let's jump to this bit, where he tells us they've got the same policies as them.
No, my mouse control is off.
I think we need to get the boomer mouse out for Dan.
Yeah.
Illegal migrants that they want to remove first.
Okay, well, that's reform policy.
So what's the difference?
I don't know if there is a huge difference.
So he pivots effortlessly from these guys are a bunch of extreme radicals to what there's no difference in policy.
This is why I'd like us to have this conversation because I think there are lots of people who are being led into a cul-de-sac.
And there's also a lot of people, I would say, who are also speaking in very strident terms.
Here's something else.
Well, should we just do this?
Because rather than me, this is, this is her point.
The Boris wave must be reversed and the asylum system must be abolished.
Okay, that's the annual department.
Hang on a second.
That's reform policy.
Yeah.
The annual departure of legal migrants must at least double.
Millions of foreign nationals cannot speak English, live in social housing, claim benefits, refuse work, break our laws, or fail to integrate should go home.
And for the seeable future, significantly more must leave and enter.
I disagree with that.
A lot of the policies that you've just read out.
But do you disagree with any of that list?
I think a lot of it's quite vague, and I think it would be very easy for Restore's political enemies to point out how vague...
No, how evasive he is.
It's ridiculous as well, because reform, considering they're ahead in the national polls, you think they've got enough money to write some policy.
They've hardly got any.
And the policies they do have, you know, depending on who you're hearing it from, either they support it or not.
Like, it is a ridiculous criticism, to be honest, because I don't really know what anyone in reform stands for other than enriching themselves at the expense of the British.
Well, he would simultaneously have you believe that they hold that restore policies and reform policies are the same policies.
But what is it?
So what is he saying?
The presentation that Restore have got make them completely unelectable.
And I mean, I know he keeps telling us that we don't know what we're doing and he's the only true political mastermind here, but that is a contradiction you could drive a bus through.
So there is that.
I mean, he's tried his hand at politics and he's failed.
You know, with the book and his failure in the election, it's over for him.
And look, ultimately it comes down to this.
If he is trying to hoodwink us into believing that the policy set is actually the same, it's just the presentation is different.
Well, reform don't have the credibility on any of his stuff.
You know, we have had whatever, how many years of Tory governments who promised us one thing and then did the precise opposite.
There's a credibility gap.
And when he's throwing people out the party for advocating for remigration, I'm sorry, Matt, but you haven't got any credibility.
Well, yeah, that's the ultimate thing that will tank his career going forward.
Not only does he have no credibility, but also given what we know about his background, his academic background in writing on populism and how to contain it, there's not a feeling of sincerity from him.
He comes across incredibly insincere.
And if you've got no credibility and people don't believe what you're saying, then nobody will trust you going forwards.
Why don't you tell us about his writing?
Well, we can do that right now if you want to move on through the next segment, please, Samson.
The Goodwin sandwich.
Well, if you do want something that is presented by people who are sincere and I would like to think have some credibility behind us at the very least, you can come to attend our live show on the 11th of April.
Controversy Over Matt Goodwin's Book00:03:14
Tickets are still available, so get them whilst you still can.
It's in Swindon from 7 till 10, and there's going to be a lot of fun.
So we'll see you there.
So speaking of Matt Goodwin's credibility and sincerity, he has a new book out, which has been the center of some controversy.
Some controversy, I must say, as well, that has brought elements of the left who would oppose Matt Goodwin and the right who disagree with Matt Goodwin, and even, frankly, elements of the centre-right who you would expect to back Matt Goodwin all together so that they can all simultaneously throw him under the bus for some frankly astonishingly poor academic and research work.
And that is all centered around this new book, Suicide of a Nation, Immigration, Islam, Identity.
If there's things about this book cover and the name of it and the subheading that strike you as somewhat familiar, I will mention that.
So you can see right here straight away, there's something of a war going on in the customer ratings, which is that it is not evenly, but it is almost completely split between one star reviews and five star.
But when you say evenly split, there are twice as many.
Not evenly split at all.
But people are going one way or the other.
It's very, very polarizing.
That's because there are going to be people giving it five star who just won't probably have even read it, but will say that it's great just because, hey, I'm going to support this guy for political reasons.
And one star from people probably doing the same thing.
But frankly, the one stars have a bit more evidence backing them up.
And again, whatever you want to say about the originality of it, people are already pointing out that it basically seems to be a rehash of The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Murray from about eight or nine years ago.
The thing is, though, Douglas Murray is actually quite talented.
Yes, whatever else you want to say about Douglas Murray being, you know, half-measure, a massive Zionist, or whatever, The Strange Death of Europe is a very well-written book.
It's well researched and well-argued.
And this seems to be rehashing the same ground, even if Strange Death of Europe is probably at this point somewhat outdated because it is a pre-Boris wave book.
But you can see that he's nicked immigration, identity, and Islam.
And the cover of the book itself seems to be a strange mashup of Andrew Doyle's End of Woke alongside the abolition of Britain by Peter Hitchens.
So the book already is showing a complete lack of originality, which is something that's probably going to hurt its credibility with a lot of readers to begin with, whether or not Matt wants to say that it was all done as homage.
The whole thing, all of that's to do with homaging these various different authors and works from over the years.
People aren't seeing that right now, which is especially compounded with this, which is that he has posted an extract from the book, quote, they don't want you to read.
Which is yourself.
Well, now in the top three of all books on Amazon, obviously it's the loony left, the wokeists, the book publishers, because this is a self-published book through an organization, I believe, called Northwest, which is a self-publishing company.
Definitive Proof of AI Slop00:04:21
He didn't want to go through big publishers because they would have just censored him.
Well, there's an interesting incentive here for him to self-publish as well, is that he can get a larger share of the profits rather than a larger readership, but a smaller share of the profits if he went through a named book publisher.
I'm sure he could have if he wanted to, which is an interesting.
His previous two books were published with Penguin.
Well, there we go.
So he has those connections if he wants.
But there might be a little bit of a problem, which is that in recent court cases, I think there was a landmark case that went through just a couple of months ago, book publishers have started to pull back books, pull off the shelves, or just not publish anything which is suspected, heavily suspected, of having a decent portion of it written by AI, generated by an LLM.
I was going to say, the reason why I think making it a publisher makes sense is because they have editors and they're generally quite helpful.
That does help.
That does help.
But it helps also having, say, an LLM checking your homework.
Yeah, you wouldn't need editors if it's all.
Let me just read this excerpt for you from the opening and tell me if it sets off any alarm bells in the style of language used and the way that it's composing its points and arguments.
There are moments in the life of a nation when everything changes.
Not with a bang, not even with a conscious decision, but with a quiet, creeping loss of confidence so profound that people start to forget who they are.
My alarm bell's already ringing.
The use of quiet there is often used by ChatGPT and also the rule of three and also it's not even that's another one that it does.
I see this all the time on X so I'm sort of radicalized.
It's also this, which is the use of a single longer sentence as a discrete paragraph followed by a much shorter sentence as a separate paragraph immediately after as an AB12 hit because he follows that up with Britain I believe is living through such a moment.
For decades, the institutions that once embodied our nation parliament, the civil service, the courts, the police, the BBC there's lots of just repetition and listing things.
They've all drifted away from the public.
They exist to serve and you are absolutely right.
Frankly, this smacks one of kind of rehashing the same tone and talking points again of Strange Death Of Europe, because he's constantly banging on in that book about how tired he is and how tired Europe is.
So it's kind of going through that same linguistic device.
But also, yeah, this smacks to me of ChatGPT.
You see this all over the place on Twitter when you have these long paragraphs and long essays written up from accounts that post like 15 plus times a day where it's like, how have you got the time to write all of this?
And it's structured in such a way that reminds me of this and you know that it's an LLM has generated it for you.
Can I just ask?
I just went into ChatGPT and I said write the opening page of a book I want to write called Suicide of a Nation, Immigration, Islam and Identity.
And it's just done all of the things that you said, a single long sentence as an opening paragraph, then it's done a short line and then it's I mean it's oh read it to us.
Yeah yeah go on go on let's compare.
You want us to ghost right for you Matt Goodwin?
We've got our best man on the case chat GPT.
There's no declaration, no formal surrender, no moment at which a leader stands at the podium and admits we have chosen.
Already, you can hear the rhythm.
It's got a rhythm to it.
We have chosen not to continue as we were.
Instead, decline arise, disguised progress, as compassion, as inevitability.
What makes this form on the second line?
Now, what makes this form of decline distinct is not that it imposed from without, but it is chosen from within.
Maybe it was the delivery, but I actually preferred that to the actual good one.
Oh, right.
Well, I'll write one as well then.
It's hitting all the same points, though.
Yes.
Isn't it?
And you can sense the rhythm.
Now, that is not definitive proof that he used an LLM to generate this, or even that he used an LLM to help research it.
Damaging Credibility Without Sources00:15:26
Well, actually, there is definitive proof of that.
Well, no, I'm going to get on to as we go along.
Which is where we're going to get onto right now, in fact.
But people are bloody good at spotting this stuff because I once wrote a long tweet because I like doing it where you don't have to click more, so it's in the compact form.
And I was like a line or two over, and I couldn't really be bothered.
So I just stuck it in ChatGPT and I said, just reduce this 15% so it fits within a tweet.
And it reduced it.
So I thought, yeah, good enough.
So I copied and pasted it back and put it in.
But everyone instantly, and things I had actually written it, it compressed it.
But when it had been compressed, people could spot that it was from ChatGPT and people went bloody mental at me.
And I was like, okay, I'm not ever doing that again.
Again, it's got a particular rhythm and form to the way that it writes things that once you've seen it, you can't unsee.
And you will see it everywhere, all over Twitter, particularly, shall we say, policy wonk Twitter.
Use it constantly.
And there are other telltale signs as catalogues by this man, Andy Twelves, who I believe he writes for the new statesman and politics Joe.
So he is on the other side of the aisle politically.
He is left-wing.
But frankly, he seems to have done some good work here, catching out all of the times in which, as he states here, there are what appear to be false quotes and basic misinterpretations of data, which appear to be AI hallucinations.
So first of all, he goes through some data, which seems to have just been fabricated out of thin air.
Claim one, in one year one classroom in Bradford, only four of 28 pupils spoke English as their first language.
Teachers report spending large amounts of time simply mediating between dozens of languages, making normal teaching almost impossible and slowing down the rate of progress for everybody.
Reality, I cannot find any evidence of this claim at all.
I checked local and national news and his own ex page.
I believe from the lack of referencing and the way that it's written to be an AI.
Why don't you just have a look at the footnotes?
Because that is.
There's only 12 in the entire book.
And they're heavily weighted towards the start, as in he says.
That's the way he wrote it.
Most of them are in the very first chapter, and a number of them are all taken from his own substack.
The interesting thing here is, again, you can hear that and you can read that and you can think to yourself, that sounds like something that actually happened.
I don't disbelieve that stuff like this probably is.
Oh, but it could easily be a synthesis of like five or six underlying data points.
Exactly.
And that's the thing is that when you just say this stuff without citing it and sourcing it properly, it damages the credibility of other people who speak about these kinds of experiences, which may or may not reflect reality.
That's the thing.
If we want to be able to put our arguments forward properly and authoritatively, we need to have truth on our side.
And if you're just going to say this without any references and nothing that you can do to check up on it, that makes you come across insincere and discredits you.
Because the problem he's describing there is a real and tangible problem of teachers not being able to teach in the classroom because their students don't speak English.
That's something that we know is a real phenomenon.
And you could probably find sources for it as well.
It's just lazy.
It is lazy.
And again, when you discuss these things with people on the political left, like Andy Twelves, by association, you get a little bit of the stink on you if you're using the same talking points because then he can immediately point to somebody like Matt Goodwin and say, oh, you're just repeating AI hallucinations like Goodwin was.
So it can damage your own credibility through association.
Here's just some other examples here.
Claim six.
They also ignore the ancient warning of Cicero, the great Roman statesman who insisted that the supreme duty of the state was to protect its own citizens and put them before others.
We must begin, he said, with the people closest to us.
Reality, Cicero is not quoted saying this, and definitely not in Deficius or De Republica, the two major Project Gutenberg English language translations of Cicero.
I believe this is another AI hallucination.
It's also just the character of how it's saying it.
It's, you know, like the supreme duty of the state was to protect its own citizens and put them before others.
But why would he be saying that in his time?
That was just obvious.
Yeah, like everyone in the Roman Senate believed that.
It didn't need to be stated.
So it wasn't a contemporary issue of Cicero.
So why would he say that that's the main thing?
Like, obviously, you know, that was the case.
And in fact, he made a part.
There are more fake Cicero quotes.
There's a fake James Burnham quote where it says, the academic James Burnham put it bluntly many years ago.
Power is exercised through organizations.
Those who control the organizations control the instruments of power.
Which is kind of, you know, like, it sounds like Burnham, but I've read a bit of Burnham.
He's never phrased it exactly that way.
So it's like, okay, if you've got like a vaguely correct but wrong quote, what's that likely to have come from?
An AI summary, perhaps.
And speaking of AI summaries, one of the most entertaining ones.
But how many of these claims are they?
We're on 15 or 10.
There are 15.
And this is within the first five chapters of the book.
There is claim 15.
A society that cannot distinguish its friends from its enemies, Sir Roger Scruton warned, or that extends hospitality to those who despise its way of life, is a society that has lost the instinct for survival.
This is what suicidal empathy has done to our leaders.
Reality, this is part of Google's AI-generated summary of Roger Scruton's views, not an actual quote of his.
Do you see how, like, just copy and pasting this shit into your book discredits you, beclowns the talking points that you're talking about, and also adds an air of the circus to everybody else who might want to say, quote, Roger Scruton's thoughts.
In my segment just a moment ago, Matt was making it very clear that he's the only serious person in politics.
Well, he is a serious.
Formerly, he was a serious academic who presumed.
When he was talking about infiltrating the right.
Yes, when he was writing reports with hope, not hate, he knew how to properly academically cite and source things.
Okay.
He seems to have forgotten that when he's writing books for now the radical centre right.
And speaking of which, again, claim 14, even though this is like incorrect in terms of what he's citing, what is he actually pointing to here?
He says this is precisely what mass immigration is doing to the white capitalized W British majority.
It's hasting the decline of the historic majority.
Without this historic core, as Professor Anthony Smith warned, the nation loses its distinctive identity and becomes an empty shell.
For one, I mean, Andy Twelves points out this is the opposite of what Anthony Smith said.
But also, in terms of the actual content of what he's saying here, how isn't this not just like completely contradictory to the political points that you're making in all of these podcasts?
You're saying it's terrible the white British majority is declining.
If it declines too much, the country won't be English anymore.
And that's a bad thing.
Great.
That's a great point.
What are you going to do about it?
Nothing.
What he's going to do is try and stop people from voting for Restore so that the remigration doesn't happen.
Yeah, in all of these interviews, he's saying that any party that says they'll actually do something to stem or reverse this process is an extreme radical fringe party that you should ignore.
And I will conspire with people to ruin your career if you do associate with them.
So again, the sincerity is not really there.
Also, more evidence is this that if you actually look at the 12 footnotes that he leaves in the book, two of them actually leave at the end of the sources that he got it straight from ChatGPT.
I mean, so far, I've been like, yeah, it looks convincing, but it's not exactly a slam dunk.
But when it's actually got ChatGPT in the link.
Now, you could say, to be fair, oh, well, he's just using it as a research tool.
Yeah, but then when you add it on top of everything else, it begins to paint a picture, doesn't it?
Alongside the fact that, again, you have chosen not to go with a mainstream publisher, despite the fact that I would assume that Penguin probably would have published this for you under some imprint.
Also, it's worth pointing out sometimes when I remember reading an article but can't find it on Google search, I ask ChatGPT, and if I'm referencing it, I make sure to take the ChatGPT thing out when I'm adding it to the references, because also, you know, I did genuinely remember it, and I did read it myself.
It wasn't referenced to me.
It was just using it as a search engine.
But if I'm doing that, how on earth is he not doing that for his book?
That's a good question.
But also, again, when it comes to the publishers, I mean, as you can see here, Douglas Murray was published by Bloomsbury on Strange Death of Europe, which, to be fair, was probably published at a time when this was more controversial to talk about so bluntly.
And so it's not like you wouldn't have been able to find a publisher.
And then we get again to the evidence of Goodwin working with Hope Not Hate in the past.
Here's his old From Voting to Violence, new evidence on far-right supporters written with Matthew Goodwin alongside Nick Lowell's of Hope Not Hate.
The screenshot of Nick Lowell stating Matthew Goodwin says that the grooming gang scandal is the scandal that shames Britain and makes me angrier than I've ever been.
Then why has he not said or done anything about this before?
Until last year, he'd been pretty much silent on the issue.
I sat on the anti-Muslim hatred working group with Goodwin for years, years, and while Hope Not Hate was talking about the issue since 2005, he didn't said absolutely nothing.
Very strange.
I also think it's interesting as well, the point in his life that he was doing these things.
People can change from left to right in their 20s or, you know, their teens, maybe, you know, very rarely in their 30s.
But he was doing this for a long time.
And you don't rarely get people who, at his age, come around at that point.
You get to a point in your life when your politics are pretty much settled.
Normally, it's your mid to late 20s.
Yeah, and look at this article.
This is from as recent as 2015, where he argues that the fight against Islamophobia is going backwards, published in The Guardian.
Well, that's the most important thing, obviously.
You know, There are clips that you can find of him from, I believe, Question Time or other BBC live audience shows where he is arguing against the so-called far right on Islamophobia and other such things.
So he has a deep history of this.
And all of a sudden, he's publishing suspiciously AI-looking books where he's constantly going on about how Muslims are the biggest threat in this country.
Which seems to have been an opinion that's popped up out of nowhere for him.
So what would nine years ago Matt Goodwin say to current Matt Goodwin?
He would call him an extremist, presumably.
He would say good work, Matt, in discrediting the right, wouldn't he?
Well, potentially.
He has posted a, again, very strange-looking, massive essay wall-o-text.
Remember, guys, he's not terminally online.
You're terminally online.
At least he's got the decency to take the chat GPT links out this time.
This time.
We'll see if it happens again.
He's taken the M dashes out as well.
Oh, no, he's replaced the M dashes with just standard dashes.
Well, he basically tries to argue in his response to this that left wingers who argue, for example, that Smith or Connor, who are two of the people who Andy Twelves called out as having had quotes misattributed to them, did not warn about the loss of historic core or simply not reading their work or being disingenuous.
Whether or not you're pointing to general ideas that they may have discussed, there's a difference between doing that and just fabricating quotes from them.
And that's the thing that this response does not address at all, which is just the completely false quotes that have been attributed to a number of people, as well as some of the use of statistics, which seems to be questionable as well, which again just goes further to discredit people on the right who might want to quote statistics because people can offhand dismiss them.
I love that.
Matt GBT.
That's very clever.
Yes.
And again, there's the connection with this, oh sorry, North Star book publishers, correct me from earlier, who include services like ghost writing, book editing, book marketing, book publishing.
It's just a self-publishing thing which can do everything for you.
Instead of going through a number of any of the big publishing companies which he could have gone through.
It's very incriminating, isn't it?
But it's because he was just really afraid of being censored, guys.
The book publishers, they wouldn't have let him publish such a daring and outspoken and controversial book like this one.
I mean, given his profile, they certainly would.
Like, definitely.
Well, it's one of those things at the minute that grifters have sort of latched onto is the mainstream won't allow me to make this thing.
It's like Graham Hancock and his sort of like ancient civilization thing.
He's talking about how the mainstream is suppressing his ideas of archaeology on his Netflix series.
It's like, I'm sorry, mate, but the reason that no one wants to be associated with you is because you're full of nonsense.
And I think that's what's going on here.
The quick question.
Quick point of order here.
John Merrick, isn't that the Elephant Man?
Yes.
Right.
Unfortunate name, isn't it?
Yeah.
That's true.
What does the Elephant Man want to tell us about Matt Goodwin?
Well, let's find out by scanning through a few of the more mainstream reviews of the book.
So this is the new statement article, Matt Goodwin's Intellectual Suicide by John Merrick, which is particularly scathing.
This was quite a fun article to read, I must admit.
Yes.
And again, this is coming from a left-wing perspective.
So the ultimate point that this guy is making is something that I would disagree with, which is, again, part of the point of why this is so bad.
They can point to books like Matt Goodwin's and say, therefore, demographic change and everything that comes with it is not a bad thing.
Because people like Matt Goodwin are having to fabricate and make stuff up to make it look like a bad thing.
Whilst being the only serious person in politics who has to tell us how it's done.
Exactly.
He's the one going around knocking at doors in Gorton and Denton.
So he must know what he's talking about, right?
So he just says, and this isn't even talking about the AI stuff, this is just talking about the quality of the writing.
Let's get this out of the way early.
Matt Goodwin's new self-published book is bad.
Very bad.
In fact, even for the increasingly gim crack, never heard of that word, world of the British right, it is a shockingly poor piece of research and writing, made worse by the fact that Goodwin was until recently a fairly well-respected academic.
Fabricating Claims for Books00:15:21
True.
If this were AI generated, it would almost be a relief.
The sad truth, however, is that even ChatGPT couldn't come up with anything this dead.
This is not the language of AI, it's another digital phenomenon, the language of Elon Musk's ex.
Log on to social media and you'll find essay-length posts by blue-checked right-wingers, all composed in the same style.
Short clipped phrases and paragraphs of only one or two sentences, larded with dodgy data and spiced, unverifiable conjecture.
True.
Well, the length is just because there's a tweet size limit.
I think the essay lengths.
Oh, I don't do those.
That's actually waste of time.
That's whatever you want to say about the perspective this guy is coming from.
That's just true.
No, it is.
That's just absolutely true.
The only thing I disagree with there, really, is that I don't think he's giving enough credit to the fact that the language of Elon Musk's ex in these essay-length posts is ChatGPT in the first place.
Yep, I agree.
It's present everywhere.
I see it all the time.
It's really quite annoying.
People, you know, lap up this slop with reckless abandon.
It's really quite frustrating because there are so many insightful and interesting voices on the right, on X, that get silenced by this nonsense and the fact that, you know, Goodwin has the gall to then wag his finger at the on I write, but then make the worst, you know, the mistake of one of the worst excesses of them in the first place.
You're saying the day will come where we'll be pining for the return of the Indians on Twitter because the GPTs are just worse.
I don't know.
Same thing.
Yeah, what's the difference?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, here's some great examples here.
On every page, there are passages that clang so hard they set your teeth on edge.
Sentences like, if shared language is the glue, then a shared national identity is the anchor.
Everyone knows the glue and anchor analogy.
Obviously.
And patronizing.
Don't say glue and anchor together too quickly.
Oof.
And patronizing asides, asking you to, quote, think about that for a minute, pure partridge.
Think about that for a minute.
I mean, it's an incredible persona that he's cultivated over the years, really, isn't it?
But then we have more critiques from the right or to the right of Goodwin, you could say, which is Ben Six Smith's write-up for the critic called Suicide of an Author's Credibility, where he says, slop is an overused term, but it feels painfully appropriate for a book that is spoon-fed to its audience.
Goodwin, who had a long academic career, I love the roasting that he's getting through all of these, it's fantastic.
Before becoming a successful commentator, is not a man who lacks intelligence, but he writes as if he thinks his audience lacks it.
That's the same as his politics.
Yeah.
That is exactly his politics.
We have to take a message that's developed on the right, dumb it down, don't mean it, and feed it to the right, and then they vote for us and we get in power.
So it's a consistent ideology.
And you can see the way it's littered throughout the book.
He says, I did not write this book for the ruling class.
I wrote it for the forgotten majority.
Alas, he seems to think that the average member of the forgotten majority has the reading level of a dim-witted 12-year-old.
As well as being stylistically simple, the book is full of annoying paternal asides.
In the pages ahead, I shall walk you through what is happening to the country.
In the next chapter, we will begin our journey.
This is primary school-level English writing.
When you need to introduce a subject to the reader, this is kind of like what you do when you're a child, and you've not found a better way of doing it.
There's a lot of highly dubious sourcing.
Mr. Twelves did not exhaust the number of questionable quotes in the book.
A nation that cannot defend its borders, Goodwin claims the Roman historian Livy wrote, will soon cease to be a nation.
I can find no record of this quote.
Language is the tie that connects past with future and binds together the citizens of the same nation, Goodwin claims the lexicographer Noah Webster wrote.
Again, I can find no record of this quote.
I might be misremembering here, but I'm pretty sure I've said a nation that cannot defend its borders will soon cease to be a nation, maybe even on Twitter.
Maybe it's actually quoting you and attributing it to Livy.
I mean, thank you.
Thank you, ChatGPT.
Besides, call it idealistic, but I just don't think that a book that claims to defend British culture should be so short on eloquence, wit, scholarship, poetry, etc.
British culture is pretty meaningless if it has the literary standards of ChatGPT and the argumentative standards of a telemarketer.
Brutal.
Everything that you've read out so far, I mean, it's a world apart from, like, say, a Peter Hitchens book.
Yes.
Go and read the book where he's slagging off the Tories.
What, the Cameron delusion?
There, yeah.
Read the opening page of that.
Every line is masterful.
Yeah, and if you want an American version of it, if you read any Pat Buchanan book, Pat Buchanan has an incredibly impactful rhetorical style that he writes in, similar to Hitchens.
Whereas this, again, if Matt wrote it himself, that's even more damning because it reads like ChatGPT.
And the last one is that the spectator, who you would expect to be on his side, frankly, actually got Andy Twelves, the writer of the initial thread, to write an article asking, did Matthew Goodwin use AI to write his book?
So this somewhat hasn't.
This is either Tory versus Reform fighting going on right here, or this is because of how poorly this book has been written and how poorly he performed at the Gorton and Denton by-election.
Could this be reform throwing him under the bus, as David Bull suggested and implied that they might do?
I kind of think that Matt's own actions have thrown himself under a bus, to be honest.
Yeah, and, you know, Twelves goes on to write a number of other bits in here about like backing up his claims, because some of the other articles I've referenced have been saying, you know, it's not likely that he wrote ChatGPT, he used ChatGPT to write the book for him.
Twelves is going straight for the throat, and I somewhat agree with him here by saying, actually, he probably did.
At least he used it to write significant chunks of the book, either because he was lazy or to save time.
Some have suggested that saving time might have been on his mind because he may have wanted to get this book out to go along with what he expected to be a glorious victory at Gorton and Denton.
How well did that turn out?
I mean, also going back to those interviews, the rounds already talked about a lot of what he talks about on there is how busy he's been and how he's how he's pounding the pavement for 14 hours a day.
So how did he manage to write a book?
He's got a lot of tweets to write.
Yeah, so tweeting, writing a book, spending 14 hours a day on the back of a van driving around Gorton and Denton going, aha!
Okay, Starmer is a robot in the most robotic tone of voice possible.
It does mention in here, though, that apparently Matt Goodwin has accepted an invite to debate on GB News next week with Andy Twelves the content of the book.
The problem is, whether or not there is actual accurate information in there pointing to the negative effects of mass migration, Matt Goodwin is not going to be the guy to argue those points.
Matt Goodwin is not a deft rhetorician.
He clearly does not have the proper full grasp of the statistics if he is having to pull statistics out of thin air and pull quotes out of thin air.
He is just going onto television to further discredit people who share his perspective.
Well, I mean, his actual academic background is all about containment of the right.
Yes, you could argue that this might be all part of the point.
Well, that's yes, that could be true.
And as a result, I don't want this to be entirely negative.
I'm going to try and point you to some alternatives if you are interested in reading what is going on in Britain and Europe and Western countries in general on immigration and the effects that it has.
So let's just go straight to the classic, the source really, which is The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Murray.
Say whatever you want about Douglas Murray.
This is a good book.
And while it is outdated by this point, still has a lot of great information that is relevant up to the point where it was written.
So that's worth picking up if you get the chance.
If you want an Australian, an Anglo-style perspective on this, you can read Harry Richardson and Frank Salter's Anglophobia, The Unrecognized Hatred, which I read a few years back, which is very good.
If you want a Canadian perspective, you can read Richard Duchesne's Canada in Decay, Mass Immigration, Diversity, and Ethnocide of Euro-Canadians.
That's from 2018, but still has a lot of relevant information.
For some more stuff from him that's relevant to today, you can watch my interview that I did with him just a few weeks ago where we're talking about his most recent book, Greatness and Ruin, and why the West is unique and how the individualist mindset of the West both led to the greatness of our civilization and also possibly played into its ruin that's going on today.
And there is some stuff coming up soon, like this one which I'm quite interested in, which is Martin Selner's book coming out in July on remigration.
So I'm sure that that is going to be a far more worthwhile read than anything that Matt Goodwin.
Selner is absolutely in this stuff.
Exactly.
Absolutely.
So those are just some alternatives for you.
So if you are going to spend your money and spend your time reading a book on this subject, read some people with a greater level of sincerity and credibility behind them rather than reading what is likely to be an AI-generated hodgepodge.
Well, you can just generate it yourself as I demonstrated during that.
We've got quite a few readings.
We have a video, Samson.
We've got two.
And then we should go through the rumble rants.
Give us the video comments.
On the podcast, we discuss the English production values being low, inexpensive, cheap.
And true.
English TV spent its money on great writing and great acting.
Watched a few great English sci-fi shows, for example, Doctor Who.
The sets were crap.
The effects were crap.
The monsters were made of cheap plastic, vinyl, cloth masks, and flashbulbs.
But what sold these were the writers and the actors.
Bill Hartnell, Patrick Trouton, John Pertwee, Tom Baker, all sold the scene and made it real.
Contrast this with New Who.
Great effects, great sets, shit writing, shit acting, comedy, and shitty gawa.
I'd say the effects and sets still look terrible in modern Doctor Who.
Yeah, I mean, the only good film that I think has come out in the last year is that Hail Mary, but that's because it's based on a good writer.
I've been hearing a lot of people say that that's a good film.
Yeah.
I mean, the book's still better, but yeah.
Hey little Zeers.
Just wanted to give some quick cat pic.
Come on, you.
This will cleanse the palate real quick for you all.
California has over a trillion dollars in debt, but hey, who cares?
Amara, when you got these dunk cats.
That's the spirit.
Let's go through some of the rough.
I feel so rejuvenated after a dog video and a cat video.
I'm pure again.
Yeah.
So I'll read the two from mine.
Ramshukel Otter sent two.
As a commercial artist of 20 years, I can spot slop publishing in second.
The typesetting, graphics, and editing have nothing of the professional eye about them.
Dying arts.
Yep.
And also, oh wow, it's hilariously bad.
Did he even get his mum to check this before printing?
Is this a look the right will swallow anything attempt?
Yeah, I think it is.
And it's on us not to swallow it and push it back.
You can't just leave the fact-checking and pushing back on this kind of rubbish to the leftists like Andy 12s because otherwise you basically let them take that, like you cede that whole ground to them.
Someone says, Josh, if someone is being honest about what they're saying and running for office, they aren't a politician.
They're someone who wants to get things done and then go back to their former life.
That's why I like Rupert.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Political reality means submit to Islam.
Pretty much.
Ochig Dor, watching you guys do DNA got me to do it as well.
55% British, 36% German, 2% Danish, and then 7% Syrian.
Not sure I can watch anymore.
Listen, I expect that that is probably them just sneaking a little bit in there for you.
You can watch 55% of the time.
No, no, you can watch 93% of the time.
That was probably the Syrian refugee sweating a little bit in their lab as they were analysing your DNA.
An individual with room temperature IQ can see that reform has become what the Tories were.
Talk big, backtrack on everything, and then complain when someone comes along to do what we said we'd do.
The funny thing is, like, Robert Jenrick and all of the others going, like, who let all of these Afghans in?
We've got to fix this problem.
Yeah.
Who knows, Robert Jenrick?
You, like, literally, you specifically let the Afghans in, Robert.
We can do some of the comedy commenters from the.
Okay.
Zesty King says, when Nelson Mandela died, my politics teacher did a special lesson for us all about him.
Didn't mention any of the terrorism, why he was in prison, or the state of South Africa at that point.
They never do hiccup.
They never do, do they?
You're just left to assume that they threw him in prison, I don't know, because he was black.
Yes, they were just imprisoning random black men in a you know, a black majority country.
Not that he was training terrorists to bomb school buses.
Yeah, and Winnie Mandela with the necklacing and talking about killing white people to liberate South Africa.
Just didn't happen, did it?
Michael says, white South Africans returning home feel safer in SA.
Well, no wonder.
The guy quoted was in California.
His problems aren't Trump.
They're newsome.
Yeah, it's ridiculous.
Just like, hey, I feel unsafe in California over the past 20 years.
Anyway, all of my neighbors are Mexican.
Yeah, imagine moving out of South Africa and moving into Compton.
Imagine going from.
I do genuinely think that South Africa is safer than downtown Chicago.
Like, that's one of the most dangerous parts of the Western world.
Yeah.
Henry Ashman says, Goodwin going off about lack of political experience is just silly.
Sure, I don't have any political experience, but I've never lost a political election, so my political career is all better than him.
Yeah, I mean, Tony Blair coming into office, he had no ministerial experience whatsoever.
I think like a handful, like two or three people on his cabinet, were like junior ministers in the previous Labour government.
But, you know, it's normal for politicians not to have that.
Misrepresenting Political Experience00:04:23
The other funny thing I see thrown out by people online is saying, oh, well, Rupert's a nobody.
Nobody's going to vote for a nobody.
Well, who was Tony Blair before he got it?
Dan's a nobody until they're a somebody, aren't they?
Dan's bloodshot eye says, oh, screw you.
It's a low blow.
Nathan Badger says, has Dan got pink eye?
All right, screw you.
Two, that's random name.
Totally unrelated.
Does Dan have a pink.
I really was hoping that nobody was going to notice until the drops worked.
Anyway, I knew that they were going to say pink eye at you.
There's one thing here.
It's a sentiment I agree with, actually.
Love or hate from David Fisher.
Love or hate the likes of Peter McCormack, Andrew Gold, or even Paul Marshall's son Winston.
They do a great job of exposing the real and very often muddled and contradictory thought processes of these characters like Goodwin.
These are just opportunists jumping on the reform bandwagon, aim high, vote low, and leave egg on their faces.
Yeah, whatever you want to say about Winston Marshall, every single clip that I see coming out from his podcast is some careerist opportunist type like Goodwin shitting themselves on camera.
Yeah, he is good at what he does.
Because Marshall will ask a basic question.
Marshall will give them a leg up and say, like it was with Danny Kruger, where he's like, he's like, oh, you said even Afghans can be British?
And he's basically giving him the opportunity to say, no, no, of course.
I didn't mean it that way.
And Danny Krueger goes, no, I am retarded, actually.
And Winston Marshall is just left to sit there and be like, oh, okay.
All right.
And that's every single clip I saw.
It's also not that hard if you actually believe in something to talk about what you believe under pressure.
We've done debates on this show where we don't go, ooh, and try and skirt around it.
Like, people actually talk about what they believe.
And if you're genuine, you don't do that sort of thing.
It's not just the pressure.
No, it's that they have.
They're misrepresenting what they believe, basically.
Yeah, and then we, and if we, it's a really big disagreement.
We just go to the car park and fight about it.
I told you, I'm going to read one from your section.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Nick Lowell's hiding in his hate bunker says, can you please actually buy this book and do a book club on it?
That would be hilarious.
And I would say, no, we don't need to, because every day people send us books that we don't want.
I mean, we have got every biography of Blair ever written.
I now have Benjamin Netanyahu's biography on my desk.
That turned up this morning.
We have multiple Tony Blair biographies.
Now we've got Sherry Blair's biography.
We have so many Ed Miller band books and Sadiq Khan books.
I have multiple publications from the Fabian Society for some reason.
But the chances of us getting sent this book in the next week, I would say, are high.
I made the mistake of the interest.
Do we do a book club on it?
Well, if somebody sends it in.
Right, well, we're definitely going to get out eight copies now.
Yeah.
HM Butterknife Permit Registry says, come back to Manchester, Harry.
We'll pop to Satan's for a £20 pint and bitch about Crackadilly Gardens.
Well, whilst that sounds like a delightful opportunity, pints are on you, frankly, if that's how much they're charging in Satan's these days.
I've not been to Satan's since uni, mate.
This is something that sounds very strange out of context.
It's Satan's Hollow.
It's like a metal club in Manchester, but it's actually just like an emo club.
Although it is quite fun.
Dirty Belt.
It would be so much cooler if they called it Lucifer's.
Yeah, there used to be a place in crew called Lucifer's, but it shut down.
As the right begins to wax, I fear this will become a bigger problem.
That being how our strength and habitual victories will attract Ramoras who have no talent or work ethic of their own.
We need to gatekeep ourselves and ensure that truth, hard work, and results are what's valued, nothing else.
In other words, we must never lax our standards or it will be the death of us.
I agree, and that's why I wanted to highlight it.
That's why I say you can't leave this kind of like fact-checking just to the left, or else they get all the credibility of being the fact-checkers when somebody disingenuous is publishing a book like this.
I've just come up with something.
He's Partridge in the Streets, Matt GPT in the Broadsheets.
And on that, I think, Dan.
Very clever.
Yes, we're going to have to go away now because we've gone over.
So return to your lives and carry on your business.