Josh, Nick, and Dan dissect the Artemis II mission's diverse crew and orbital trajectory while debunking moon landing conspiracies. They pivot to ethno-nationalism, citing IPPR polling where 71% of Reform UK supporters prioritize ancestry over civic identity, arguing that ignoring ethnic foundations undermines state legitimacy. The hosts analyze Hollywood tropes casting British actors as villains to facilitate US strategic exits from conflicts like the potential Iran war, contrasting this with left-wing naivety regarding mass deportations and human nature. Ultimately, the episode suggests that acknowledging tribal loyalty is essential for political survival, even as they debate migration policies and cinematic portrayals of duty versus honor. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Planes Flying Past Earth00:14:38
Hello, and welcome to Podcast of the Lotus Eaters, episode 1389 on Friday, the 3rd of April, year of our Lord 2026.
I'm joined by Josh.
Hello.
And Nick.
Hello.
And we've got a banger podcast for you today, all upbeat.
We're going to be talking about how exciting it is that humanity is going to the moon for the very first time, how exciting it is that the British are villains again, and why ethno nationalism is inevitable.
So, with that, why don't we begin with.
Josh.
Okay, I thought as it's Friday, let's talk about something actually good.
And it is a very good thing, and that is the Artemis II launch.
And although there have been some people saying that, you know, some of the technology could be better and, you know, perhaps they could have saved a bit more money because it's publicly funded.
However, I would argue that using resources, however efficiently, to go up to space and push the frontiers of humanity is probably one of the best uses of resources available to humanity.
Who's saying the technology is bad?
I don't know.
Engineer people.
Okay.
I don't know enough about it.
You know, I'm a psychologist.
I can't weigh in here.
If we wanted to use superior technology, why didn't we just get the 1950s stuff out and do that?
And then we would actually be able to land as well as just go around it.
Well, I think the idea is of this launch, I'll play this in the background just so we can actually see the rocket as I talk about it.
Oh, don't want the music though.
But there you go.
The idea is that it's going to go around, it's going to collect data.
For the next mission, which is actually landing on the moon and then eventually on Mars as well, and these sorts of things are going to pave the way to have bases on the moon and maybe even eventually Mars.
I think that the consensus is that the moon's probably easier than Mars, which seems a lot closer, I guess.
It's closer and it might well be easier as well, so that makes perfect sense.
But even if it is, you know, old technology that people are saying it's from technology from the 70s, it still looks cool and it did the job.
So, yes, if they're doing that.
That's still good.
So, it's the first crewed lunar mission since 1972, which is massive.
You know, first time in many people's lifetimes that we've been sending people to the moon.
And they're going to spend 10 days in their journey around the moon because they're going all the way around it, unlike the original expeditions to the moon.
And they're going to travel about 5,000 miles from the moon's surface.
So, they're not even necessarily going into low orbit.
Or it could be, you know, I don't know how to even perceive the scale, but I imagine they're just sort of whizzing around and coming back collecting data.
But this will be the first time human beings have gone that far into space in all of human history.
You mean got to the moon for the first time?
No.
The other one's just faking it.
How could we seriously still be arguing that it's with 2026 technology, they're still just going up and going around, but 70 years ago, oh yeah, we could just land on it, that's no problem.
Well, I think they're trying to fine tune a more permanent.
But they're trying to do it for the first time.
That's what they're doing.
I didn't know Dan was also a truther.
It's two truthers here against Josh.
Oh, have we got another one on the panel?
Oh, normally they gang up on me.
We can gang up on Josh this time.
The only thing is, I can never tell if I'm joking.
Like, I might be.
I'm not sure.
But I'm basically on your side, yeah.
You see, I believe in the greatness of Western civilization.
You two perhaps not.
But I think.
You believe in America.
Well, if that's your argument.
If they give it to England, we'd do it in minutes.
If that's your argument, why not claim they went in the 1920s?
Well, they didn't.
Well, exactly.
That's the point.
Lucky, wasn't it, how they had to beat Russia and they just totally did?
Well, whatever your ridiculous opinions are, we're talking about one that actually definitely did happen, even in your opinion.
Yes.
So here's a video of it actually launching, and obviously it's very cool.
I'm going to mute it just because it's going to be loud.
Do you know who did the best stream on this?
It was Samson.
It was Samson.
He did a watch party thing for the launch where he was like, Basically, simultaneously saying, Oh, it's really good, and ragging on NASA's frame rate for the images.
Yeah, I've seen a lot of that, to be fair.
But, you know, we need to see more of this.
This is good.
Yes.
See, even Dan's on side.
Of course, I'm on side.
Going to the moon is awesome.
Thank you.
There we go.
It's not so difficult afterwards.
It's a great ambition.
Yeah.
I've set my mind.
It's the same joke again, but it's still funny.
But do you know what else is pushing the frontiers of humanity?
Lotus Eaters live event that is yet to happen.
If you want to go along, it is the 11th of April.
I think tickets are still available.
And yes, it will be fun.
And so come along.
You get to meet us.
You get to have a good time.
You get to meet people in the audience.
Could change your life.
Who knows?
Probably not.
But be there or I will judge you.
And if three of us can get to the moon, 300 of you can get to Swindon.
So no excuse.
That's true.
Although I'd rather go to the moon, to be honest.
There's more intelligent life up there.
Anyway, there was another video here that I thought was quite impressive that someone took from an aeroplane going past, which you'd think would be a funny story if they let planes just fly past.
I was just about to say that if I were in an aeroplane and an actual space shuttle or a rocket was going past me, I'd be a little bit worried.
There'd be a non zero chance there could be an accident.
They didn't stop that footage there, did they?
I'd want to see that.
All the way, I know.
Yeah.
I know, it's kind of annoying.
But it's fine, there's more.
Here's another one that carries on a little bit further when it was tilting its trajectory.
This is a different plane.
There you go.
You know, people are probably going to be in the comments like, it's just a, you know, a chemtrail in the sky.
Doesn't mean anything.
But if you're that way inclined, this is undeniably cool.
You can't say that's not cool, can you?
Even the deltas.
And then I was sent some of these pictures by Samson and I just was impressed by them.
I wanted to include them.
Do NASA second stages land again afterwards like Elon's do?
I don't think so.
I think they fall into the ocean, but I'm not entirely sure on that.
I'm no space expert.
I was just there, like, this is cool.
I want to talk about it.
But there are some political aspects to it as well.
So, I wanted to talk a little bit about their route and what they'll be up to so that I'm going to steal this graphic from ABC, which is less than they deserve.
But you can see here the sort of figure eight route that they're going to take.
And at the minute, I think they're accelerating to escape the velocity that's sort of around Earth here.
So, they're in that sort of stage.
So, that's day two.
And then on days, was that something, Samson?
That's the one.
And then days three to five of the mission, they'll be adjusting the approach to the moon.
And when they're sort of at that point, they're going to be about a quarter of a million miles away from the Earth, which is kind of crazy to think.
Then days six to seven, they're going to begin their approach back to Earth.
And then day 10, they're going to get ready for re entry.
And then all things going to plan, they're going to land off the coast of California, so in the ocean.
Is this the one where they sent women?
The Sky News was whining about how it was all white men last time.
Well, there was a black guy and a woman this time, and a Canadian.
Does that bother you, the DEI aspect?
Well, I think going to space is such a risk that, you know.
Why wasn't one of them in a wheelchair?
That's also true.
I mean, they're really missing out on something there.
I want a neurodivergent astronaut as well.
I'd assume they all are, really, if they're any good.
Yeah, that's a fair point.
So, you can also go on NASA's website and you can see where it is relative to the Earth.
And here it is at the minute.
You can scroll around and have a look at where it is.
Obviously, this is an animation, this is not a video, but it gives you a rough idea of where it is.
So, if you wanted to follow it along, that's how you do it.
But They also placed a micro SD card filled with what was it?
5.6 million people, basically people who submitted their names online inside of this cuddly toy thing.
And so 5.6 million people are going to have their names, technically speaking, whiz around the moon.
I don't really know.
It's on an SD card, so it sort of spoils it.
If it were like carved on the rocket or something, that would be much cooler.
Yeah.
If it's not physically there, it's just in the ship.
They should have crowdfunded it because people would have paid to have their name called.
I mean, it might impact the hull integrity.
Yeah, I was going to say.
We have a dynamics or something.
I imagine NASA's probably not taking the chance, to be honest.
What else was there?
Oh, yes.
Lots of people were comparing SpaceX launches to NASA launches and how much better the SpaceX ones look in terms of camera quality.
And I did notice this as well, actually, that the SpaceX ones do look significantly better.
Which is a shame, really.
But that's not the only thing people were comparing as well.
People were comparing the cockpits between the NASA one and the SpaceX one.
I feel like the SpaceX one looks a lot more sci fi.
Yes.
It reminds me of the 60s and 70s period more with the orange suits and that sort of thing.
But I don't know.
A jail vibe to it, the NASA one.
It does.
You're not saying that because of the demographics of some of the people.
No, I wasn't.
That long tube worries me as well.
That's like the kind of thing they put together last minute on Apollo 13 with a sock.
You know what I mean?
You don't start out with that thing.
That's the thing you build hastily in space so you don't die.
As long as it's not filled with pure oxygen.
Oh, yes.
They're also given iPhones as well for some reason.
I wasn't entirely able to find out why.
I think they were like data pads or something.
I bet the SpaceX guys get Android.
I hope so.
More advanced, don't know what I mean.
But they were treating them with the correct amount of disrespect by just throwing them around in space, which, you know, that's actually quite helpful.
I sort of wanted zero gravity, just passing stuff about.
But the only real problem that I was able to find out about the launch was that for the first seven hours of the flight, their toilet was broken.
And that's one thing that you really don't want to break.
You said there was a Canadian on board.
Was it an Indian Canadian, by any chance?
There was a Canadian Canadian.
Okay.
So, I just had a theory then, but don't worry about it.
If you spent 10 days trapped in space, yeah, my goodness, I'd be going out the airlock in a heartbeat.
But yes, it says Unlike the Apollo astronauts who used waste collection bags in the 60s and 70s, the Artemis II crew had access to a fully functioning toilet equipped with a funnel, a seat, and an airflow system to reduce odours.
That's nice, at least.
If the toilet couldn't be fixed, the crew would have to collect urine in bags and feces in containers with odour filters.
But thankfully, I think the problem was solved by about midnight.
Scroll down.
Let's see it.
Let's see the.
It doesn't look like a bathroom that I would recognise.
Why are there post it notes on the wall?
I don't know.
Like, so and so is a slag.
I mean, you're going to work out.
There's only three of you.
They're writing phone numbers on there.
It looks about the same as one of those off grid people.
You know, those people want to compost everything.
This is like one of those standard green voter toilet.
I think it's interesting as well.
They've got lots of foam up on the sides there.
So, presumably.
I thought that was 70s wood panelling.
Yes.
Just really fluorescent orange panelling.
But, um,.
You'd think that if you're sat on the toilet and you have to have foam on the walls, that if you're flying around that much, surely.
What do you think the notes say, like, don't open door to space and stuff like that?
Like key reminders, you know what I mean?
Space is dangerous.
And I thought I'm not taking this seriously enough, Josh.
I know it's a serious, important moment.
That's okay.
I thought this quote was quite cool from the commander of the Artemis 2 mission.
While spacewalking, I realized something.
I used to think I was scared of heights, but now I know I was just scared of gravity.
And then I'm not sure if this is actually him or not.
I don't recognize the video, but it's someone floating over space.
And I thought that that's kind of a cool perspective.
I mean, gravity is acting on him at that point.
I mean, technically, yes.
It's just his forward momentum equals the gravity that he's experiencing.
Well, he's following the same trajectory as the ship, rather than being in the dam.
Actually, Mr. Commander of Earth.
I'm not going to give him any lectures on orbital mechanics.
Also, people from the International Space Station who are technically in space.
We were able to watch the launch and send their congratulations all through the internet, which I found quite surprising.
They can sit there and watch this on a laptop and then potentially see it whiz past.
Is one of those the woman that went mental and started smashing it up, or is she out now?
I think she's probably out now, to be honest.
I missed that.
Oh, one of the women on the International Space Station just went crazy and started trying to smash a hole in the window with a hammer.
Yeah.
You're not surprised.
Space as a Dumping Ground00:12:42
No, no, no.
That's why I like doing segments.
That's what I suspected, and you put them in space.
Who needs a HAL 9000 when you've got a woman?
We just got a woman.
I just told them, I'm like, yep, that checks out.
No reaction.
I'm afraid I can't do that.
That's too passive aggressive.
No, also, lots of people were celebrating it.
Here's Lincoln Monument.
Washington Memorial, yes.
Isn't the Lincoln.
I always get confused because isn't the Lincoln chap at the bottom or something?
I don't know.
I've never been.
Nor have I.
That is quite cool, though, actually.
It is.
I thought it was a good tribute.
And what else is there?
Oh, yes.
I can't play this one.
Because there's rude words.
Well, not on the Lotus Eaters.
We can't have that.
No.
Well, I have a flawless record on the Lotus Eaters from start to the current day.
Never said a naughty word on the Lotus Eaters.
The level of professionalism.
New mission unlocked.
I think I've been pretty careful.
I haven't done as many as you.
Obviously, you're in your second career with the Lotus Eaters.
But yeah, well done.
Oh, yes.
But yes, a young kid was talking to a CNN reporter live and they asked.
Um, and I'm not going to play it.
Why do you want to be here?
Why do you love being part of history?
And the kid replied, We're going back to the effing moon.
That's why.
Oh, the naughty word is back.
Yes, I love the way they asked this kid, thinking he's young enough, he's not going to swear on TV.
I also like how he's got like a NASA hat and a GoPro, like he's going into the actual launch himself.
Lovely, I love the autism.
I don't have this kind of autism, I have a different kind.
So, I didn't none of this space stuff registers with me, but I do know many people.
Blokes my age who fill in the little paint the little um models, you know, I mean, of the ships and stuff.
If you're really a nerd, you can see how much I don't care if you're really a nerd.
You play Kerbal Space Program, right?
I've seen people play it, but I've never done it.
Real nerds are people following that animation of where it is, yeah.
Josh, they're the real nerds.
I just know where it is, all right.
Don't I respect it?
It's just a different kind of autism.
That's all.
I'm not even on the spectrum at all.
I feel attacked.
No, it's fine.
If it wasn't for autism, I wouldn't be here, I don't think.
I did find this interesting from Matt Walsh.
He was saying that the reason it's taken so long to get back to the moon is because of welfare and immigration.
And if we didn't have welfare and immigration, they could do a lot more cool things like sending people to the moon, which I think is partly true.
I also think that they've also been doing other things.
And there are lots of cool things that we've seen, like lots of cool images from space, from the Hubble.
And the James Webb Space Telescope of various phenomena and things that we've been able to study and figure out things about space.
Like this sort of thing coming from space is cool.
It seems to have been spending their money on military equipment if Trump's true, not lying, and they've got this discombobulator that, you know, all this advanced military equipment.
So they've carried on doing that.
But I take Matt Walsh's point broadly.
It's hard to imagine a culture sort of leaden and held down by endless, pointless immigration and endless wealth.
I mean, our welfare, our benefits bill is what is more than.
Income tax.
We could have like seven of these for our welfare year spending.
So it's very hard to imagine that culture that's obsessed with DEI and equality and flattening everything without everyone's the same to also have the aspiration to go to space.
It's the very opposite mindset, isn't it?
Yeah.
Like some people might die, but we'll get on the moon, which was the exact actually.
Loads of astronauts died.
And it's like that's the exact opposite mindset.
Yeah.
Well, we instead spend probably an equivalent amount in one day of NHS spending.
Although we do actually have, um, Launch pads and things.
We do have part of the European Space Programme.
I think it's down in Cornwall.
But I did see two things that annoyed me that I wanted to talk about.
On the crew?
What?
On the crew.
On the crew?
Yeah.
What do you mean?
I thought you were going to be racist and sexist for a moment then.
I just thought I was about to caution you.
No, for once I'm not going to be.
Oh, okay.
No, I was annoyed by this.
People complaining that the taxpayer funded a billion dollar firework show, as it was put.
And this really annoyed me because it's just such Ludditism.
Like, I'm very opposed to government spending, generally speaking.
But if I were to have money spent on stuff, the space program would be probably number one.
Like, it's.
Obviously, an unequivocal good for humanity to push our frontiers.
Like America has spent like 8 trillion at this point on trying to equalize outcome across different groups.
You can spend 100 billion on going to the bloody moon.
I mean, three of these launches could be equivalent to one Iran conflict anyway.
Well, there's that.
But also, you could stop the equality of outcome stuff.
That tweet is perfectly exactly what I was just saying.
It's exactly what you always get these people.
Oh, what's the point of this?
We could be.
Doing more welfare stuff.
Yeah.
And that's the mentality because you have to completely opposite.
You have to have that kind of aspirational mentality and you have to spend some money on it.
But yeah, they don't see the point.
They're not great men of history, are they?
They're to be ignored.
Yes.
I can make a critique of it, which I did a Chronicles with Lucas.
So I don't want to be inconsistent.
We talked about C.S. Lewis.
He has his sci fi trilogy and he sort of makes the case what is the point of all this endless space exploration?
Really, it's your eternal soul that matters.
That's a different, completely, if that was the argument they're making, they're clearly not making that argument.
They're just saying, oh, we could be spending it on Gibbs.
That's what they're saying, right?
Mm hmm.
We could be saving.
Drag us all down.
Well, it was coming from libertarian types, and I was just like, you're stupid.
Oh, really?
That's strange.
If you want government to do anything, surely, you know, space, the military, these sorts of things, you need to be putting money down.
It seems quite a libertarian thing to me.
I mean, Musk is obsessed with it.
He's a libertarian type, isn't he?
It seems instinctively to me quite a libertarian type of thing.
Or rockets or more.
Yeah, I don't know.
I suppose not because it involves massive government spending.
So maybe I'm wrong.
It's a bit aspirational.
I like the aspirational stuff.
Mm hmm.
Well, yeah, I think that it's the last frontier to be explored, isn't it?
We don't really have too much of the world to explore other than some remote jungles and the bottom of the ocean, but other than some fish.
I've just figured out something.
What's that?
Because people keep saying to us, how are you going to do remigration if no country will take them back?
I've just.
Send them to the moon?
Yes.
Yeah.
Just look.
What I mean is, you ruined space then immediately.
Well, space is quite a bit.
Some people see space as the place to get away.
Like Elijah, they want to get away from all that, be on their special planet.
Where everyone's like ultra rich.
You're sort of saying the opposite space could become the dumping ground.
Well, it already sort of is, isn't there?
There's so many satellites around that they have to clear them out because there's so much rubbish up there.
So if we send fly tippers up there, it's going to be even worse.
Go up there, there's going to be crisp packets everywhere and pizza boxes.
And then the final thing that I found annoying was people digging up this old chestnut, not naming any names on the panel.
But here's someone saying they want you to believe this aluminium foil wrapped hunk of junk went to the moon and back.
The amount of fluoride in the brain to swallow this is staggering.
Well, I mean, that is a good point, though.
That is legitimately.
That's not a good point.
So, seriously, we're doing it now, and if we really went in the bloody. 50s and 60s, we would just casually be setting up our third lunar city by now.
Surely this knocks on the head any notion that we went like 60, 70 years ago.
No, not at all.
Why?
Because the TV said so?
Not because the TV said so, because there's plenty of evidence to suggest we did go.
And of course.
It's just on the TV.
Well, not just the TV.
There's lots of other things.
Like they've got rocks from the moon that are definitely rocks from the moon.
Can we have a poll, Samson?
Did we go to the moon in the 60s or whenever it was, you know, in the old days?
Well, we see what the fine people say.
You're just jealous because they used all the tinfoil on the spacecraft rather than on hats.
What about the theory, Josh, that we did go, but the little film they shot, they lost the real film or something, they couldn't do it.
There's some theory like that, so that the film is fake, even though we did go.
No?
No, I don't think so.
I'm offering him a moderate compromise here, he won't take it.
There are also people that think.
I revert to my previous position.
People also say that Stanley Kubrick directed the moon landing, but I don't, yeah, just because he did 2001 Space Odyssey.
Too short for that, there weren't enough takes.
Watch the film on the internet, American Moon.
I mean, that just kind of nails it.
It's a little documentary you can buy from it.
I think this is a bit controversial, but if you don't believe in SpaceX, I even had people saying they don't believe in space itself.
And if you believe that, the only contribution you can have to human civilization is to be turned into mulch.
That's the only thing that you're ever going to be able to do.
If you're that stupid, You don't think you can send stuff to space.
I mean, clearly, space does exist.
Yeah, exactly.
That level of, like, I don't even believe in space.
You're just worthless.
I'm sorry.
It's literally up there.
You just need to look up when it's dark and you see it.
Lewis wanted to call it the heavens because he thought space was just sort of materialist and reductionist.
So, as long as we can, if we could rename it, I accept it's there.
I'm not one of those guys that you want to mulch.
Well, I tried to cheer you all up, but instead, I'm just very disappointed.
Bye bye.
We were partly doing it just to annoy you.
I know you.
Is that better or worse?
Why are you?
I was playing along with this, but.
I just don't know if that's better or worse.
Is it me now?
Yeah.
I've got some rumble rants.
Oh, rumble rants first.
Oh, smacking the.
What if they all say we didn't go?
I'm going to cry live on camera.
A drunk changeling says, Oh, it just moved.
Americans are the indigenous people of the moon.
Okay.
I did see people claiming that America owns the moon, which is interesting.
As much as they own America, right?
They kicked off the people who were there.
And there was no one on the moon, so they probably have more of a claim to the moon than they do to America.
Is that too lefty?
Yes, because they would be.
Well, actually, no, because now it's going to be like a third owned by the Canadians.
Well, actually, who's going on the second trip?
I don't know.
It should be purely Americans, and that way they can say this is our native land.
This moon was promised to be.
It'd be gutted if they got there with a load of like Indian, American Indian wigwams.
Not again.
Naboo or something.
Whatever.
The casino's up there already.
That's a random name.
Says, I wonder what the number of violent outbursts will be on Artemis considering the Q's demographics.
Dear, dear.
Low hanging fruit.
It's a paywall, isn't it?
It is.
Based ape.
We Western men are truly incredible.
We have nailed this task so well we can safely send women.
I can't say that.
And Canadians into space.
Great achievement for Western men.
However funny it was.
But you will get me in trouble.
That's a random name.
I agree with Based Ape.
I can't read that again.
Please stop Fed posting, especially for $1.
If you're going to Fed post, Fed posting is $10.
Yeah, at least give us a higher amount.
Don't bother, Dan.
You're talking to people who think Mars is a better prospect for colonization than Venus.
Yeah, that's true.
Oh, yeah, you believe that Venus should be colonized, don't you?
I've gone into great depth as to why.
Isn't it very hot?
On the surface.
Oh, you go underground?
No.
You go above?
Yes.
Okay.
Cloud cities?
Okay.
There's so much atmospheric pressure, it's actually quite easy to float a city on Venus.
And then you get normal atmospheric pressure.
Well, this sounds cool enough.
I'm on board.
Yes.
Hewitt says it's a good job we like Josh as this segment is boring.
Yeah, because people think that we already went and therefore the subject is boring.
So, it's only exciting if you don't believe.
Yeah, for me, it's fantastic.
We go into the moon for the first time.
That's wonderful.
That's really amazing.
Well, I'm not used to presenting positive things, all right?
Maybe I should just talk about someone stabbing someone for the fifth time.
Then you can all be miserable.
Blackpilled by the response to his segment.
That is harsh.
Nations Locked in Solid Forms00:15:54
I thought it was a good segment.
Thank you.
Although I understand.
Johnny Logo says Dan volunteering to travel to the moon to prove Josh wrong.
Yeah, you need to do that now.
I'm not going anywhere out there.
I like it here.
That's a random name with $2 and a provocation.
That's all I'm going to say.
No, it's $10 for Fed posting.
They're not doing that for two.
That seems fair.
All right, shall I do my bit?
No one ever says they just sort of get weirdly silent.
I think you could work on that.
Anyway.
They're going to pointively look at you.
Yeah, yeah.
I think it could be a better system, but hey.
We use nonverbal cues.
Would you prefer it to be more sort of vocal?
You might evolve it after a few more years.
I've done live TV, remember, so.
We need one of those clappers things like Nick.
It's not a big deal.
Okay.
How do they do it on TV?
Well, there's all sorts of cameras and things.
There's like, you know, there's also teams, people talking in your ear.
It's all very high tech.
That sounds quite schizophrenic working in environments like this.
This is much better.
And speaking of which, you know what's even better is Lotus Eaters live on the 11th of April at 7 pm in Swindon.
That's the only slight downside, but it's going to be a great show.
You've got Dan, Josh, even that Sargon bloke from the internet.
Even I might show up.
I know I'm the most loved Lotus Eater.
So, Bo, all of them.
I can't, I've got a list of everyone now if I start that.
You can see them all in the pictures.
So, come to that, April 11th.
People have said, I don't sound enthusiastic when I'm selling this and I'm not good at it.
So, that was my best attempt.
I think I did a A lot better there.
So come to that.
And now let's crack on with the old segment.
Well, hopefully, this one isn't dull, but it will be quite dense.
This is Why Ethno Nationalism Endures.
Westminster is Still in Denial.
And this comes from Aris Roussinos, who's a smart guy, smart cookie.
And very interesting piece.
So the piece basically argues that ethno nationalism and nationalism are synonymous.
So I've been kind of.
So we take the term ethno nationalism, like politicians are scared of it.
They're all telling us it's scary and bad.
Everyone from Shabana Mahmoud to Nigel Farage.
And even I've been like, Is it a good term?
Is it useful?
Does it sort of conjure up all sorts of dark things?
And should we just talk about our little island home and things like this?
And, you know, we have a claim to the nation.
But Rusnos here makes a case via Walker Connor, who he's quoting, that actually it just is the normal term.
It is synonymous with nationalism virtually.
And it is kind of the norm.
And everything else is doomed to failure, pretty much, is a case made.
Well, civic nationalism was just something that was invented to gut nationalism.
Yes, that is the case made pretty much here.
And so we'll go into it.
Well, it's basically like sorry to interrupt.
It's basically injecting a more modern American ethos, not even a foundational American ethos, because I think they were a lot more Anglo centric back then than they were in later times, which I think is indisputable.
But that sort of attitude has been exported elsewhere, not necessarily by the United States itself, but people just choosing to adopt that.
Framing of, you know, if you join our culture, you can integrate no matter where in the world you come from, where actually it doesn't work so much outside of the United States.
Correct.
And he talks about that later because they weren't there originally.
They couldn't have this, as we discussed in the last segment.
So, yeah, they are a unique case and it doesn't work to export their version.
Anyway, so he relies here on the work of this guy, Walker Connor, who is one of the many people Matt Goodwin made up quotes about in his book.
The essence of a nation, wrote the academic, Walker Connor, is not the territory occupied, but the people who occupy it, et cetera.
And this is one that Andy 12 said was an AI hallucination.
That's not really part of the segment.
I just thought it was important to get it in there.
Just throw a dunk to it.
I prefer to call him Matt GPT Bad Loss.
Sorry, you're right.
I didn't use his full name.
Yes.
But anyway, who knows if that was made up or not?
Please don't sue us, Matt.
But some claim that.
If he did sue us, he would get ChatGPT to be the lawyer.
He would just get all the court proceedings wrong.
Yeah.
I've asked ChatGPT whether this was the right course of action, and it says yes.
Yeah.
Back to the article, though.
So politicians are afraid of it, as he points out.
So Shabana Mahmood said patriotism is turning into something smaller, something like ethno nationalism.
And she did say that.
And also Farage, let's just remember, He also had something to say about it.
And this is important for the context we're about to discuss.
He said it was a scary far-right thing.
Unless we are able to provide a proper democratic antidote to this, then I fear that we will see a rise of a really worrying, dangerous form of extreme right ethno-nationalism.
And I think we're beginning, over the last couple of weeks already, to see some specimens of it.
Nobody, nobody, over the last quarter of a century has done more.
To defeat the genuine, intolerant, abhorrent, extreme far right than me.
I'm sure you've seen that one before, but it's in context, it's interesting because what we find is that his own fans, his own supporters, reform voters, just trying to find it, actually are more ethno nationalists.
I can't find it, but it says the shift is most pronounced among people intending to vote for Reform UK.
59% of whom believe British identity is an ethnic, not civic concept.
7 in 10, 71% of reform supporters think it's important to have British ancestry to be truly.
British.
And as I've got a graph on this later, but that basically says this was a piece of research from the IPPR, who are a lefty think tank.
And they've put out a piece basically, which we'll look at maybe later if we have time, basically saying, oh, everyone's gone ethno nationalist and they're sort of scared and they're saying it's why it's terrible and bad.
Pretty much the entire reform voting bloc are ethno nationalists and they don't realise that Nigel Farage is going to betray them.
While civic nationalism is what Farage is doing, which is getting Boris Wavers to be his candidates.
Mm hmm.
And also, it's very revealing as well that he's proud that he's been containment.
Like, if you're actually serious about pushing politics towards the right, you don't punch right, you don't police your radicals because the existence of radicals makes you look more reasonable by comparison, if nothing else.
So, even from his own perspective, it's bad strategically.
And the fact that he's so concerned about it shows that he's willing to basically let the side down for his own personal gain.
Yeah, there's a bit about reform by the way, about reform supporters who, seven in ten, think it's important to have British ancestry.
And up here, they just talk about the general change.
So, exclusive new YouGov polling for IPPR finds that the majority still think, 51%, still see Britishness as something based on that people can become.
That seems like a dodgy sense.
Maybe I'm too tired.
Despite a growing share, 36% of the public who believe that being truly British is based on birth.
Oh, yeah, something based on that people can become.
That can't be right.
Anyway, it's a Sibnat versus Ethna argument, but the Ethna is growing because it's up to 36%, and only a slight majority for the so called Sibnats.
It's enough to win the argument, to be honest.
Yeah.
36%.
So go back to this article.
He talked about this Walker Connor guy, and he points out that for him, all nationalism was at heart ethno nationalism, deriving from essentially emotional loyalties to the nation, itself a fundamentally ethnic category.
As he puts it, nation connotes a group of people who believe they are ancestrally related.
Nationalism connotes identification with and loyalty to one's nation as just defined.
So he's saying they're always synonymous.
But he does make a difference between ethno nationalism and nationalism and patriotism.
And he says, patriotism is the other thing.
That's the belief that you side with the state rather than the people and the nation.
He says, what they've tried to do is smuggle in, they've tried to use patriotism and they've tried to use the energy of nationalism, sorry, which really means ethno nationalism.
To promote patriotism, which means the love of the state and loyalty to the state.
Loyalty to Keir Starmer?
Yes.
And he says it's basically what the Soviet Union did.
And he says they're trying to harness that energy, but they're harnessing something for a very different end.
And they're two different things.
This is very true.
And in fact, this is what Stalin realized in the war effort that he needed to bring back both nationalism and actually the church to get people really mobilized and comfortable with the war effort.
And also, another thing that I thought is really good about Connor's perspective, because I read this article yesterday.
Because I was actually sent it by the guy who wrote it.
And yeah, one of the interesting things is that Walker Connors' perspective was tested by him predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union and the nature of it.
And he basically, I'm sorry if I'm stealing your thunder here a little bit, but he correctly predicted the nature of the fall of the Soviet Union before it happened using his understanding of nationalism and ethno nationalism.
And when you think about it, the states that came out of the Soviet Union.
Most of which were formed along ethnic lines, weren't they?
Although there are some boundaries that aren't necessarily as neat as others.
But mostly it was certain ethnicities forming their own nations among the sort of satellite nations.
Yeah, exactly.
The nightmare here is finding my quotes amongst the article while also reading it.
But I'll just read them from here.
So I've talked about how nationalism and ethno nationalism are to kind of the same thing.
So that's, and it was a value free analysis, by the way, from this guy, kind of.
He wasn't even one thing it mentions in the article.
He didn't, therefore, say do anything with this.
He just said, I'm just observing this is how it is.
And so it may not seem like he was probably not even on the side that would particularly like that.
He was just saying, These are my findings.
One quite interesting part as well is he says, Modernity has locked nations into these sort of solid forms rather than being to naturally adapt.
So it says, His argument was that the age of nationalism, which dawned with modernity, was a historical watershed setting us apart from all that came before.
Before modernity, nations could die or meld into each other or assume new identities.
After the age of nationalism, The tendency is for nations to be set into permanent, immovable forms and for sub state groups which had not acquired national identities to adopt them.
So he's saying we could more easily, before we had these big solid nations, adapt to change.
But he's saying that a modern thing makes that actually harder to do.
And hopefully, we can.
I can't find any of this.
But anyway, we're giving the.
Don't worry about finding it on screen.
We've got this misleading American analogy, as you pointed out earlier, Josh.
The American model of assimilation was then, until very recently, one in which immigrants were essentially compelled to adopt a fictive Anglo Saxon political identity, that of the starts folk or dominant leading ethnic group to whom the state belongs.
So, yeah, as you say, they didn't have this ethnic group that were just naturally part of the nations, but they adopted the Anglo Saxon model.
He points out this funny thing of.
That guy Scalia saying he went back to England, even though he was 100% Italian ancestry, and saying he was back home.
But really, that was a fiction for America.
It says in this.
Although, of course, you could argue it was based on essentially English founding fathers.
Yeah, I think he felt that way because he was a Supreme Court justice and a lot of their law is based on English liberalism and English common law.
And so he spent his whole life studying the precedents set by.
England, basically.
So it makes sense that he sort of feels some affinity, even though he's Italian.
I get it.
Yeah.
But it's different, as you said, to Europe and to Britain because America is just not a useful example.
I guess there's quite a lot more about that.
Maybe we can skip some of that.
So, there's another interesting bit from the Italian sociologist, a guy called Daniel Conversi, that says, By failing to take ethno nationalism seriously, by misapprehending its meaning, and by relegating it to a distant, shameful past, they've created a political project in direct opposition to the most powerful force in modern history, one that brought down each of the great European empires in turn.
It's remarkable that the British state can have unlearned this clearly apparent truth, for as Connor observes of Britain's imperial collapse, the basic cause of the disintegration of empire was the refusal of people to accept political rule by those deemed aliens.
So, It's quite ironic that we, having had an empire, haven't learned this lesson.
And he points out that once Britain left Africa, they kicked out a load of Asians that they didn't want there.
It's the Indian administrators, I think, of the empire in Africa.
There's quite a few of them.
Yeah.
Still quite a few in South Africa to this day.
So he just points out here we go.
Citing an example of the East African Asians ejected after the end of British rule, kind of notes that the benign tolerance towards the Asian migrant community did not survive the British withdrawal from East Africa.
So he's like, if anyone should know this, it should be us that ethno nationalism trumps these imperial identities, which are sort of somewhat fictitious.
Now, it's quite interesting part about the legitimacy of the state.
So some people are saying that won't this be a problem because you'll lose legitimacy, but it points out the state can limp on without legitimacy.
But this becomes a problem when you want to actually, anyone to sacrifice anything, such as with military recruitment.
So it says here Connor observes all the state requires to survive is passivity, in which a melange of fear, habit, inertia, apoliticalness, Political and cultural isolation, disorganization staves off immediate collapse without inspiring loyalty or affection.
Only passivity, not legitimacy, is essential to the everyday humdrum functioning of a society.
But if a state requires more than passivity, if it hopes to invoke the symbols of the state as a means of gaining positive cooperation and sacrifice, legitimacy will be sorely missed.
So it's basically saying if you go along ignoring the sort of ethnos and the ethnic basis of the nation, you'll suddenly find, although things kind of limp on and can vaguely function, if you want people to come into the military, for example, anything that involves sacrifice, you call upon that.
You find it's gone because those people have withdrawn consent.
Well, it's exactly the situation we find ourselves in.
You know, modern Britain is the perfect evidence for that idea.
Yeah.
And there's an interesting extra thing here.
Some people talk about the next election is the last election because we're at this demographic tipping point and all last chance and all this kind of thing.
What's quite interesting is you don't necessarily need, according to O'Leary, who was a student of Connor, you don't necessarily need actually an absolute majority.
So he says, He says a stable democratic majoritarian federation must have a start spoke and national or ethnic people who are demographically and electorally dominant, though not necessarily an absolute majority of the population, and who must be the co founders of the federation.
That's quite interesting.
I mean, that's quite interesting because you sort of worry that, oh, you know, if native Brits become the minority, it's over.
Not necessarily as long as they are still a sort of political dominant force.
That seems to be the key, rather than the like 51% or whatever it is he's talking about there.
So he's saying it doesn't necessarily have to be an absolute majority, but they do need to be setting the tone electorally.
I mean, there is a demographic element.
I don't know what the number is when he says it doesn't have to be an absolute majority.
In my opinion, as long as there's one Englishman still breathing on these islands, it's not over.
And also, the nation in which famous are things like Rourke's Drift, where we're outnumbered significantly and still win the day, I think that we should have a bit more self confidence in ourselves.
And of course, we should avoid becoming a minority in our own country.
However, if it does happen, the fight still isn't over.
I think that people should have the courage of their convictions to still carry on pushing for our people's survival.
Yeah, there's an interesting bit as well.
He's talking about how we have things like Scottish nationalism emerging, and you need this dominant group or the whole thing collapses.
British Nationalism Collapsing00:12:17
So, there's an interesting quote We know from the comparative study of nationalism that when the two loyalties are perceived as being in irreconcilable conflict, that is to say, when people feel they must choose between them, nationalism customarily proves the more potent.
So, he's saying if you set it against a civic national identity, the ethnic one, which is synonymous here with nationalism, will win.
I do sometimes wonder because British people seem so brainwashed.
By this British values thing, that I do wonder.
But he's saying here, that's the quote I just gave anyway, that nationalism customarily proves the more potent.
So don't try and beat it with this civic nationalism because you won't win ultimately.
I think that it's actually quite easy to shake people out of the civic nationalist spell.
Obviously, there are true believers that are more difficult, but just pointing out that having ancestry to certain lands makes perfect sense because you can ask them, why is colonialism bad specifically?
And they're like, well, they have a claim over the land and you're taking them over.
And it's like, okay, so why is it bad in Britain then that the natives are being marginalised?
And then they're like, oh, right, oh, yeah, okay.
But then they claim there's no indigenous people here because it's something to do with power.
But usually that's quite left wing people.
Most normal people, or the UN, most normal people won't necessarily jump to that conclusion and say that, you know, my ancestors don't exist because that's a very unusual thing to say and you've got to be quite ideological to say it.
Yeah.
And he points out that Katie Lamb, when she suggested, for the purposes of cultural coherence, we need to ditch the Boris wave, this is really what she was referring to.
And that the IPPR are absolutely freaked out by this.
And we could have a quick look, if we've got time, at this, which is this IPPR study or survey called Reclaiming Britain, the Nation Against Ethno Nationalism.
And they are absolutely terrified.
And of course, this is their framing, this is lefty framing.
Let's have a look at their frame.
They say, last summer, after the most widespread racist rioting since 1919, AKA people protesting, children being killed, IPPR wrote it was a testament to progress that deporting black and brown people living in Britain, the response to those past rights, was no longer a palatable policy option.
18 months later, that looks naive.
So they admit that they've been naive.
And they say we've seen an alarming turn on the right towards policies of mass deportation.
And Harris in the police was going, they actually genuinely think this is alarming.
He can't believe they find this alarming.
They claim that Tories, I haven't seen this necessarily, but yeah, Reform definitely talked about deporting 600,000.
Apparently, Conservatives talked about 750,000.
I do remember that now, actually.
So, it can't be that extreme if the Tories are saying it.
But this whole piece is these lefties being absolutely stunned by what has been released.
Mass deportations is not what they need to be scared of.
Mass deportations are the gentle option.
Right.
Yeah, well, as I see it, if a right wing party doesn't win in 2029, it puts us on a trajectory that violent ethnic conflict is inevitable.
And I'm not saying that's a good thing.
I want it to be solved politically.
Well, it's already happening.
It's just that it's happening in one direction.
It's happening through the wire.
I know, but I'm saying, as in, it's going to be.
Widespread, maybe across the country, far exceeding the extent of the Southport riots.
I mean, what caused Lebanon to really kick off is the Muslims had been basically doing all the things that is happening to the white British over here now.
They've been doing that to the Christians for years.
And then one day the Christians had enough, and that's when the Lebanese war kicked off.
Yeah, what's worrying, especially reading that last piece, is you could easily end up, people talk about an Islamic takeover.
It seems more likely you end up with this centralized government that's completely ineffective, basically no legitimacy, but just limps on, as it described in the previous week, with sort of pockets of violence and sectarianism.
That seems incredibly likely.
But this was an interesting quote.
A view of the national community defined in ethnic terms and society as a hierarchy is stirring fear, anxiety, and anger in people of all backgrounds.
I'm thinking, try being a teenage white girl in Rotherham.
Like, there's plenty of anger to go around.
You know, they're like, oh no, you're ruining our Sibnat.
Paradise.
Every day I have to watch a new video of a woman or a child being brutalised.
Right.
Somebody caught.
I have very little mercy for people still saying this sort of thing in this day and age after what's happened to this country.
If they're still willfully ignorant or denying that all of these things are happening, then there's no hope for them.
Yeah.
And what's fascinating throughout this piece is they talk about basically Blairism as if it's come down from God, as if it's a prelapsarian state or something.
Look at this.
Used to opponents who challenge them mainly on grounds of economic reality, progressives now find themselves locked in conflict with those who reject far more basic tenets of human equality.
And I just think that you're up against basic tenets of human nature, is what you're up against.
But they think that their thing is the absolute basics.
Like, no, no, this comes something like 1997.
They're talking as if equality and anti racism and their sort of doctrine is the bedrock, which of course it isn't.
Well, the left are very ignorant of human nature.
I think one of the right's main advantages is that they're a bit more realistic about how human beings behave.
That human beings are inherently bad, and therefore we need to have a moral state and things like that.
Yeah, and we hear it again here.
They talk about Nigel Farage, Robert Jemet, Tommy Robinson, and Paul Joseph Watson, interesting crew.
And they say they're deliberately trying to remold the nation from a civic identity to an ethnic community in the eyes of the public.
I just find that so strange.
It's like they think they're the norm, and it's trying to be remolded.
It's like, no, you tried to remold all of history and every nation, except maybe America, in this strange new image.
And they talk about how, in this short period of time, people have become, in their word, we can look at that and say, authorized to have these views, which is so funny.
It's like we didn't check with Blair.
He says, what we're seeing is a long standing but weak ethno national sympathies that have been authorized and actively encouraged to be expressed with greater conviction.
An interesting graph here, especially this is about the change.
It's still a majority that says, I agree that it's possible to become British if a person makes an effort.
But with the people who believe you have to be born British, it's growing from 2023 to 2025, which the latter is the green.
Do you see how it's gone up quite a lot?
That's quite significant, actually.
How much effort would I need to put into becoming Chinese?
Question, isn't it?
According to these people, this much?
I don't know.
It's really cool.
Is it like click your heels three times or is it 20 years of meditation?
I mean, I don't know.
As soon as you touch the ground in China, you immediately become Chinese.
That's the standard that we have here, isn't it?
Not sure the Chinese are going to go for that.
They're all shouting at Charlie Downs on GB News about that.
There were three of them ganging up and saying, and he's like, Could I become Chinese?
Like, if you went to China and learnt life.
No one actually thinks it, though.
No one really thinks it.
All we have to do is reverse it.
No one thinks I can be Indian.
You know, no one thinks Joanna Lumley's Indian because she was born there.
No one thinks Tolkien is South African.
And no one thinks you can be Chinese.
It's only this way around because it's thought to be like advantageous.
When you, when you, and China's obviously like a strong country, but if you say, can I be like Pakistani, no one thinks, no one thinks I can.
Because no one wants to do it that way around anyway.
It's absurd.
Well, it only exists so it can drive a wedge into the country and allow people to come in and take our stuff.
That's basically all it's about.
Right.
And here's the problem for Farage, as alluded to earlier.
Look at this.
I definitely agree a person has to be born British to be truly British.
Look at the reform support for that.
It's absolutely massive.
That's the all.
And the moment when his supporters figure out en masse that he is selling them a bill of goods, the backlash.
Yeah, I find it really strange.
People don't follow it obsessively like us.
I find it really strange.
He can stand up and talk about extreme right ethno nationalism, and yet the view of his sport is ethno nationalism.
Because his audience is having their evening nap by the time that he's saying this stuff.
Yeah, it's just stuff that sounds nice to say, but look at that.
And obviously, this makes them outliers in the sort of numpties of the uni party.
And of course, reform our uni party, but their supporters aren't, because look at that.
They're way above there saying, yeah, you have to be born British.
But everyone else is going, oh no, it's fine.
You can just adopt the British values.
I see that this is being one of the points that is actually going to become very important going forward.
And I think that it's going to be talked about a lot.
And I think more people are going to come around to this.
I don't think it's going to peak at 36%.
I think it's going to go up a lot more.
And there's always these kind of different questions I ask him, you know, what makes someone British.
There were some absurd things like, oh, it's a different one, but it's, it's, there's one, it's like Eurovision Song Contest and likes the BBC, wants to be in Europe.
Here we go.
So, what makes you, what will make you most proud of Britain in 10 years' time?
Wins the Eurovision Song Contest, Nobel Peace Prize.
Britain leads the world in regulating social media.
Why did you even ask that?
Like, who cares about that?
I would be, why would you be proud of that as well?
BBC is still widely used, fewer ethnic minorities.
That does come in, not that high.
But you look at immigration, there are fewer immigrants living in Britain.
That still scores very high as a thing that would make you proud of being British, above all sorts, above the European Union going back in, above being more reliant on America.
So the biggest is still the NHS and the cost of living.
I can't wait to get rid of that sacred cow.
Man, it's very unfortunate.
I'll end so Dan can do his bit.
I just want to get one more thing, which shows that they are sort of somewhat aware of the problem.
They say high streets and community buildings in decay, this is what we have now.
Long queues for public services, people seeking asylum in holiday hotels, and the increased visibility of low level crime and antisocial behaviour is contributing to a sense of malaise and fatalism.
So it's like, so you agree all the things that are happening asylum, you know, migrants, pressure on services.
But it's a good thing.
Yeah, but they go, this is like a challenge for progressives.
I'm like, it's a challenge because your whole worldview is wrong.
That's what we're learning from this.
But they just believe that their worldview is fundamental, they're right, although all the signs on the ground are that this leads to absolute chaos.
And it's like, well, why don't you take this malaise that you call it and decline and just, you know, take that and learn from it?
But it's so weird.
They go, no, we've just got to find ways to sell our progressive vision of universalism, which is a term they even use.
So I don't know.
They just don't quite get it and they're not going to get it.
And it's just a massive gulf between the way these lefty think tanks and the sort of uniparty in the Westminster elite see this and what the reality is.
And like, just to conclude, Even I thought ethno-lastrums were a bit weird.
I thought it's a bit European sounding, it's a bit rationalist and top-down and theoretical.
Why not just talk about our home?
And of course, we have a claim to our home.
But maybe after this, I'm thinking maybe it isn't the right term because it's just synonymous with nationalism, according to much smarter people than me.
So maybe we should just start using it.
Anyway, that's why ethno-nationalism is inevitable.
Over to you.
Great.
Do you want to quickly do any examples either that you don't have to do all of them?
Humbly or wrongly?
Can I click it?
Yeah, I can, I guess.
All right, so.
Uh, that's a random name with a massive contribution.
Says, Can people from Devon be English?
The science has yet to be settled.
I personally am unsure if they're even human.
Wow, shots fired against Devon.
Is that about you?
Yeah, I see what you're up to.
PJ Harvey is from Devon.
So, okay, okay, door, okay, door, watch your door.
Don't know how you say that.
I'm too tired.
Look at Hassan Poker.
He became Christian Chinese during the visit and then became Cuban during that visit.
Then reverted back to American when he returned from Cuba.
That is true.
He's very talented, so he can do that.
Margarita Afternoon, what a name.
Hello from the US state of Mississippi.
You guys are always interesting.
I appreciate your thoughtful commentary.
Many thanks.
That's very nice.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Also, I'd like a Margarita Afternoon in Mississippi.
That sounds great.
Yeah, you normally have one before the show, I heard.
Fallen Fiber.
That's uncool.
Sorry.
Not even drinking at the minute.
Fallen Fiber, the CivNat versus Ethnat poll is skewed because it doesn't take into account the 80 years of pro CivNat propaganda and vice versa.
Great point.
It might be more accurately described as how many people have woken up.
Oh, look at this one from Ryan Rumble.
Dan's a fantastic man.
He really is.
I like that comment.
I'm going to match fund that.
Well done.
Nice.
Any more?
Oh, there's a good one.
$10.
Thank you, Dragon Lady Chris.
Germans Versus Russians00:07:19
Repeal women's suffrage.
Women vote stupidly because they vote on emotion instead of facts and logic.
Does this count as Fed posting?
Obviously, I heavily disavow that, even though it is my opinion.
Yes, and also obviously true.
It has come from a woman, though.
That's which makes it mild.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And also, lots of mention, vote.
Let's be fair.
And believe all women.
Leave all women.
Yep, so she's right.
Men under 30 without property shouldn't vote either.
One tall order.
Oh, is this yours?
Yeah, this is NASA again, so do I need to read it?
All right, okay.
No, I better get this.
I'll quickly read it.
It's only one, it's $2.
NASA has a cool tracker with 3D graphics for Artemis 2.
Let Bo know, I'm sure he'd enjoy it.
No, I didn't see it.
Didn't see it anywhere.
No, I'm joking, of course.
So, I think we've got to make the British villains again.
And I've got a serious point here, but I'm going to explain it in my normal, inimical style of the way that I get there.
You might remember, because you're old enough, do you remember in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed and Hollywood was like, oh shit, we need a new villain?
And they thought for a while and they were like, I know, the British.
And in the 90s, all the villains were British.
And the film that explained this probably the best was Goldeneye.
Goldeneye.
Yeah, it starts off as if the Russians are the villains, and then it's like, oh no, but aren't they our friends now?
And then you get into it a little bit, and the British guy is the villain.
Oh, yes.
By the way, the greatest game ever on the N64 was Goldeneye.
Yeah, it's still the best game ever.
It's still the best game ever made.
And just a quick aside, because you say I'm old enough to remember, I remember the wall coming down, but being quite young, and I couldn't understand.
And I was like, in my mind, I was like, why didn't they just take it down sooner if it was just a wall?
In a way, I was also right, because it turned out you could just do that.
Yes.
Well, yes.
Good point.
Good point.
Um, And another Bond film had another Brit, because of course you've got to do that stuff.
If you want to be around cunningly evil Brits, I suggest you go to the Lotus Eaters live event the following weekend.
This, for me, he was the best British villain of this era, Child's Dance.
He later kind of really made his name Game of Thrones.
But in Last Action Hero, I thought he was an awesome British villain.
Hannibal Lecter, of course, proper scary.
Dude, that he is.
An inspiration to me, though.
Welsh villain.
Yes.
Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves.
I mean, I suppose it's set in medieval England, so it kind of has to be.
British.
Well, not these days.
Not on Netflix.
Roger Waters from Pink Floyd?
That was Alan Rickman.
I think so.
Oh, yeah.
You can tell he looks.
Zoomers in the house.
This was a film.
These were actors.
It wasn't on the internet.
You can see the resemblance, though, in that picture.
To Alan Rickman.
Roger Waters from Pink Floyd?
Yeah.
I can't.
I literally can't.
Yeah.
Okay.
You're wrong.
Yeah.
I mean, especially going back to, say, for example, the last action hero, there was a bit of a type to it because the British guy, he would have a precise.
You know, received pronunciation, that sort of thing.
And he would be emotionally constrained except for bouts of extreme cruelty.
And I always liked that.
And he had class.
He always had class.
He had the tailoring, he had the posture, he had the vocabulary.
He looks like a member of the royal family as well, doesn't he?
He could easily be William's uncle.
Prince Harry.
The neck tattoo there, though.
I don't know about that.
Yeah, I wasn't.
Yeah, I didn't like that bit.
And he's often like, you know, an officer or a bureaucrat.
And so basically, the British villain was always.
Was it ordered evil?
Whereas the American hero was always chaotic good in terms of alignment.
And he would be like, oh, yeah, I break all the rules and I do it my way, but I get the results.
And he gets chewed out by his boss on the way.
Whereas the British guy, he's like, no, I make the rules.
It's like sort of Dirty Harry, isn't it?
Yeah.
Where he doesn't use conventional methods.
He's a sort of maverick.
That's quite often the typical American hero.
Well, that's their thing.
They can have the hero.
But I want the villain back because he's sort of controlled and knowing and he's precise.
It does make us look good, doesn't it?
Exactly.
That's why I really liked this era.
We also make good villains because to have a compelling villain, you have to make them sort of competent and scary.
And if they're calm, collected, well spoken, and quite orderly, that makes them scarier because they're more competent.
Exactly.
It's why Germans make good villains as well because they're very efficient.
You say that.
That's my next example.
If the script calls for Hans Gruber, a German guy, but you're in the era of the British villain, will you get a British actor to play the German?
Just do the accent that you just did, is the best.
The German, yeah.
Yeah, I don't know if that is necessarily the best German accent, but.
They don't have the best record of German accents being good in our acting, to be honest.
And then even if you make the film again, a sequel.
I just say, it's weirder if you don't do it.
You know those films where they're meant to be German, but they're just speaking English, where just men are no.
Oh, yeah.
That's weirder.
In a Cornish accent.
It's weird when they go, We have ways of making you talk.
I am from Bradford or whatever.
It's all a bit Doctor Strange love to me, hearing someone do an accent.
I can tell you're doing an accent.
I like it.
It depends how old you are.
I like it.
Die Hard with the Vengeance, another German played by a Brit, Jeremy Irons.
He's very good.
He even got Scar, who was the clever one in The Lion King.
Is that how you see it?
Yeah.
The Lion King.
Dark Triad reading of the.
Yes, Dark Triad reading.
The Lion King himself was played by an African American, but for the villain, you need.
Yeah, he's also brilliant in Margin Call as a kind of villain.
Pretty much a villain as well.
I mean, there's so many examples during this era.
That apparently is Rob Roy.
I never watched that one.
Even in the future.
So in the past, you need a Brit.
And in the future, you need a Brit as well.
Whenever you've got a villain, it has to be a Brit.
A slight futuristic Hitler, isn't it?
Great understated performance from Gary Orban.
Yes.
Even if you're doing the Nazis, the Germans, you still need a Brit to do it.
And he kind of did what you did, which was make almost no effort to be German.
Almost none.
Just a really bad accent.
Please remember, I am German throughout this film.
Now I will drop this.
Yes.
Yes.
Even if your villain is Russian, after the fall of the Soviet Union, if you really, really needed a Russian, well, fine, but we get a Brit to do it.
We're not getting an actual Russian.
We're not going to give those people work.
Is it some sort of like union thing or like it was cheaper?
You know how it's cheaper to do films in England or was for a time in Britain?
Right.
And they were all doing them over here.
I think in the 90s, the films were still made in America.
But obviously, if you're going to do the villain bit, you need a Brit for it.
I don't think we're as capable to play Russians as we are Germans.
I think we can just about get away with Germans, but Russians is too.
Oil and the Stone Age00:13:46
Do you know what?
My favourite Russian was John Malkovich in Rounders.
He's like, pay him, pay that man his money.
I'm like, what is that?
What that is.
It's very memorable.
It's definitely not Russian, but it stayed with me.
He wasn't menacing enough, though, because he wasn't British.
Now, the reason I bring this up is because our pal Trump has recently decided that the British are to be the villains.
Now, to be very clear, I am 100% in favour of this.
I think this is good news.
So, what's Trump saying here?
Of all the countries that can't get jet fuel because of the Straits of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you.
Number one, buy from the US.
Actually, I should be doing this in a Trump accent.
I can't do Trump accents.
Can you pick up in a Trump accent?
From there.
I don't know.
I have to start by saying things that he says, like many people.
I have a suggestion for you.
Number one, buy from the US.
We have plenty.
And number two, build up some delayed courage, go to the Straits and just take it.
You have to do the whole thing.
Yes.
You'll have to.
Many people.
You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself.
The USA won't be there to help you anymore.
It's really, really tragic.
Just like you weren't there for us.
Iran has been essentially decimated.
The hard part is done.
Go get your own oil, President DJT.
Yeah, it's very good.
Better than I could do.
I should have done it.
And now, go get your own oil, just because that's the one I can do.
Well, then you might say, go and get your own oil.
Well, it turns out to be more complicated.
The best Canadian.
The one I can do best.
You can just do it in whatever one.
What if, President?
Yeah, it's literally.
What if, Ben would do?
President Trump was Jordan Peterson.
What if the President of the United States was Jordan Peterson?
All those countries that can't get jet fuel because of the straighter fucking moves.
We're not going to read it as Donald Trump as if he was doing a Peterson impression at the time that he wrote the Trump.
He should, though.
Right.
I do actually have a serious point here.
The serious point is, right, even though he almost certainly just got annoyed one evening and banged out that tweet.
I hate Starmer.
He always does that as well.
Yeah.
I'm not suggesting that there's any 5D chess going on here.
But what I'm saying is, Donald, you.
Accidentally, had a moment of brilliance here.
Stick with this, and you can at least get some 2D chess out of it.
So, let's break this down.
So, you know, he says, You're going to have to fight for yourself.
Well, I mean, that's a jurisdictional transfer there.
You know, he's saying, This isn't our problem.
This is your problem.
So, we're going to hand it off to you.
And he's basically taking it out of the world of US obligation because, you know, it's not like we broke it, therefore we have to fix it.
It's we broke it, but you were planning on using it, and therefore it's your problem.
And you've got to go and sort it out.
I mean, actually, he's almost certainly really talking to the Chinese here rather than the British.
Yeah, that's pretty horrible to say to the British, right, we ruined the Strait of Hormuz.
Get your own oil now.
Yeah.
We just did this.
I mean, that is terrible.
I mean, actually, we don't actually get an awful lot of oil from the Straits of Hormuz.
We do get some liquid natural gas.
We get most of it from Qatar or from the Saudis, who they're then.
Well, we get some from the US.
Quite a bit from Norway, but yeah, we did get some from Qatar.
So the oil isn't really our thing, but really, it's the Chinese who use it straight.
So, really, this message is a message to the Chinese saying, Can you come and sort it out?
But he can't say that, of course.
So, he's at least what he's trying to do is because, look, wars that the US loses, they normally only exit after another president has come in because then it's not their loss.
The Americans can't be seen to take a loss.
So, what I'm saying is, Push this war onto the UK, make it our loss, and then you can exit.
You see where I'm going with this?
You're sort of taking one for the team.
Yes.
Yes.
Pete Hegseff has been getting in on this as well.
Can I just say, Yvette Cooper seems to have taken it seriously?
Remember her?
Taking it seriously because she apparently today wouldn't say that we were allies with America.
That's quite extreme, isn't it?
She wouldn't.
She was pressed on whether we were actually allies and she wouldn't say we are.
Well, I want to see more of that.
Trump could accidentally ruin the so called special agency by secretly appealing to China with 6D chess.
Well, I don't believe in the whole 5D chess or 6D chess or whatever.
I'm just saying.
Okay.
He's accidentally stumbled upon the strategy that he actually should use.
He actually should make the British the villains again.
This is what he needs to do.
Pete Hegseff's got in on this.
You know, last time we.
Can anyone do a Pete Hegseff accent?
No.
Right.
Last time I checked, there was supposed to be a big bad Royal Navy that could be prepared to do things like that.
And this is the thing.
So I've had a lot of hate posts from Americans in the last few weeks, well, last week or so.
And 50% of them say, you should be opening the Straits of Hormuz of your Navy.
And the other half are saying that you don't have a Navy.
Now.
Neither of those are necessarily wrong, but they are inconsistent.
So pick a lane, I would say, on that.
The other thing, but my serious point here is yes, okay, so many people are coming at me on the comments and on social media and other stuff saying, well, we could beat them.
We could do it.
And it's like, okay, well, maybe you could, but at what cost?
How many American bodies are going to go down in this?
So, and another thing they always say to me is they always say to me, we're not losing in Iran, we're winning.
Because we're killing more of them than they are killing us.
But by that logic, that means that Britain won the war in 1776.
Because the British killed more Americans than the other way around.
Yeah.
So you cannot use that logic.
But I just don't want to see dead Americans.
That's it.
I was saying this to people that you can be opposed to the war without wishing harm on American soldiers.
And people were giving me flack for this.
No, I'm opposed to the war.
I just don't want people to die.
Yeah, I'm opposed to the war because I. Don't want Americans to die, not because I do, but because I don't.
You've got to remember in Vietnam, 58,000 US troops died.
58 bloody thousand.
And then on top of that, maybe 800,000 or a million Viet Cong and multiples of that in civilians.
I mean, it was absolutely.
And what for?
Yeah, exactly.
And to ultimately lose.
Unless you're doing it on the logic of we killed more of them and therefore we won.
But then in which case we won 1776.
That's like when in the poll.
Vote at the elections, not the game.
Yes.
I would also like to point out that it is a little bit rich to be pointing the finger at other people for not helping them at the drop of a hat when America and he sort of joined in in the conflict once Israel moved and they're like, oh, right, we need to do something.
Because Marco Rubio explicitly said this in a press conference that it was they that did something and then the US had to scramble to react.
Yes.
And that's part of the reason why lots of the Gulf countries are annoyed because they didn't get fair warning, but actually the US.
And did Rubio misspeak on purpose?
That is an interesting question.
But Afghanistan 2,400 US dead troops and maybe 70,000 Taliban insurgents killed.
Again, multiples of that in civilians.
Taliban are still there.
You know, that was another loss.
Iraq war, 4,400 US troops died in that.
And yes, okay, they killed 100,000 Iraqi troops and multiples of that in civilians.
But, I mean, I think you could maybe put that one down in the win category.
Not quite, though.
It's sort of like it's still a very unstable country.
There's still actual ISIS.
The whole democracy thing didn't land.
Or no, it doesn't work.
Korean war, 36,000.
US troops had to give their lives for that.
And yes, okay, they might have killed like half a million North Korean and Chinese troops.
But ultimately, the invasion was repelled.
So I suppose you can give them that one.
Bay of Pigs, again, you know, they lost what is it, the 100 Cuban rebels that went over there and they managed to kill slightly more government forces, but Castro's still there.
There's multiple examples, like the Somalian invention from Black Hawk down 43 US service personnel lost their lives in that.
Yes, they managed to kill 1,000 militants, but.
Is it, are 43 Americans worth the equivalent of a thousand Somalians?
I don't know.
Interesting question to ask.
And I suppose they did ultimately capture the warlord.
But what might Iran be?
Is it going to be 10,000 US troops?
Well, don't they have an army of like 500,000 and also good defensible terrain?
They've got an army of a million.
A million?
And their whole country is made out of mountains.
And they've had 20 years to prepare.
If I were playing a strategy game, that would be one of the areas of the world I would conquer last.
Like, it's the most difficult.
A lot of ground troops, very defensible terrain, lots of mountains, probably, you know, like Afghanistan, some caves to hide in.
And if not, then they can dig them.
And so it's a very difficult situation.
Because I get so many people coming at me at the moment, and they're completely misunderstanding the point.
It's like, oh, why do you like the Iranian regime?
No, I don't.
I don't like the Iranian regime.
But I don't want to see 10,000 US troops.
Killed.
I don't want to see whatever it is.
I don't particularly care that much about the 200,000 IRGC soldiers.
I don't particularly care much about them.
But I do care about the half a million of Iranian civilians that will end up getting killed on this.
And you've got Pete Hegsef now saying things like, oh, back to the Stone Age.
They're going to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age.
Well, I mean, let's just go back a little bit, right?
President Trump was saying not so long ago to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight, the hour your freedom's at hand.
So he was calling them the great, proud people of Iran.
You can't sell us on bombing these people back to the Stone Age when these were great people a few weeks ago.
Here's another one The noble people of Iran who love America deserve a government's more interest in helping them achieve their dreams.
And he's quoting himself there to the brave, long suffering people of Iran, I stood with you since the beginning.
Well, you can't bomb them back to the bloody stone age then.
To me, the only compelling argument from that side is the nuclear argument that they're trying to stop them getting the nuclear weapon because if they got that, it all hell breaks loose.
I mean, it's hard to counter that completely and say, don't care.
But the regime change one, I don't believe in because you always end up back with a similar regime.
Also, you can't really do regime change from the outside because if a foreign government Just put someone at the top.
Well, there's no consent to that.
Well, that's how this whole mess started with the Shah of Iran.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, Trump said here, that was it.
If you consider helping the people of Iran, Trump said, I like to, you know, they're great people, amazing population.
It's amazing, smart, brilliant, energetic.
You can't combine that with the, you know, bombing them back to the Stone Age.
This is just a problem, I think, with people.
Going all out in the rhetoric that suits them at the time rather than just being completely honest.
And you wouldn't have the dissonance between these different statements if it wasn't driven by pursuing self interest in the short term.
Yeah, you're right.
And let's look at what this would actually look like, right?
This is the famous image from Vietnam that sort of turned people against this.
You know, in the center there, you've got a naked nine year old Vietnamese girl.
And the reason she's naked is because she had to tear off her clothes because her back is splashed with napalm, as if many of the other children there.
You might think you're hot for this war and that, oh, yeah, we're going to get those bad guys with the Kalashnikov.
Yeah, you will get bad guys with Kalashnikovs.
And for every one of them, there'll be three, four, five civilians, a whole bunch of them children.
And you're going to have to look at images like this in high definition, knowing that that's something that you were backing.
And interestingly, that girl there, I mean, this picture just doesn't do it justice because she's facing the wrong way.
This is the same woman 60 years later.
And this is after dozens and dozens, she lives in Canada now.
This is after dozens of surgeries, right?
And that, I mean, all that skin was burnt off in that image.
You just can't see it.
And that happened to a nine year old girl.
You do not want this going on in your name.
Well, people are so isolated from the consequences of warfare.
Like, not only is warfare more dangerous than ever because the weapons are better and therefore there's more lethality, but also the cost to civilians quite often in these war zones are in places that are densely populated.
Yeah, it's hypothetical to a lot of people.
And people don't realise the tremendous amounts of human suffering that are going to.
That's the main reason I was opposed to it is that no matter how bad the regime is, it's not worth all of the human suffering of the US soldiers, the civilians, whoever's involved.
You know, it can't be as bad as that.
Gung Ho War Involvement00:05:44
No.
And there's no cope argument you can make here because she's from a village that was actually on the US's side and the US was staging there.
And this was actually a friendly fire incident.
And a whole bunch of US troops got obliterated with napalm in this strike as well.
So there's that.
So I don't want this for, you know, hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians and children.
But also, I don't want this.
Every one of these coffins that comes back to the US should be a young man or maybe even a young woman coming back to their kids or going on to have kids.
And it's so easy when it's all this hypothetical stuff about, oh, yeah, we're just going to bomb them from the sky.
No, it doesn't bloody work.
The troops are going to have to go in, and you're going to have to get used to a regular stream of planes coming back with flag draped coffins, and that is all unnecessary.
And so, for that reason, Go ahead and make us the villains.
I'm giving you the B pass.
You know, just do that.
What I want to see is comments like this.
This was a brilliant comment from Cynthia here.
Let me just click into that.
Right effing cowards in England and Australia slithering out today in unison like the spineless effing cucks they are.
Look at these gutless wonders, too effing terrified to stand for anything real.
Spineless jellyfish with no balls and no backbone, just a collective circle jerk of weakness.
England and Australia both bending the knee in perfect sync like the pathetic bait of bitches they are.
Disgusting.
That makes it more humiliating that you're asking us for help if all these things are true.
Well, that's not where I'm going with this.
I'm in favour of this.
Absolutely effing cowards, every last one of you.
She goes on and on and on.
Like Morgoth says, absolute full of piss and vinegar.
I saw this tweet and I liked it.
I want.
You want to be browbeaten by women?
Because it's such bad press for them.
No, no, because I.
This needs to become the narrative because America cannot psychologically take a loss, at least not in the same president as the one who got it minted.
I mean, surely they could just, you know, I know it's not in their nature, but get a bit of humility and just admit that they've failed because I think that part of the reason why Americans get flack abroad, and I'm saying this out of love, not out of criticism, is that you can't admit when you're wrong.
You've got this sort of toxic positivity of, I'm always right, everything's always good, everything's.
Is perfect.
You can't admit mistakes.
And it's a flaw of your civilization.
Honestly, I don't think that's going to happen.
No, I don't think so either.
It would be much easier to make the British the villains.
That's what I want.
I want every American, all the low salience Americans are already doing this anyway.
I can see I'm getting like 30 or 40 comments every time I put up anything on social media, which is Americans just ragging on me.
And unfortunately, too many Americans can see through it and they're not doing that.
You all need to get on board.
I thought it was very unpopular because of the Israel aspect that many on the American right just feel they're being led into it by a foreigner.
Well, come back to that one.
But make us the villains for now because that will give Trump the excuse to get out of Iran if he can pin it on Britain instead.
I mean, I agree that if it means that the war is going to come to an end and they get to save face and they blame it on us and say, oh, it was Britain that ruined our war effort, fine.
And I'll be happy with that.
I'd rather, you know, them save the American soldiers' lives and the civilians' lives and what have you and us, you know, get insulted.
And you also get to see Trump ragging on Starmer in the meantime, which is always hilarious.
But Starmer, annoyingly, In a way, has been better on it.
Farage and Kemi were too gung ho.
It's annoying the way he's repeated that ad nauseum in Parliament, but he's actually right.
They were too gung ho about getting involved in this war.
And he, whether it was through caution or ineptness or whatever the reason, he was more cautious.
And that was actually correct.
Trump needs to take it up a gear because he hasn't even threatened, he hasn't even implied that he's going to invade us yet.
Denmark and Greenland got that after a couple of weeks.
We need to be getting to the point where he is frothing at the mouth saying that he's going to invade us.
That's where we need to get to.
But he won't actually do it in the end.
But the point is, it will give him the excuse to get out of a war before tens of thousands of US troops die.
So I want to get back to this.
Plus, the other cute ancillary benefit is that the movie villains will become good again.
So, this is my point.
It doesn't really trip off the tongue.
Medva, make Britain villains again.
Will they just be Starmer cowards?
You know, the villains, like, you can't do that.
No, they will have to make them cool because they're still going to want to sell movie tickets.
So, yeah, absolutely.
If you're American, I give you the B pass.
Start giving a shit relentlessly.
Make sure that this is perceived as a British failing.
We're the ones who lost the war in Iran.
Put it on us and get yourself out of it before you find yourself in an even worse mess.
Right.
I think the ground invasion is coming, though, in all honesty.
Like, they're moving all of their troops out there and they've got the amphibious assault.
Well, hopefully, they can put it on us before it gets to that.
Oklodor says maybe Hollywood saw that the American hero needs to be competent, British villain to show how capable both sides are.
Wasteful Laptops in Orbit00:02:58
Yes, quite.
I think that is actually the dynamic that you want a scary villain who is competent and imposing in a high status and.
I feel like if you go straight to the top, it's the Brits.
That's a random name.
All I'm saying is, I've seen Josh blink sideways.
I don't know what that means.
Oh, like the lizard thing.
I'm not a lizard, I swear.
But I am going to have some flies for lunch later.
It's a reference to the Devon questionable whether you're a human thing from before.
Don't judge me by my webbed fingers and toes.
That's different.
Right.
There are apparently comments.
We started with the moon one, haven't we?
Okay.
Oh, we've just got a rumble.
Rant in for $10 actually.
One for one paladin, I would reframe the space stuff as somewhat wasteful if our own civilization is falling apart at the base layer family, faith, religion, etc.
Well, maybe it's falling apart because we have no aspiration anymore.
Yeah, I think it's good to have things that restore people's faith in civilization itself.
Like if things decline to the point where people don't even think civilization is possible.
Well, I've never seen justice.
I love democracy.
We are already up to 32%.
Can see it.
Yeah, a lot of people waking up.
That is tremendous.
I mean, that's ahead of Restore's poll numbers at this point.
Reform.
And reform.
Yes, you're right.
68%.
You'd win an election in this country with 32%.
Not against 68, it wouldn't.
Well, no, because that would be fragmented all over the place.
It's going to be condensed.
You're going to have little sort of moon truth for constituents.
I'm not planning to run to Parliament on that basis, but it's just obvious when you think about it.
Right.
Josh Firm sitting on a banana.
It's for science.
How did you know about that?
Mistoff Groeper off the end of that.
That's true.
Wait, you guys believe the moon exists?
How gullible?
It's actually just.
That's next level.
It's a projection, it's a light in the sky.
It's not actually real.
Bisley Shooter, is there a sign on the toilet saying, don't flush in the space dock?
Well, I suppose, yeah, it would just go everywhere, wouldn't it?
AZ Desert Rat says, I think the part of the reason the NASA cockpit has older equipment is because NASA won't use anything until it's been tested and rated for use in space.
NASA astronauts have been carrying their own personal laptops into space for years because the only laptops NASA has tested for use in space are from the 90s.
Yeah, I suppose they're being very thorough, which you can't really fault them for.
But I think that there's space for innovation.
You can create a vacuum in a lab and test things, can't you?
Surely.
Brit Playing Gandhi Role00:04:16
But anyway, move on to your segment, Nick.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
I'm going to skip the first one because it's a Vlad the Impaler based comment that probably gets me in the star in the gulag about migration.
But Omar says we have three years for the trend to mature.
The decline isn't even slowing down, let alone improving.
Three years to reach the non political.
Three years to let people know there's a real right wing pro British party.
Three years to activate the massive block of demoralized voters.
Abstain every election, yes, and that is restored Britain.
Um, Derek Power being ethno nationalist gets you the ladies, see Amelia.
That's a good point.
Lord and Chris Hector X, did you last see Merkel admitting she intentionally flooded Germany with migrants to stop the far right?
I did see that video, yes, shocking stuff, although not surprising.
Maria Manzi, ethno nationalism or since time immemorial, birds of a feather flock together, tribalism is root in humanity.
That's obviously true.
Um, and Diogenes nuts.
It's kind of a Diogenes meets these nuts joke that I'm too tired to read properly.
Actually, the moment you touch the soil in China with your bare skin, you don't become Chinese, you become ill.
I understand the West often conflates poor health and sanitation with the Chinese, but one doesn't necessitate the other.
Interesting.
Damn.
Michael Drybelver says Michael Moorcock's Jewel in the Skull Hawkmoon series Brits with a Villain.
I've never seen that series.
Is that a film series?
I don't know what that is.
Alex Ogle says, I'm the best British villain portrayal Ben Kingsley as Gandhi.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Gandhi is a villain.
Ben Kingsley to play Gandhi.
I mean, that is really tough.
He's half Indian.
Is he?
Yeah.
You didn't know?
I didn't know that.
Yeah.
Do you know one of his best villain roles?
Although I could also make a case from being the goody as well Sexy Beast.
Is that the one where he tries to get an ex con to do a job?
And he's actually the best.
Is that the opportunity?
Yes.
Yes, Grosvenor.
Yes, Roundtree.
He's meant to win that.
Yeah, he's the most unpleasant human being I've ever seen on screen.
Yes.
Yeah, but I've got this idea of trying to look at movies where you can support the villain.
I should have said that in your section like, Few Good Men, Jack Nicholson's the hero.
You can go through loads of them.
Superman.
Loads of examples.
Exclude from Star Wars.
They're all libs.
One of the most challenging ones I thought was Sexy Beast.
Because actually, he just, why should the guy just get out?
He's upholding the honor, you know, and he's helped out his mates and he's got buggered off to Spain.
But really, Kingsley is just saying, no, no, you've got a duty and responsibility now.
We need you to do this job so we can all make money.
In a way, it's pro social.
Okay.
I said it's one of the harder ones in American history.
I do think it's taking the piss a bit to get a Brit to play Gandhi.
I like that.
They're sort of rubbing their noses in it.
Yes.
And they can't complain because he's half Indian.
Yeah, that's quite good.
Yeah, when you say rubbing their noses in it.
California refugee says, serious question.
What is the goal for Iran?
I have no idea.
The goalpost seems to move.
Are you asking from the Iranian perspective or the US perspective?
Because I can answer from the Iranian perspective.
I can't answer from the US perspective.
I think it means US because sometimes it's take out the nuclear facility, sometimes it's regime change, sometimes it's something else.
There's multiple goals, I think, is the truth of it, isn't there?
Well, if it's regime change, he says that he's already done that because he killed Khomeini.
If it's taking out the military, he claims he's already taken out 100% of the military and therefore he's already done that.
If it's taking out the nuclear, again, he's claimed that he's already done that.
In fact, he did that last summer.
They've taken out the air force, haven't they?
They haven't necessarily taken out all the ground troops.
No, Trump has tweeted that he has destroyed 100% of Iran's military.
Stopping them then?
Well, exactly.
They've gone to the capital.
Um.
Even if the, Henry Ashman says, even if the villains aren't British, the actors playing them should be, because they should be properly theatrically trained.
A proper British villain also invites you over for tea in a game of chess and says things like, ah, I see you're trying to stop me, how quaint of you.
I should have done that in a British accent, actually.
Somebody's pointing out the Mel Gibsons of Braveheart and the Patriot, proper British villains in that, and AZ Desert Razor.
I'm opposed to the war because I don't see reason to be involved in a war in a country that is the other side of the world with no clear threat.
Proper British Villain Tea00:00:44
Yeah, especially when in the Atlantic region, I mean, the US is vast.
It's got all the farmland you need.
It's got lots of energy, especially if you add in Canada and Mexico as well.
And then you get so much from South America.
So you've got everything you need locally.
Yeah.
Anyway.
You've got North America and South America.
You've got more than enough resources there.
So I think it's just maintenance of the American empire, really, that's the.
Well, this is probably not the way to go about it because it's.
I do agree.
Yes.
Okay, so with that, what have we got?
Oh, we got Lad's Hour.
Lad's Hour.
So come and join us on Lad's Hour, where I've designed a new game and it should be good.