Christianity and the Foundation of Dignity

There are very few civilizations on earth that have the same opinion as us as a Christian heritage civilization. Immigration has brought that home to us very, very sharply. Very sharply. In in Britain we've had a dec ades-long problem with Islamic rape gangs, which would groom and rape and pimp teenage girls, English girls, within the Muslim community. The Islamo-Communist Alliance, that is the Green Party. It's almost nak ed in how vampiric and predatory that it is. It expressly states that it intends to take resources from the majority white population and funnel them to the Muslim population. And along comes Rupert Lowe. Where does he fit in your judgment, Carl? Well, my guest on this occasion is Carl Benjamin. He's the founder and co-host of the English political and social commentary podcast, The Lotus Eaters. He has a very wide following and has, I think, an excellent program, which I'm more than happy to recommend in this age when many of us like to hear what is being said directly online . So uh thank you, Carl, for your time. Much appreciated. That's my pleasure. On your YouTube channel, your self-description is simply Englishman. Can I ask what you mean by that simple description, Englishman ? Yeah, it's um it's it's it's taken me a long time to get to the understanding that that's the self-description I should use too. Because you'll notice that if you look at a lot of people's sort of Twitter bios and whatnot, they they will say , you know, libertarian or social ist, you know, free Palestine. They'll have all of these ideological signifiers. But the ideology is all a kind of window dressing for self-inter est. And so actually just being honest about what it is you are to people does away with all of that and it allows you to actually speak properly about the subject . Because ideology being propositional has definite conclusions that it forces you to come to . And actually when you say, well, I'm just an Englishman or an Australian or an American or something like that, um, you are telling people a lot about your cultural background. You're telling a lot people a lot about the things that they can stereotypically expect to know about you. Um and then you can begin a proper conversation in earnest, rather than engaging in what is essentially a kind of mathematical duel between people who spar with these ideologies , which never ends in the place where people want it to end. Because once some person what once one person has one interpretation of the propositions and another person has another interpretation, uh the only place to go from that is to say, well, the other person is acting in bad faith. The other person is actually a liar. They're actually deceitful because they didn't have the same interpretation as I did. And what the thing that is assumed when you have that conversation is an identical perspective of both interlocutor. They assume that both people have the same background, have the same intentions, have the same understanding of the world to interpret the propositions in exactly the same way. And so we see most of online political discussion is just a pure ideology that is all really informed by the identities that's underneath the ideology. And because it's propositional, because it's logical , the the actual discourse gets ground down in this rather than just being normal and talking like a human being, uh, in which we can actually be concerned about one another as people rather than the accuracy of the ideology that we're spouting. And so I think that that's actually a much more human way of having a discussion. It's a much more human way of presenting yourself. And frankly, I think it's just more honest. So that's why I've got that there. Konstantin Kisson last year opened up an interesting debate. He said that as a man of Russian heritage, he now considers himself as British, but not English in so far as Englishness is seen as an ethnicity. How do you see that? Why and why bringing ethnicity into Britishness? I think Constantin is right there. Um I think he's correct. So British is specifically a civic identity. Um and the thing uh uh actually it's very complex. But Brit British was assumed to encompass the ethnic identities of the British Isles. Um, but after the British Empire and the civic expansion of British citizenship, it has become a civic identity that has become a kind of identifier for people who want to belong to a certain kind of world . For example , you could quite easily say that Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders are all British. Americans as well in a way. It it's actually imprinted completely on your cultures and impossible to deny. I mean the the fact that we can have this conversation in English as your first language, I assume, uh is proof of actually where you come from, where this has all begun . And so this this civic identity has expanded around the world so it isn't actually useful to merely describe um white British people as being merely British because it's uh an incorporative identity that is also adopted by many of the immigrants we have now. Because I mean, of course I' Im'm sure you'll know that before well the in the first half of the twentieth century basically didn't have immigration into Britain. Uh and the immigration into Britain has ramped up to an extreme degree. So the identity of being British has become much more incorporative to give the new people who have come here a way of trying to identify and affiliate with the country. But what this has done is actually taken something away from the native population of the country, because the the identity of being British 100 years ago wasn't contested. It wasn't something that people felt didn't apply to them and other people. And therefore rendering the sort of borders of it permeable and therefore making the definition itself not very useful. And so this is why the question of ethnicity I think is really risen to the fore, where it's like, well, okay, I I'm happy to concede that Constantin is British, you know, he feels he's British, he likes Britain, he wants to affiliate with Britain over anything else. And he's correct when he says he's not English, because of course English is an ethnic ity, as in you inherit your ethnicity and you can't change it. So he's correct to say that he is not ethnically English. And so what we have here is the civic layer of life, and then what I c what I think is best described as actually the tribal layer of life, because we're we're not in the West used to thinking of ourselves in terms of tribes, but actually um a lot of what we do is a kind of tribal understanding of the world, and we assume that it's universal because everyone around us agrees with these same premises, the same assumptions. But actually, immigration has forced us to understand that these are actually parochial assumptions to Western Europeans, North Western Europeans, and in many cases in particular, the sort of um Germanic Protestant assumptions of Northwestern Europe. And then you can be even more specific to some of them are specifically English assumptions rather than being actually like Scottish or Welsh assumptions. So um the the question of ethnic ethnicity has raised to the fore in that way, but also it's what this has revealed is actually the value sets that groups of people have and adopt and are inculcated into through just long habituation of living in their own cultures. The these are things that are particular to them, they're not universal, and they are a kind of tribal expression. And that's also what Constantine, I think, is saying in that. It's not to say that other people can't look at those values and say, oh, I appreciate those values and I would like to live among other people with those values, which of course is what Constantine has done. But it's not something that is separate to the people. These values are an expression of these people. And so you can't just take them away, uh, separate them from the people and then uh have them adopted wholesale by another people. This is where ideology becomes actually so pernicious and is in fact one of the reasons why um all of the sort of liberal and post-liberal revolutions of the 19th, well, the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries are so destructive because the what they are really trying to do, all of liberalism really is the the rest of the world trying to live like Englishmen and when they apply what they see as the consequences, the sort of exigencies of the English habit of life , when they apply that to their own countries, they realize that the social structures required to uphold that don't exist. And instead, in their place, are a series of entrenched traditional non- English, therefore non-liberal structures that have to be destroyed. This is why the French aristocracy had to be beheaded. This is why the Russian aristocracy and the Tsar had to be killed. This this is why in China the uh the cultural revolution had to destroy the Chinese heritage, because these things fundamentally are not something that relate to the ideology, and the ideology itself is an ex traction and distillation of a limited number of principles from English political life. And without, like I said, the social structure to actually uphold them, what you have is chaos. And what you have is a desperate attempt to impose a foreign order on a country that I mean might want the consequences of what is being offered, but doesn't actually know how to get there. And that's why I think honestly the 20th century was just the worst century mankind has ever had. Ever, actually . So one of the questions that arises for me is what is the place of nationalism and indeed patriotism ? Um If you think of David Goodhart's work all those years ago, the Somewares and the Anywares, the Global Citizens versus those who still feel a real affiliation with place and their country and its moors versus those who see themselves as above all of that. And then into that mix, in the case of Britain, you have fifteen percent of the British population now not even born in Britain and seeking sometimes to absorb British values and uphold them, other times actually to oppose them . Is there a place for a sensible nationalism and what does it look like? I think that without a kind of sensible nationalism, then we succumb to the global liberal order and we lose everything. So without this, then essentially our countries are dissolved conceptually, and it's only a matter of time until these concepts are put into action and the country m physically is dissolved with it, until it is nothing more than a geographic area with a set of liberal rules attached to it, and instead not a people anymore. Because it's it's important to remember that our conception of countries and nations has become very detached from what a traditional conception of a country or a nation is. Um the the there's a great example of this during the Persian invasion of Greece. Uh the Athenians just uh just abandoned Athens and fled to Salamis to avoid the Persians. The Persians burned down Athens, but Athens as the buildings, uh but Athens was fine because its people were safe on Salamis. And after the Persians left Greece had been defeated, the Athenians just went back and rebuilt and Athens is now still the capital of Gree ce. So the geography of it is actually less important than the people who inhabit it and actually carry out these traditions in their lives. And if we forget that, and if we divorce or abstract the traditions into or the or the political habits into a doctrine that can just be applied to anyone, well, then we'll find that we have actually been disconnected from something that we didn't realize that we carried ourselves. And I think we're watching this in British political life in particular, but probably also in other countries, in the way that our politics is coarsening, our politics is becoming a lot more, frankly, dangerous. Um we we saw this with uh a Labour MP called Jess Phillips, who was narrowly elected in 2024, but also she suffered a series of um aggressions that I think you could say were a form of intimidation from a certain community in her constituency in Birmingham. And honestly, I was a bit worried about this. Uh because I mean I've got no love for Jess Phillips. But this was going well outside of the bounds of established and traditional English political life. You don't slash someone's tires, you don't vandalize their constituency headquarters. You make your arguments and then you vote and then we see who wins. But that's not what this community was doing. And then when she was accepting her the the fact that she had won and whatever little ceremony they do, uh she was heckled and abused by men in this constituency. And it became very apparent that you can profess a series of values in the abstract all you want, but if there are communities living among you who don't believe these values, then they don't really matter. They only matter if everyone actually abides by them. And when you have large numbers of people who don't, you realize that, okay, well, if we continue on like this, um we can we can say that Britain is still the geographic landmass, and we can claim to adhere to a certain set of laws and rules and norms. But in reality, what is actually happening is something different. And it's because actually the character of the people really matters. And all of these things were really predicated on the character of a certain kind of people behaving in a certain kind of way because they thought it was the right thing to do. And if those people are gone, then it's not the same country, then the laws will not abide. I mean, loath to cite Rousseau on something, but he was correct when he said the true constitution is actually engraved in the hearts of men. And if these other people don't truly believe because it's the culture in which they've been brought up is the only thing they know, then it's just not the same. And so a sensible nationalism must take that into account because otherwise the nations themselves will be lost What you say is very interesting, Carl, because one assumes, and I think you've said this yourself, that there's never been any mass appetite in the UK for the kind of immigration that you've experienced there. The same could be said of Europe, the same can be said of Australia, where thirty-one percent of people in this country now were not born here. And I'm all in favor of immigration, but it needs to be managed in a certain way, and you don't want to sacrifice, in my case, my Australianness, which is derived from a Britishness, no doubt about that at all, in the process. So it immediately raises the questions around why have ordinary people, perhaps they've lost that imprint of the Constitution on their hearts and have not defended them, been allowed uh, you know, have they allowed this to happen and why is it that with the people on the hands of power, the levers of power in our community, felt so able to essentially put at risk everything that if you like uh makes the people who live in Britain English, the people who live in Australia Australian? I think this is a really good question, and it is probably the question of our time . I I can't help but wonder if the long peace after World War II is something to do with it . Because I mean I'm sure you're familiar with Francis Fukiyama's thesis of the end of history and the last man, uh, which is um um an a fairly malign book but fundamentally the core critique of it is true that it was assumed that the world would become a liberal world, and therefore the historic need for nations and borders and uh authority would essentially wither away , much in the same way that the communists thought that the the the state would wither away after the communist revolution. Um and we would essentially be atomic individuals who are free from all obligation and responsibility, who could just uh trivially live out our lives for the rest of time. Um, that's not true. That that thesis turned out not to be true, because it turns out that a core part, and this was kind of contained within Francis Fukuyama's own thesis. The the he he cites Plato's tripartite soul, the the rational side, the animal side, and then the spirited side. Well the spirited side is collective. It is not an individual aspect of humanity. And so this is where things like national pride come in. Um and this has been stigmatized since the fall of the Nazi regime, because the Nazi regime was built entirely on this spirited part of the soul, um, which is not good. No kind of unbalance within a human soul is a good thing. Uh, a well-rounded person should have all of these characteristics. Um, but when you decide, well, one aspect of the soul is actually um a genocidal monster, well, then you do everything you can to wither it. You do everything you can to to immiserate it. And what this has meant is that people feel now far less like they are carriers of their own civilization. They with the full philosophical rationale of liberalism saying no, you're you've been liberated from the chains of civilization now. You get to be the atomic individual at the end of history. You don't have a responsibility to carry your own culture. You don't have a responsibility to carry your own civilization through into the future and pass it down to the next generations. And I think that's the the real spirit that's been lost, the essence that's been lost. Because if you you can you can find interviews uh on with man on the street interviews from people from like the 1950s and the 1960s, where not only do they seem far more articulate, they understand themselves as being representatives of something that should be well represented on the world stage. And this idea that you actually are kind of deputized, whether you like it or not, as a bearer of your culture. And therefore you should be a good example of your cul ture is something that is just alien now. I mean, imagine imagine me saying exactly that to a teenager on the streets of Australia. Well, is he gonna think that I've got a point or, am I going to sound like a babbling lunatic to him? Because I know that on the streets of England, I'm going to sound like a babbling lunatic. But I think I'm correct. I think that that is the the the issue is that before like if you go back 100 years, people had a collective sense of ownership over their own civilizations, and so collectively they thought, Well, I am I have a stake in this, I have a part in this, and I am a representative of this. And therefore I have a duty to dress well, to speak well, to work hard, to make sure that I am protective and do my part in my civilization. And I I just think that there is just no concept of that at all anymore. And so people don't take care of themselves. They don't think I have to behave well, I have to dress well, I have to make sure that I do the right thing every day. Because why should I? And when you have a culture of that with that kind of attitude for a long period of time, the people who are born and raised in it don't even have the advantage of having being able to cast that off. And I think this is something that happened a lot with uh frankly the boomers in the 60s and 70s, um, with the sort of you know, the hippie movements and whatnot, where they were essentially trying to cast off their own civilization and like John Lennon style, um, imagine there's no heaven, there's no countries, all this sort of thing. Well, at least they had the advantage of being raised by parents and in a culture that didn't think that. At least they had the advantage of living in a culture that did consider that it was a separate thing in itself and that this was worthy of being carried forward into the future . But once you're 50 or 60 years down the line from that, and you're raising generation after generation that doesn't think that it should be upholding something, the carrying something forward, well , that you don't even have a frame of reference to be able to begin to make that argument to them. And so they don't understand that this is their land , this is their culture, they are responsible for it, and they should take And I think that's really why the people and government can be so cavalier about all of this. And that's why we're just looking around. I mean, I I don't know about Australia, but England is a scarred country at this point. It isn't is a shadow of its former self. And there is a kind of collective catatonic indifference because essentially to start addressing the problem, even conceptually, would require us to admit that almost everything we've done for the last fifty years has been atrocious and a complete mistake and needs to be unwound if we want to have anything that's worthwhile passing on. And instead of uprooting this now quite entrenched system of indifference, it it is just easier to just get along with your day and just do what you've always done. And I just don't know how to turn that around. It's a full twenty years ago now that I remember listening to our national broadcaster, the ABC, talking about a survey amongst British schoolchildren, uh which sought to uh extract their views on what it meant to be British . It was embarrassingly trite beyond belief. It was at the level of well we have wimpy bars. Literally. There was no concept at all of Britain as the if you like the place that struggled saw bloodshed long and hard, the Magna Carta, the War of the Roses, the whole evolution over time of democracy. You go to Oxford and you see the um memorial to um the three uh Latimer uh I've now got a mental block, um the three great reformers who died at the stake. They surrendered their lives to the awful death of being burnt alive at the stake for freedom of conscience. You think of the abolition of slavery, you think of decent labor la ws, you think of the extension of the vote. None of that seemed to feature at all. So it immediately raises the question of who designed a curriculum that did not even basically outline apparently to an enormous number of British children how they came to live in the land that they did and what it was like. How it had been shaped . This this is exactly the question that I I think again th the is just hitting on the civilizational issue of the time because education uh this this is a great point that um T. S. Eliot made in his notes on culture, which is education isn't about passing information, it's about passing culture. And the this is the the point that you're making here is well children should be educated to understand that they are the bearers of their own culture with the long history and noble history that they have inherited. And it's it's actually terrible to deny them this. Because once you deny them an understanding that no, you have something to live up to. Well, why should they live up to anything? Why shouldn't they just become frivolous and irreverent and concerned only with the pursuit of rights rather than the discharge of duties. And the answer is, well, there isn't any particular reason, is there? Why should they think anything of their own culture? Which is remarkable when you look around and you go, okay, but we we actually have quite tremendous civilizations. You realize how insular our mindset has become and how narrow it's become. There's there's actually a very for all of our talk of multiculturalism and our worldliness, we're actually very inexperienced. And we assume that everything will just carry on like it always has, despite the fact that the trajectory we are on is a road to ruin. And things are getting worse every single day. Again, I can't speak for Australia, but in Britain, things are just getting worse every single day. And they have been for decades now. And yet we persist with the same ideas and the same strategies, the same kind of education, the same kind of opinions and attitudes that have led us to this place, expecting different from the same. And until we get those until until we understand that it is our entire world view and our approach to our own civilizations that is the at the thing that is at issue, nothing can change. We're trapped on these rails. It seems to me that part of that gradual change has been somehow a an inversion of the rightful order that evolved as Britain built a democracy. That is to say, that government was there to do the will of the people, protect the people, advance their interests, and it was to be a function of the people, if you like, and the will of the people . Over time, particularly I have to say, as Britain deserted its Christian faith, I mean it's secularized to an extraordinary degree over the last century, government has become God . And it's as almost as though in becoming God, remembering that politicians are only human, they prove not to be up to the task, and then an open contempt starts to expose itself. And it seems to me as I look at Britain, and I don't want to be in any way smug, I I think I'm a great admirer of of Britain, uh, and I fully acknowledge that Australia owes an enormous debt to Britain. There are parts of the British model that uh or the English model that we've not inherited. We don't have a class system, for example. We're quite irreverent, and what have you. But nonetheless, we owe you a great deal. And now we seem to live in this world where we're actually quite contemptuous of our leaders because we let them pretend that they're God. We almost bowed before them. We find they're not up to it. And now we think the answer is to belt them harder and harder and harder, and all that happens is that the horse being ever harder flogged fails more and more to haul the load. Uh I don't actually have time to follow Australian politics as well as everything else that I do, so I can't I can't comment on the situation uh with your leaders there. Um but I I I think it's probably profoundly observable from outside that our leaders are um people of lesser quality than in previous generations uh and so it you you are you are absolutely right that the the state the the state finds itself in actually a paradoxical position which is it is it is taken on the mantle as the enforcer of rights that were designed to protect the population from it. So the the whole point as you say going back to Magna Carta and even the the old Anglo-Saxon view of what kingship and um subjecthood was was all it was very temperate, it was very moderate and, it was always very limited. And the uh I'm of the opinion that essentially all of uh English constitutional history is this kind of subconscious Anglo-Saxon attempt to shrug off the worst of the Norman yoke. Everything has been done to try and stop the Normans from being tyrannical, basically. And we've we've got to a point now where our politicians feel that their job, I mean, we are literally at the moment we have a prime minister who is literally a human rights lawyer, uh, who is trying to impose this regime of unfettered and unlimited human rig hts on all of humanity. The problem that he has is that his powers are limited only to Britain. So he is forced to privilege the minorities over the majority. He is forced to make sure that any immigrants who just tou uh how they get here, whether they illegally break into our country or not, uh as far as he's concerned, in his mind, because he is a very extreme liberal. He believes that they are entitled to as much, if not more, as the native population. And so we you you're completely correct that the state does take on this aspect of God because the state has annexed to itself the authority to be the enforcer of rights that it was always the infringer of. It was always the thing that was infringing on the rights. And so we've we've we've given the state a kind of schizophrenic personality. The state is the oppressor. That's what does the oppressing, and that's why all of the rights of Englishmen were developed in the first place, were consciously developed. They were just assumed before, but now they have to be properly articulated. And the people in charge believe in them as well. They believe that, yeah, we believe in that your rights. But we're also the people who exercise all of this power. And once some one has power, they very rarely want to give it up. It's very difficult to imagine how we're going to actually be able to cut back the scope of the state in Britain. There's a famous AJP Taylor quote uh that goes something along the lines of in nineteen fifteen the average Englishman would never have experienced anything to do with the government except or the state, v except via the post office. Uh that's the closest he would come to having any interaction with the state, which sounds like heaven to me. I mean, I just that sounds like an absolute dream . But it the the license that our politicians give up give themselves puts them in a position where, as you say, they would have to be men and women of supreme competence to be able to discharge the duties that they annex to themselves. And yet , our political class has never been more embarrassing. They've never been people of lower quality. They've never been people of lower education. And they've never looked so out of touch. So the moral unity that existed between the people and the state following World War II has been completely destroyed in Britain. And the reason I think that we have such a polarized multi sorry, a shattered multi-party system at the moment, which is genuinely unique in modern democratic history, is because nobody knows what to do about it. We're stuck with politicians who honestly kind of seem clownish. They they're constantly doing stunts and they make public embarrassments of themselves and they come to the electorate and say, hey, elect us to be your leaders. And I just look at it and think, well, I don't really want any of these people leading us. You mentioned the reluctance of people who having once gained power don't want to give it up. Does that extend to the bureaucracy in Britain? We've always thought of Britain's civil service as being of extraordinary high standard, perhaps we started to become cynical at the time of yes minister. Uh but it does seem to me as an outsider, and that's the same is true here, that the bureaucracy has grown, grown and grown and found extraordinary ways, in fact , uh to limit the capacity of elected members of parliament to influence events. You're completely correct. I mean I I actually I actually did a podcast segment about this the other day. Uh so I I did some research into it. And the British Empire was administered by about 4 50,000 bureaucrats. And that's the entire thing. That's a quarter of the Earth's population and surface. Uh and it was by far the best bureaucracy that ever existed in all of history. Now, I'm as an as an Englishman I, hate bureaucracy, as you can imagine. But if it has to be done, then it should be done well to the most efficient possible standard. Because Bert Bertrand Russell had a great line on bureaucracy, which is um essentially bureaucracy is the enemy of the individual. While it's supposed to be his servant, it's also his master. Because when you go to speak to a government bureaucrat, you're put completely at the mercy of a system that is purportedly designed to help you but has no incentive to do so. If I walk into a business, they're completely incentivized to do whatever I'm asking them to do as quickly as possible because there's no compulsion for me to be there. I don't have to give them my money, and they really need that money. Whereas with a bureaucrat, the incentives are completely inverted. As soon as I walk into a bureaucrat's office, he's incentivized just to get rid of me as quickly as possible. I'm an inconvenience to his day. He is in an unassailable position that he needs nothing from me because he is backed by the force of the government. I have to pay him taxes w,hether I like it or not. And so his job is never in doubt. And so any interaction with me is to him an inconvenience. And so the bureaucracy is naturally incentivized against helping any of the people it's supposed to help , which you would think would be a good argument to keep it at absolutely minimum levels. But instead, what we've done is trained a class of people through the modern university system who see the bureaucracy as actually the legitimate form of government because the liberal order, being propositional in its nature, comes to definite conclusions. And therefore, if you only look at the world through this series of definite conclusions, you can deduce what they are technically calling right and wrong. And so why would you even have a discussion with the electorate on certain important matters of state? Why would you want to have the opportunity for failure? Why would you want to give people who you know don't agree with your conclusions and your premises , the option of exercising political power, all they can do is throw a spanner in the works and make the system run inefficiently. And so the bureaucrats in Britain, and this is really the consequence of I mean it's the consequence of about 80 years worth of ideological development. But it really ramped up, of course, after Tony Blair, who decided that he would enact a series of sweeping constitutional changes that I don't think anyone realized the scope of which would decide the nature of the country for however long in the future we allow it to persist. You are absolutely correct that many prime ministers now since then haveed complain that they just don't have any power. I mean Keir Starmer himself, who's a complete man of the system, said, I pull a lever and nothing happens. And that's because the bureaucracy has taken all of the powers away from the Prime Minister. So actually we aren't electing representatives who have authority over the system in order that we, the people, can exercise some kind of measure of accountability of these things. What we are is trapped in what is colloquially called the quangocracy . And it spends about half of the total government budget every year. And people might think, well, okay, that can't be that much. Uh the government budget is about £1.4 trillion a year, which is about 45% of the entire GDP of Britain. So for every pound that Britain has, the governments spend forty-five pence of it, which is insane because I mean at the fall of the Soviet Union, it was about fifty percent GDP that the government spent. So we're really not very far off. And it's it's exactly as you say, the the the the growth of your the bureaucracy, the self-sustaining, self-justifying, self-reinforcing bureaucracy has just grown to titanic proportions. And it's doing this under the auspices of providing unlimited human rights to everyone in the country. So, like I said before, the it's taken on the charge of saying I will protect you from human rights violations. Well, where do they come from? They come from the government historically. And so the it's it's done a kind of bait and switch. And so it's taken this charge with just unbelievable moral zeal. And it is now annexing to itself basically all of the resources of the state. And so it's taken on a kind of parasitic, and I don't like to use the word fascistic, but uh it's honestly hard not to see it, at least in in a sort of philosophical and economic sense, as a kind of fascist parasite state that is now sucking up the life out of the society it rules over . This is chilling. And into this midst now flows the reality of political chaos. To me it is extraordinary that support for the two major powers could have collapsed. That people refer to the Conservatives and the Labour Party in your country, as I understand it, as the Uni Party. It's n hardly a term of endearment, and you've seen the rise of reform, Nigel Farage's reform, and now Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain . Where will this lead in your view? Because you just made the point that no one seems to have the answers. Are the voters saying we're going to embrace rest ore uh and um uh and the other uh reform to kick the existing parties in the hope that they come back to common sense? Or are they really seeing these two new entrants as potential parties of government? I think it's too early to say because the the the modern political history of Britain all anyone remembers in the that's walking around the country is the contest between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. These were the two parties that dominated Britain for all of 20th century history, basically. And uh from uh something like 1927 onwards, it was just Labour and the Conservatives. So it's it's been one of those things where it's just not in the folk understanding that we vote outside of those options. And now that those I mean there are polls that show Labour and the Conservatives in third and fourth place in in around the country. And so it we're in genuinely uncharted waters. So I'm I'm loath to make any solid predictions on this because it's hard to know what will happen tomorrow. It genuinely difficult to understand and divine what the future might bring. But I think what we are definitely seeing is a collapse in confidence of the paradigm that brought us to this place. Because there is no one else that the Labour and Conservative Party can point the finger at, actually. Um, when they they both operate in the same way for the same end s, just at different speeds. It's about your temperament rather than your philosophy. They both agree on basically everything other than just the they they both agree on the direction of travel, just how fast we're going to go to get there. And I think that people have soured on this. And you've got the radical fringes of both sides that are breaking apart from the coalitions that made up the labor and Conservative parties. And this is something that frankly I think these parties can't really recover from. I just don't really see how they would come back from it. Because what what you would always have is the sort of moderate center and then the more extreme hardline fringes. And you can see the hardline fringes breaking away because the promises that the moderate center kept making to keep the fringes in check were constantly reneged on . The Green Party's charge, the Green Party has risen very, very quickly on the charge that essentially the Labour Party promises to be a left-wing extreme party, but isn't, because the Labour Party is a party of government, it stays connected to the real world. The Green Party is not a party of government, it's a party of ideology. And so it says, W, hereell's the ideological orthodoxy. I'm going to do that. And the people who are persuaded to vote Labour because of the ideological orthodoxy, well, they they they see that Keir Starmer is not going to enforce any of this, any of the truly radical agenda. He's going to work bit by bit in Fabian fashion. So they just flip, and it makes sense to flip. And it doesn't make sense to go back either. Because even if Labour were to radicalize to the left, well, I know that you're doing this because the Green Party has promised me what you're actually what what I actually want. And so why would I go back to you? And it's the same with the conservatives. And frankly, I think Nigel Farage is falling a bit afoul of this as well. So I th I the there's um there's a distinct disconnection between Nigel Farage's voters and what he personally professes and seems to believe, uh, his voters are a lot more radically right wing than he is. Uh, and he operates in a space where he's called radical right wing, but he's not. Uh and everyone can see it. He's I think he's deliberately filled the upper echelons of his party with Muslims to avoid charges of Islamophobia. He left UK IP because UKIP began to raise the issue of political Islam in Britain. And so his and and the the common media narrative about Farage is that he is an extreme right winger and this has given I think people a sense of false advertising actually. Um when when you say to could Britain is a very socially conservative country actually. Uh people the the the the middle class, the elite middle class don't realize it. But actually the majority of people are actually quite conservative. And even they themselves live in quite conservative ways when you compare it to what they could live like. Uh they just don't realize it. Um and so the the radical right and the radical left are splitting away from the center. And I don't I just don't think the center can recover because frankly it is the center that is responsible for all of the problems that we have. Uh whether and I'm I'm not suggesting that the radical right and radical left wouldn't create a series of new problems, but they aren't responsible for the old problems. And so I d I just And along comes Rupert Lowe, who uh is another contender altogether uh with uh Restore Britain. His polling suggests that he is picking up some of the people who actually don't think that perhaps uh uh Nigel Farage and his team are the answer and he talks of things like remigration, addressing the migration concerns in Great Britain. Where does he fit in your judgment, Carl . Um so just to be clear, I'm a member and supporter of Rupertloe and Restore Britain. So my judgment will doubtless be clouded by my proclivities and biases on this. Um But I have joined many people in realiz ing that I do think Nigel Farage is actually the tail end of the modern par adigm. Nigel Farage doesn't want to restructure the state. He doesn't want to, he doesn't concern himself about demographics. He he refuses, in fact, to address the issue of demographics. And he's on record multiple times saying that this just isn't a concern of his. He is not going to address these issues. He is just going to try and make the Blairite sort of international liberal state function as he thinks it is intended to function . And I'm sorry, I just don't think that's a project that can be redeemed. And even if it could be redeemed, why would we want to redeem it, actually? Um, it seems to be uh quite an evil thing that frankly is designed to rob us of our nations and i i just don't want that i just don't want to have my country stolen out from underneath me through legal means i don't care if it can be done legally. I just don't want it done. And Rupert Lowe um represents a sensible patriotism in that he is speaking in the old language of duty and hard work and personal sacrifice in the and I'm sure you saw the video that went around where the the line that um really struck out to me was that that fixing this problem is going to be incredibly painful. Yeah. He's not promising us ease. He's not promising us wealth. He's not promising us a good time. He's promising us that we will fix the problem, but it's not going to be easy. It's going to be a lot of labor and it's going to hurt. And I think he's right. And I think that's honestly the only mature way to look at the issue. And so I and a hundred and thirteen thousand other people in the course of a month, uh, just to be clear, it's only been going for a month. It's already the fourth largest party in Britain. Um it's uh catching up on uh it's overtaken the Conservatives, it's catching up on the Labour Party now, I think. Um and I think that re I think the message resonated with a lot of people because I think it's quite childish to expect the government to do everything for you. Uh it's quite childish to think that I can just live at my ease and allow the government unlimited license to do as they please with the nation. Uh it's it's obviously not working. And so it seems that Rupert Lowe is the only person who is actually speaking to the issues, not just in a mature and sensible manner, but being honest about what the actual problems are. And the actual problems are obviously the constitution of the state, which, as I said, reform have already said they are not going to interfere with. But obviously, but also the demography of the country, because British people have never once voted in favor of mass immigration, and almost every or any gra immigration at all actually. And since the days of Enoch Powell to now, every opportunity British people had to vote against immigration, they voted in the negative. They did not want it. And yet we have millions of people in our country who really shouldn't be here and who are against here against our will. Uh, who are here against our will. Uh and so Rupert Lowe saying, look if millions of people who shouldn't be here have to go, then millions of people who shouldn't be here must go. That's that's a message that's really resonated with people because you you should just see the state of the place. It is unrecognizable in many parts. Unrecognizable. I me Ian I've my my parents are from Wiltshire and Somerset in the southwest. And after university I moved down here just because why wouldn't I? Um and I've lived in Swindon in particular for 30 years, nearly. And when I moved here, it was just a normal English town. It was a bit of a boom town, actually. It was it was doing very well. There's lots of industry, lots of jobs, and that's why I stayed. And over the past decade , the decline has been phenomenal. It has been tragic. But also the demographic change has been immense. I used to I used to walk through the town center and bump into friends, coworkers, family, and it'd just be completely normal because everyone lived or in the town. Uh and now it's full of foreigners. And I I'm not trying to be mean or prejudicial when I say that. It's just that is the only accurate way to properly describe what has happened. And these are not a single community from one place. I mean, if it was, if it was uh, you know, uh it was just, oh, we have an Indian community living in the town now. Well, okay, fine. You know, I could get used to Indian customs, habits. The English community and the Indian community could develop a relationship. But that's not what's happened. What we have instead are like the nomads of globalism, where it's people from everywhere who share nothing in common with each other, who are just drifting through our streets. And you can't help but wonder, well, what do you how how did you you know when were in Sudan or Bangladesh, how did you know Swindon even existed? How did you find yourself here? And the answer must be that the government has put them here. And the the lack of integration in their own communities implies that as well, because people naturally cluster. When British people go to Spain, they go to the British area of Spain, which is an objective uh an objectionable thing to the Spanish . And I completely empathize with that by the way. You know, if if I was Spanish, I'd be like, why are we letting the British colony be set up on our s on our land? Um but that hasn't happened in Swindon and other places like it. There there are ethnic colonies around the country, just not in this area. In this area we have just this tide of nomads who are not integrated into a single community. And it looks kind of like the bazaar of Baghdad or something, where it's just like, What has happened here? I haven't moved, I haven't gone anywhere, why is everything so different? Um, and it's only Rupert Lowe who is actually addressing this issue. And it begins with saying the politics of this country should be there to serve the native people of the land, as in, it should serve the British people rather than either foreigners or an abstract set of liberal ideals. And that's essentially the only thing else on offer. All of the other parties, Farage included, is trying to serve a series of institutions, a series of um polit ical values and ideals. And Rupert Lowe is the only person who said, no, I'm actually concerned about the people themselves of this country. They're the people who matter. And so I think that's res that's why Rupert and and not only that, as I said earlier, our politics is basically a clown show with um embarrassing embarrassing events uh that happen every day from our from the various party leaders. And Rupert Lowe is the only the only the only politician in the country who's approached this with dignity and seriousness and actually stipulated that the real problems that are making everything worse need to be addressed. And so I'm not actually that surprised to see the meteoric rise of uh Restore Britain as a party. And I'm I I'm joining, I'm going to do my bit as much as I can to help and organize and get the word out, put leaflets through doors and try and persuade people that no I'm sorry this is gonna hurt, but we have to just take it on the chin to fix any of this . Carl, going back to your comments about no one seems to know what to do in adverted commerce, and our more general observations that we've lost contact with our traditional values. I can't help asking about the uh recent Gorton and Denton by-election, where you saw Muslim communities block voting with green candidates on Gaza and open border issues from that that in a sense see this I would have thought bundle of contradictions where people fundamentally have quite different worldviews coming together with the one thing in common that they loathe our culture, uh that they think it's for ripe overthrowing, that they don't like our economic model, they don't like our social model, they don't particularly like democracy. Indeed, I'd go further than that and observe that Britain now has what, eighty-five or so Sharia law courts I don't know how they operate in the context of Britain and its common law tradition. And I understand that you've got around twenty five seats in the House of Commons now where essentially the occupant of a seat uh is uh the holder of a seat has been put there by the Muslim vote. That will increase to around forty-five or so over the next decade. And it does open the way, I would have thought, for an ever-increasing expansion of this extraordinary alliance between um political ists, if I can put that term, to make the distinguish uh distinguish between mainstream Muslims and polit ical Islamists and the radical elements in our own society who think we are rotten to the core in the democraci es . Conviction will win out over lack of conviction and confusion every time . It's going to take a lot of courage to turn this around and to convince people that the values that Britain was built on, which after all were founded in beliefs, if I may say so, that gave you the institutions of freedom, are actually worth trying to recover when you don't even really understand what they were. I mean you're completely correct. It's the the the Islamo Communist Alliance that is the Green Party is it's almost naked in how uh vampiric and predatory that it is. It it expressly states that it intends to take resources from the majority white population and funnel them to the Muslim population and then the other foreign communities in the country. This is particularly attractive to the Muslim population because they have a much higher dependence on welfare than the white British population,, uh because in their community it's just it's not dishonorable to be on welfare. It's actually strange and dishonorable to not take resources that are available. Uh it doesn't matter how you're getting them from the state, because they just don't share the same moral connection between the country, the government, and uh the Protestant morality that sees it as being a shameful thing. So to them, it it doesn't make sense why you would n't extract as much money from the government as you can. And of course the Greens, as you say, they're doing it out of a raw hatred of their own country. The communists hate our country for not being a communist country and wish to miserate us as much as possible in order to bring the revolution about. So it's it's a genuinely malicio us uh uh I mean it's hard to imagine how else you could describe it other than being a malicious attempt to damage the country itself and steal money from the native population for a foreign population who's been transplanted here against our will. And yet that's what's happening. And it I I don't even I don't even really blame the Muslim community for voting for the Greens and Gordon and Denton. I don't I don't even blame them. I mean, this is what they've been promised by the progressive governments, by the Labour Party, by the Conservative Party, and even with reform . And it's the Greens that are actually delivering on this for them. The greens are the ones who are actually going to say, no, we're going to get you what you've been promised. So I don't even blame them for acting this way. I think the blame in this way kind of lies with us for allowing this state of affairs to come about. Obviously, if you stand in the street with your wallet open, people will come and take money out of it. Don't stand in the street with your wallet open. Otherwise, people will take money out of it. Um, it it it really it really doesn't need that much thought. But it it is it is a a a troubling sign of things to come. And I like I said before, I think this is one of the reasons why Restore Britain is rising so strongly. Uh it is uh it is an unashamedly nativist party that intends to put the interests of the native people before the foreign people. And I think that that is the only way out of the mess that we found ourselves in. Because if you think about if if you if you had the interests of the native people at heart, if you actually were concerned about the quality and state of your country, but for some reason you were convinced that immigration was necessary, well you wouldn't have a free hand on immigration. You would say to an immigrant, look, we're going to allow you to live here, but you're going to live in this place for at least this amount of time. You are going to take part in these traditions. In fact, you're going to take a local woman as your wife or husband. If you want to live here, that's what integration is. It means you give up your previous habits, your previous culture, and you have to live like us. You have to marry into the tribe. And if you don't do that, well, obviously, why would you not? Like why why would if you were a foreigner you go to another country and they say, Oh just do as you please. Oh no we're not going to make you learn our language. We're not going to make you intermarry. We're not going to make you follow our culture and customs. Well you're just going to follow your own because that's what you know. That's normal. That's natural. And if there are other people there like you, you're just going to go and live with them because it's normal and natural and conformable to your everyday habits. It's what you understand. And so we've allowed these ethnic enclaves to spring up in with with millions of people in them because we've had no concern about integration. We've actually not taken immigration seriously. And I think that if we'd taken immigration seriously from the start , we wouldn't be having any of these problems. But since we didn't, we have these problems. And since we have these problems, unfortunately, they require a very serious party to deal with them. Carl, you've um ex pressed uh a deep appreciation for Christianity as um, if you like, foundational in Britain's heritage . It's a pretty secular country now. Open scorn really from many quarters uh for Christianity, although we do hear stories about revival . How do you see the price that Britain has paid for the desertion of , if you like, the sort of worldview that was common once around the idea that every individual matters, each individual's flawed, bears a stamp of dignity , but as Pascal had it, you know, at once the glory and the scum of the universe. So we therefore we're so bad we had to give ourselves a vote. We're so good we had to give ourselves a vote. We develop the common law. If we've lost even an under standing of those cultural roots, how can we hope to restore what we've had Well I'll I'll take the the I'll I'll answer the latter half of that question first. Um I think the only proper restoration here will be through the education of future generations, uh, which is why I've taken it so seriously with my own children. Um for myself, I'm a child of modernity. I was I grew up in the materialistic decadent West uh in the eighties and nineties, and I you know, my parents were just completely unremarkable. They weren't political. They were just normal parents. And so I just got on with my life as I as I chose and as the culture kind of indicated and dictated was appropriate . And so I have found myself not uh I found myself as an atheist only because of a lack of interaction with religion, really. And I I don't even feel a longing in my heart for religion. I I just don't I don't need religion to make sense of myself or the world. And I think it's because I was raised without it. Because my my parents were baby boomers and they they've w I had this conversation with my mum and dad and it's the only time where I mean my mum and dad are very conservative people, um, but not in a sort of um prejudicial sort of unthink ing way, but just in what they believe is right and wrong, but they were still baby boomers. And so they they are atheists, but they had the experience of going to church when they were young because their parents, of course, were not atheists and made them go to church. Um, and so one one thing this this really struck home with me. Um, my wife is a Christian. Um, I don't know if she's always been a Christian, but she's definitely finding herself drawn s more much more towards it. And so for example, I have to go to church on Sundays, uh, which is is nice, honestly. I I like I like doing it. Even if like I don't necessarily believe or endorse the metaphysics or the the stories I don't as an as a as an atheist I don't necessarily believe the literal truth of the stories there's no denying the moral truth of the stories and there's no denying the histor ical impact that this had on my country and yours as well . So but uh the the the the real breakage of the culture, the culture of being Christian, really hit home to me when my wife insisted on getting my children baptized, which was fine with obviously. And I was at the baptism of my oldest, and I noticed that my dad was having a really good time in the church. My my dad was singing these hymns with his full chest, and I didn't even know the words. I'd never heard this hymn before because I had never been forced to go to church. And I realized that this was actually a deeply nostalgic thing for my dad. Right. He had been forced to go to church as kid. My mum was singing away as well, and she's even less into religion than he is. Um , but they're like I said, they're both atheists. And my dad was just having a great time singing these songs, and my mum was as well. And I was suddenly a bit jealous. I didn't have nostalgic feelings for being in church. Uh, because they didn't make me go to church when I was a kid. So I don't know these songs. I I just I felt like an alien. I felt like an outsider. Um and it it occurred to me that even though they didn't believe they had accidentally deprived me of something, that they they didn't you know n they didn't think they were being negligent or malevolent or anything like that. I have wonderful parents, absolutely wonderful parents. And I think this is something just the boomer generation tended towards, which was abandoning the im peratives of religion as a community-building function, which is what my dad was enjoying so much at the um christening of my children . And I and this is why when my wife, uh , six months, a year ago, something like that, she was like, Do we need to start going to church? And I was like, probably . Because I think my children are still young enough that forcing them to go to church now, when they're older, even if they're not religious, and I think my older son is religious. Uh he and I think it's because he's in a world of religions. Uh he's got Hindus and Muslims and whoever else around him at school and he doesn't know where he fits into that schema. And a while ago I had a conversation with him. He said, Dad, am I a Christian? I said yes . But um Well I I I am I am in a way disappointed that I don't have the nostalgia for it. I d I don't think I can get it. Thank you for your honesty in that. I say that because I think in many ways it is a central issue for all of us. What will we ultimately choose to believe? Where we will where will we draw our hope? I am Christian and I'm motivated in terms of my continuing involvement in public life to urge people to at least stop and consider the price we may be paying for the desertion of faith. I saw an American clip and I can't attribute it properly at the moment where uh uh a a well-dressed man was saying one of the great problems with no one going to church anymore is that we're not reminded that the dividing line between good and bad isn't between one group of human beings and another. It's actually somewhere within every individual. Nothing new about that saving. Except to say that he was highlighting that if you're reminded on a weekly basis that you're not perfect and that you need to forgive because you've done things that are inappropriate or not done things that were appropriate. That's very powerful. It's a great equalizer. It helps you see others as human when you recognize that somehow or other you're not quite the person, as Jordan Peterson might point out, that you think you are . So anyway, enough philosophizing from me. Well I I I no no I I'd I'd like to pick up on that because I think that is important and that is why the West is different to non Christian civilizations. It's one of those one of those things that we don't think carefully about, but also it's one of those things that we don't realize is parochial to us. The this is not a shared worldview. Um there are very few civilizations on Earth that have the same opinion as us , as a Christian heritage civilization, in that. And immigration has brought that home to us very, very sharply in Britain. Very sharply. Um with great pain and atrocities that have happened here. I don't know whether you you saw Rupert Lowe's rape gang inquiry. Oh yes. Yes, yes. Yeah. Islamic rape gangs which would groom and rape and pimp uh teenage girls, English girls, um, within the Muslim community. And it's harrowing the stories that come out of it. The way these girls is it's it's essentially sex slavery is what it is. Um and this is alien to our experience and the government covered it up and persecuted people and the culture persecutes people who try to speak openly and honestly about it because it's a it's a parochial feature of this community. And we struggle to understand that. And there are there are so many examples. Um and it what really hit this home to me was I was reading I think it was the Baroness Warsey report on this uh in 2012 or 2020 2017 maybe something like that. I can't remember when it came out. Um but it there was one story of um uh a Muslim who had groomed and essentially captured a girl and taken her to his flat to rape her, and then he'd phone up his friends and brothers and cousins and they'd come around and rape her too. And I was just reading this thinking there's not one person on earth I could call if to to to come and do the same thing if I'd done this. Like there's just not one person. And it's because we we just as a culture have a very different view of dignity than other cultures. We just don't think in the same way that they do. And that licenses all sorts of behaviors on their part that we would think are abominable. And this and but but with us, with our view that each human being has a level of dignity that we are indebted to respect , we project that onto cultures that don't believe that. And we assume that somewhere in their heart of hearts, they do, and it's not true. It's just not true. We don't think that. And so what we think of as a universal morality is actually not univers ally held. So we might apply it to others universally, and that's to our credit, but we can never expect it applied back to us because they don't hold that. And that makes questions of political power all the more concerning and pressing. Um , we we have to be aware that our view of morality as universal is our view and not held out by everyone. And that's something that's very difficult for Westerners to accept actually. Um it's it's it's been a long time for Westerners to uh and then and you'll notice that every leftist has got some sort of excuse. Oh it was socioeconomic conditions that did this. It's like, no no no, no,,. This is this is a metaphysical view of the world, the universe, that has given license to them to do terrible things and not think of themselves as intrinsically immoral. So it's it's a it's a tough thing to deal with. But a very important one. You're right to highlight it. I mean I remember not so long ago having a really quite heated argument with a young man who wanted to consult doctor Google on the matter, which I thought was quite immature, he was insisting that it is a univers al belief in all the world's major religions that every individual matters. That is simply not true. You can't say that of Hinduism with three hundred million untouchables who are not fully recognized as part of the human family. You can't say that of Islam where a woman's word in court is worth a half of a man's and where they can't inherit full property rights and so on. The idea that all souls, if you like, are equal in the eyes of heaven is uniquely Christian and it lies, I believe, as the foundation stone of Western democracy, freedom, and I would say prosperity . I I think it says something profound about the human condition that we cringe and we shy away from it. Because it is to say that we are unable to open our minds, at least and that perhaps we actually find goodness somehow unappealing, even repulsive. Think um I think the the problem lies in the implication that comes from it. Um because we are in such a hyper liber al uh time . We consider discern ment to be a form of hatred and to be prejudicial in and of itself, even though it would prevent real pain and suffering if we were to exercise it. And I mean, as you as you have just stated there, I mean how how can you have a population of 300 million untouchables and say that every human life carries the same dignity. I mean, the Islamic view of the kaffar is well completely the opposite of what is claimed, that every religion holds the equal dignity and worth of human life. It's just is as you say, it's just not true. And if we were in a more traditional time, if we went back a couple of hundred years , it would be accepted that that's the case and it would be accepted that we would need to enforce boundaries and borders. There's the famous oh, what was the name of the chap in India where he was talking about the Indian custom of widow burning and uh the the man the Indian man was arguing well the the Indians were arguing well we should burn our widows and uh the British administrator said that's it was a client is it? Yeah, well,, no no, alive. The widow burn the widows alive. Oh yeah, burn the widow. Yeah, yeah, of course they burn the widows alive after the death of the men. Um and uh the the the the colonial administrator said we will follow our own traditions, which is to hang whoever does that.. Yeah Because it's murder. Cruel murder. Yeah, but it's murder. And and so we we have to have the strength in us to know right from wrong and enforce it. And this is this is the difficulty is to be discerning in this and say, no, we are right and we are going to impose an order. Uh, we have to impose an order. Because otherwise, I mean we can see what happens if we don't. We can see it . Um I know only too well my own limitations and failings. Um but I would make this observation . The influence of my own personal belief on my own behaviour . At times I wanted to, if you like, defy it, but I recall two instances uh when I was well one incident, one principle. When I had many years in public life. One was when I was literally attacked by a v extremely angry, I mean uh out of control angry anger uh um um uh dark man in Australia who under the influence of alcohol loaded with hatred and I remember having to pull myself back and say do not react in the end, a higher authority says he matters as much as I do , and it's not for me to meet kind with kind . Not my natural instinct. You want to strike out. But that restraining impact, that uh that that pullback that says, no, actually, it's not appropriate to repay hate with hate. The other thing that I found useful, and always have is that I take from my faith that I'll actually find more satisfaction out of talking about my responsibilities and my duties than my rights. I find no satisfaction in trying to proclaim my rights because it inevitably implies that somebody else needs to step aside for me. We don't talk enough about love and cooperation and duty and community mindedness You're completely correct. I mean what one one one thing that we assume the sort of Western European population assumes. And I think this is an uncomfortable fact that I think is becoming evident, is that once we gave up the reins of collective power that the other peoples of the world would shrug and say, okay, fine, we're we're all equals now. And they would accept that on the face of it and there would be no bad blood uh that was carried forward afterwards. And I think actually that's not been correct. I think that's an assumption that wasn't borne out. Um I think that the there there are other peoples who didn't join us in the end of history as merely atomized individuals and still carry that spirited part of themselves that has the connected connection to the collective national feeling that feels in some way humiliated by European accomplishments, success and conquests. And I' Im'm not even saying they're wrong to feel that way. I'm not even saying they're wrong to feel that way. Um in fact it could be that we were very naive to think that they wouldn't feel that way. And maybe what we were asking of them was actually in some way cruel to suggest that they should give that up . But I think that um it's a very difficult thing to admit because I mean part of the the rape gang inquiry, uh one of the things that's revealed is is the l level of racial resentment against in particular white girls, actually. Um I d I don't properly know how to describe it and I'm I'm desperately trying to be even handed about it . But there's there's um there's in I think in their mind a kind of hierarchy that they are attacking when they do these things. And I think they think they're humiliating what they think of as the white race when they do these things. And I think that the average Westerner just doesn't understand what the the non-European populations feel and think. I'm not saying all of them, but a segment of them. And it actually does explain why some of them act in the ways that they act . And I don't I don't know how to resolve it or anything like that. I haven't got an answer for any of it. But it's a real thing that I think we've just been willful ly blind to. Carl, you've been generous with your time and very honest . Uh I acknowledge that you have an enormous reach. And I'm glad for it. There must be many people who are encouraged to think things through carefully and to look for a better way because of your influence, if I can be the expression you might use in Britain is cheesy, but you've given us a great deal to think about. I can't thank you enough. Well thank you. It's been a pleasure. It's been a wonderful conversation. Well, I've enjoyed it greatly too, and I hope our listeners do.