Woke is Back and It's Worse Than Before

Hello everybody and welcome to a very special new show that we are doing rounding up the news of the week joining me of course as Francis Foster but also a very good friend of the show Winston Marshall of the Winston Marshall show and editor of Spike Thompson later great to have you guys looking forward to having this chat with everybody. We've got three stories that we're going to focus on this week. We've got Jason Ardy and the fallout from his tragic taking over his own life. We'll talk about the debate about illegal immigration particularly there's the conversation. The Home Office is very helpful. He put our leaflet saying it's wrong to it's illegal in fact to rape. I don't know if you guys were aware of that. Also benefits for foreign nationals will talk about that and finally has the right particularly in the US gone for retard. We'll talk about the Candace Owens the great debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson. All of that coming up very shortly but first of all let's start with Jason Ardy. This was a Cambridge academic clearly a fantasist made all sorts of claims he was a top level marathon runner. He didn't speak until it was 11 didn't read until it was 18 but went to Cambridge became a PhD. And when all of this stuff was revealed he got a lot of media attention let's put it that way in fact he had a lot of media attention before this but now the media attention turn negative and he tragically showed his media attention indeed and he tragically took his own life and now apparently the media killed them Tom you've obviously covered the stories of are you responsible. Well, apparently so I mean I woke up on the day after to find out that I was actually guilty of murder and there's been lists doing the rounds on social media as anyone seen this because there's nothing sinister is there about doing a list of journalists you dislike and they're actually calling for embarrassing professional or personal information about us in order to give us a taste of our own medicine yet I found the meltdown after Jason Ardy's tragic death to be almost much more revealing and disturbing than the whole Jason Ardy scandal. In general, like people will be aware of the amount of lies that he told the plagiarism accusations a lot of questions were asked about how the hell did someone like this end up at Cambridge University why did no one notice that all of these wild claims about kind of herculian athletic achievements as well as you know remarkably a remarkable kind of string of personal crises which wouldn't really have passed the sniff test but what's happened since is first of all the idea that just reporting on or criticizing public figures is like tantamount of driving them up to the bridge and pushing them off which I think is really really disgusting and also just a complete rewriting of history I went to that visual in Trafalgar Square on Monday night and it's as if these people even haven't been paying attention or just doubling down on this kind of myth of Saint Jason in order to bash the press so it's we we like to think that we escaped like peak BLM a few years ago peak woke a few years ago but it's back with an absolute vengeance now and they've chosen as their champion again a man who story ended in very tragic fashion but isn't hardly the sort of unimpeachable victim of a racist press that he's been made out to be Winston oh how many people I mean these claims with 30,000 are to be frank complete rubbish I mean everyone knows that there is a kind of inflation of numbers at every demonstration every organizer does it regrettably I think someone pointed out that you couldn't even fit 30,000 in the entirety of Trafalgar Square and we were just up on the area just outside the steps of the national gallery I in my very unscientific kind of method for maybe that we're in the low thousands there I'm not 100% sure but it wasn't 30,000 that much I can't tell you for some I think the official capacity for Trafalgar Square is 10,000 and you can't fit more than 10,000 people in that space yeah yeah so the state stand up for racism all these people on the already side of the argument to claim in there 30,000 is absolutely ludicrous and kind of fitting in this whole story I covered the show I had Nathan Coffnass who was the former Cambridge fellow who revealed the story on Substack actually there's people who's revealed this story about our day as early as when he started at Cambridge and I went to Simon Webb here who's a youtuber who goes under the name history debunked so this has been covered for some time and there have been journalists like at the Times Jack Grove and there's a professor at Plymouth University who is also covering this for a called Dr David Harris and before we sort of you know this story is crazy because it's sort of it's pulled down a whole infrastructure not just Cambridge but individuals like Simon Baron Coffn like Navarra Media and we're going to get into that but I think it's just worth pointing exactly what the tragedy is and because you mentioned tragedy constant this is a man who spent his entire life lying and his lies caught up with him he was a career con man he was a fraudster now I don't take any joy in saying that we will fall short of the glory of God I don't purport to be without sin the real villainous thing though the thing which I think is actually an evil thing was what happened at the end it's not just that he committed suicide is that rather than face the consequences of a lifetime of lying and fraud fraud which by the way he might have had legal pushback against you know I don't know and we can't tell now but I think technically some of the stuff he's done is illegal and he could have faced consequences there but instead of doing that he decided to abandon his children and so now there are two children who are going to be fatherless and that for me is a terrible thing and that's the real tragedy for these two children and that's where my personal sympathies and empathy lies and that's the core of this story which has now become a saga, a saga so much that even yesterday Nathan Coffness who has moved from Cambridge to Ghent University was then suspended at Ghent University not just by anyone though by a trans gynecologist professor and rector who was formally called Dave DeSutter and is now Petra DeSutter and was also a member of the Green Party in Belgium so it's just the most absurd story at Saga that never seems to end I mean by the time this episode goes out I'm sure there'll be new developments Francis? So I think one of the things that's really actually interesting about this case and one of the things that people don't discuss about enough is that a lot of people on the left of people who approach Aeson Arde will make the claim that it was exposed by a racist professor Nathan Coffness or a racist academic and we can talk about that where the Nathan is or isn't later on but what's really interesting is well the mainstream media wanted to expose this yet they had to prefer a literal knock on the door from the police effectively silencing them and by the way this isn't not that it would matter in the slightest this isn't the daily express that we're talking about this isn't even the daily mail this isn't really the times this is the times educational supplement and everyone can drink now as somebody who used to be a teacher and actually used to read the times education of Constance Miley you've got to leave it to the brand Tom but you know as somebody used to read the times educational supplement we came week out pretty much covered to cover is not exactly the most right wing of publications and this is a very very powerful example that if you can silence the press what you ultimately cannot do is silence the truth because eventually the truth will get out and if it's not going to be legitimate sources quote on quote then it's going to be somebody speaking about these sources that you do not like ultimately the truth about Jason Arda who also he wasn't just a professor he had a professorial chair possibly the highest achievement in academia that is the role and that is a position that that man had and when you are on at that level and you do not deserve to be at that level and you are a fabulous it will come out and unfortunately it came out in the manner that it did but it wouldn't have happened in this way if we hadn't have silenced the press last year and in the years before that I think the real reason it wouldn't have happened is if this guy you know people say he's a vulnerable guy and I there's no way for us externally to judge that perhaps he was perhaps he wasn't if he wasn't promoted way beyond his remit way beyond his station and if we didn't live in the world in which people are given things by virtue of the skin color they have the various abilities of disabilities and so on and putting him in that position seems to me set him up for this not least because I was Stephen Edgerton who we've had on the show who everybody will be aware of he wrote a great article detailing how for six years the mainstream media pushed Jason Adi into this position into the position of being this media star like if he'd just been an obscure Cambridge academic who thanks to DEI got pushed into a position where he taught apparently very badly and people didn't feel that they were getting their money as well okay no one would really give a shit right but the problem is once you elevate this person into question time appearances into appearance on all sorts of media platforms into being held up as this great bass I mean this is a great clip we went on going to play it today, but of Jason Ardy talking to James O'Brien, which he absolutely does O'Brien like a kipper and just tells him how amazing O'Brien is and how brilliant he is and how wonderful he is and O'Brien is sitting there, and I think he says that it's great that it's the end of the episode because otherwise I'd be crying. So he went around getting all these opportunities, and then people go, "Why is he got so much media scrutiny?" Oh, to be honest with you, I think Winston, myself, and actually all of us have been on the end of media scrutiny, and it's not necessarily super pleasant when people are saying things about you invariably when you are in the limelight in this way, a lot of the things people say about you are not accurate and not entirely fair. That just tends to be what happens, but if there's substantial basis for the claims that people are making, that's sort of the thing that really matters. And the one other thing I wanted to add is, as well, it seems to me like one thing that has happened since his taking of his own life is we've actually built an incentive structure which encourages people in that situation to do what he did. That's what I see here because if you're someone who is caught out doing something in public that you shouldn't be doing, and you get a lot of negative media attention, then you have this now, apparently, this one trump card, where people who've been covering your story, fairly fair, accurately and fairly, will then come out and say, "Oh my God, I was so wrong." And we actually have a clip of Aaron Bastani, who, you know, we respect that he's been on our show many times, and the viral media, and there was someone else from the viral media as well, who did this mayor culpa struggle session, and it's just worth seeing what this incentive structure creates in the reaction of the media. I wish I could ask Jason for his forgiveness, for what I said, but I can't. What I can do is ask for the forgiveness of his friends, colleagues and family. Now, they might not want to forgive me, that's their right, that's the point. Forgiveness is theirs to give, not mine to take, it's about them, not me, professionally I erred, but ethically, and that's what I really care about. I really screwed up. I can't make amends, obviously, but I'm going to reflect on my behaviour in all of this and how I can use my energies more productively. More productively to cover those issues are audience really care about those stories that really matter, and on how I can make a difference for the better, not the worse. It's interesting, I do wonder if, say, a story about a right-wing academic, say Nathan Coffness, for example, if Nathan Coffness was involved in plagiarism and fabrication of claims, etc. Would that be a story of interest to Navarra viewers and would Aaron have that same reaction, do you think Tom? No, not at all. Also, it's worth pointing out that despite the fact that we've seen these kind of hostage video style apologies, I mean, all Aaron Blessing was missing there was a copy of today's newspaper and a reassurance that he was being treated properly by his counsellors. And I like Aaron, he's a smart guy, and there's also someone who's kind of reliably interesting on the list, which is quite a rare thing if we're being honest these days. But not only is that kind of spectacle so pathetic, it's also so out of whack with what it is supposedly actually did. Navarra didn't cover that story particularly extensively. I mean, Aaron there if I'm right in saying, is apologising for one tweet that he posted in which he referred to Arda as a con man, which, to be honest, is more or less an accurate description. One of the things about all of this, which is really concerning to me is that there's often kind of spasms of anger with the press, there's some kind of scandal, there's some kind of horrific tragedy, press intrusion might be brought up, the occasions on which the press will just not tell the truth. This is, you know, hardly new. What's happening now is that the press are being accused of murder, demonised, smear, foretelling the truth for doing their jobs, for doing what Cambridge and Simon and Schuster and all the other kind of elite institutions that Arda had any contact with should have done, which is to do a basic sniff test to look into the claims about his life and his academic record that he had been making. And that's what makes it so, so sinister, I think. I mean, you've got activists saying that there was misinformation posted about Jason Arda, there wasn't, there was just information which has put out there. And it's often being presented as if this was kind of scandal mungering, like they were just rumours about Jason Arda and that the press with no thought to his state of mind were just circulating it. If you look at just the reporting that went into Jack Groves times higher education piece, he put together a 97 page dossier, he had academic experts pour over it, he had people run it through software, all the kind of different steps. This was a really overwhelming case and I think, bless him, but at Navarra Media, I don't know what's going on there other than is this audience capture or is this just being caught up in the middle of one of these sort of moral panics, basically, that we find ourselves in. But I should be maybe just stealing the same position, some of the details are different. To maybe just steal man their position, you know, if you feel that you've contributed to someone taking their own life and you genuinely feel responsibility, I mean, there is this kind of slightly moronic, in my opinion, view online, which is like never apologize. Well, no, if you've done something wrong, definitely apologize because it's a decent thing to do. But the problem that I see is, like you say, I don't think Aaron or Navarra Media did anything wrong. Aaron did talk about this story, but he was right to talk about the story, so to then apologize, this is what I mean by saying you're giving people a Trump card by encouraging them to effectively take their own life in a situation where they're making it fast. Because I think that's a really important point because we are presenting the taking of one's own life, almost as a rational response to public criticism. Yeah. That's a really dangerous road to go down really, it's naturally going to chill the press as well. Are we saying that you can't go after a politician or a prominent person in public life, public intellectual because of what might happen? I mean, that's a really like chilling precedent to say, I don't know why I'm going to recognize it. Well, listen, you've had your fair of shit from media and online and all the rest of it. What do you think about this? And I've issued public apologies, and I've definitely got opinions on my I can speculate about what's happening behind the scenes in Navarra Media. I'd add to just on what Aaron Bistani seems to be apologizing for, which is as Tom rightly says, it's not necessarily even an opinion, but let's take for the sake of a of argument. It's an opinion that he had that Arde was a con man. Does that mean that Aaron Bistani is no longer going to publish operas? Is that it? A Navarra Media now only going to publish facts, no more opinion. I mean, fantastic. I mean, thrilled if that's the case, but I thought you were pro free speech mate. I'm pro free speech, but even Navarra Media tests my patients a little bit there, but it's put himself in a situation. I'm not sure how he can get out of it professionally. What point can he and can't he report on things? He's kind of created a trap for himself. It's going to be very curious to see how that plays out. And as for the apology, now I did issue an apology, and I, this is five years ago now, it's about, I tweeted about Andy Knows book, when I was telling Mumford and Sons, and I upset everyone around me, because they were of the mindset that this was sort of evil. And I was contrived, because I was like, maybe I don't know everything here. And I was sorry that the people around me had been hurt. Now, it might, of course, speculating here about Bistani, but it might be the case that a lot of people at Navarra Media are very hurt and upset, and they might not be reasonable that they're hurt and upset. They might be hurt and upset, but for completely the wrong reasons. He probably is their friend, and not only that, it'd be a component that the core fan based on Navarra Media won't be happy with the position that he took, because it seems to be that they are from, that it's, it's coming from the kind of far left. You know, these are openly socialist communist woke people. There's another curious thing about Navarra Media, which is that they spent the last six months repositioning themselves as against identity politics and against woke. But now they're doubling down, now they're going full woke, and because it's not just Bistani, the editor as well, was literally crying, giving an apology. So, Navarra Media, what they do next is extremely curious. Well, I think the thing that's really interesting about this as well is that whenever somebody dies and these types of circumstances, they get elevated and they no longer become a person anymore, they become a political symbol, not only they become a political symbol, but they saw the chief sainthood, which is how you talk about how people talk about Jason Arday, like he was this decent honorable man who was hounded to his death, he did nothing wrong, and then this is ultimately tragic, and all responsibility, no responsibility is at the hands of Jason Arday, because he is the saint, he did nothing wrong, and all of the responsibility is at the hands of the press, and the thing that's also really interesting about this is you see these apologies coming from Navarra Media, and the reason is because this shows that there is still a civil war happening at the left, in the left, where you to have the more rational. actors like Aaron and you have the hyper progressives the more radical and I thought that they look the more sane members of the left in the UK like people like Aaron was starting to gain some traction were maybe even starting to win that particular war but what we've seen with that abject capitulation at Navara is that the lunatics unfortunately are still very much running the asylum. Indeed. I think Tom made a great interesting point about what about Mike? Yes, it was a bit shit, mate. Tell us about Venezuela, go ahead. Tom's point about the example and Franky's point about the example of what are they or whose responsibility this is here. As a counter example, I was thinking of Jonathan Aiken who was a member of John Majors Cabinet who was convicted of perjury and he was sentenced to 18 months. I think I'm not sure exactly how much of that he served but he certainly went to prison and came out of there. I think he then became a vicar, a prison wrector or something like that. Anyway that's the sort of redemption. I believe in redemption and I also believe there was possibility full redemption for our day and to do that he should have apologized because he was the one who did the wrong thing. I mean I've counted well in 60 plus occasions of unverifiable or verifiable lies that he said so they're absolutely outrageous. There was a way out for him who was it who was around him saying you know stick in there you did nothing wrong the press or evil no they should have said sorry you've actually screwed I love you mate you've screwed up here you shouldn't have lied there's a way out though you can apologize and actually that would have been a great story and unfortunately what's going to happen instead is he's going to be held as some sort of martyr for the left you can say them at the vigil what were they saying they were saying rest in power and they've lynched him. I mean people on stage DEI grandma Diane Abbott was saying stuff like you know he's been is a racial murder or whatever no they're making him to evict him and there was another redemption a an actual Christian redemption's way out of this that could have been the example for society would have been so healing it would have been great. Yeah I think that's a really important point perhaps to wrap the segment up on which is suicide is a temporary permanent solution to a temporary problem and the answer in the situation where you find yourself under fair scrutiny for something you've done or a series of things you've done. There's always another way and that way is to admit for apologize and by the way Francis and I were joking about it you know before this tragic end to the story his book if he'd wrote a book after all of this whatever the book was about would have sold millions of copies you know it like your life isn't over just because you're being criticized in the media and I think that's a really important thing to say is like there's always a better way and taking your own life is just never the right answer and you know if you aren't in that situation for whatever reason ask for help talk to people don't just sit there bottle it up and and then do the thing that he did. In summary though I think it's interesting because as we've discussed it feels like the the woke movement really peed it out and like Francis was saying he did make a good point as begrudgingly I will admit which was about the fact that actually it felt like the bastani's of the left were winning over and I read up Aaron bastani tweets most of the time I was a solid point you know it's a very reasonable logical point he's made there but we are now back to where we were in the summer of 2020 not scale wise but in terms of the framework which is you've basically got a black person who's done wrong who is a saint and now we talked about Nathan Coffinus the person who was one of the people who exposed this who is now being fired and hounded by the very same people let's say hounding somebody is wrong and that seems to me like we've actually gone full circle and we're back where we started but anyway let's move on by the way if you know let's not move on Winston would like to say something else sorry I think we should actually just focus on Nathan Coffinus because sure what's happening to him now is actually a big deal so he's been suspended and there's significant questions about him and the thing that was most curious to me was J.K. Rowling coming out and saying no he's a racist now I had Nathan on the show I really drilled into this he calls himself a race realist which is which should be interesting to ask you guys whether you think race realism is racist and J.K. Rowling certainly thinks it is but she hasn't explained why she thinks it is what it is and it does curious from J.K. Rowling because she's a gender realist right so gender and race are not the same thing you can't change gender you can't change your chromosomes race obviously can't change race but over several generations you would races are diluted whereas you can't dilute out of your sex right so they're not the same thing but it's it's fair to say that there are differences in different races and most famous of all proponents of this is Charles Murray and his famous book The Bell Curve and it's also the case that politicians most famously Lee Kuan Yew have referred to this in making policy and in with the case the Singapore it was relevant to treating malaise differently because they had different results compared to other ethnic groups like the Chinese and so he was right we need to invest more in education for the malaise and so that's basically what Kaufness's point of view is now having interviewed him and you can watch my interview of him you can tell me if you think he's racist I didn't think he was going into the interview I was had generally been of the opinion that race realism isn't probably technically racist but most of the people who engage in it seem to be a bit ekky to me so my sort of feeling was just a topic I'm not really interested in I don't see the point in why curiously Kaufness was actually arguing where he thinks affirmative action or you might call it sort of positive discrimination or as the woke call it DEI might actually be preferable because there are different outcomes for different groups because of differences in IQ differences in various things and whether it's genetic whether it's cultural there's there's multi-variant anyway I wanted to ask you whether you think race realism is racist and that's a question over to you Tom I will make it for you because I know we do want to move on I like you Winston whenever you see someone particularly preoccupied with this topic the red flags go up to a certain degree it's not something that I put loads of thoughts or reading into I've been pretty kind of persuaded by a lot of the criticisms of that perspective people like Wilford Riley I know you've had them on the show guys as well as he writes for spite has talked about how much this is actually just sort of cultural which is then transposed onto this idea of race and people make this like neat comparison between those of us who are kind of trans get to why aren't you interested in this race and IQ stuff I think they are quite fundamentally different things for the reason that you say I mean gender isn't a spectrum races one example but there's so sometimes the very least I'll say that I remain to be convinced by those kinds of people I do sometimes wonder about their motives although I wouldn't speak to Nathan Coffinus particularly I'm not sat down with him will not read his work in any detail one thing I will say is that having been at that vigil he was the only one who's being named from the platform over and over again so I'm not surprised at all that is face these professional ramifications I think they could easily also be kind of personal security ramifications as well he has become the kind of central villain of this story even though it's also the press in general being dragged into it so if I were him I would be pretty concerned at this moment. So Nathan engaged with me over my fandom of Thomas Sol and he disputes a lot of the claim that Thomas Sol makes about the importance of IQ and the hereditary nature of IQ I've read a lot of the stuff that he's written I my understanding is it's a fairly contested area of scientific research so Nathan represents a world view within that and you're right to say I think that people who like to talk about this stuff are invariably dodgy but there are exceptions on actually suspect Nathan is he strikes me as a sort of asperger you know just obsessed about the black and white truth of the matter type of thing and somebody can be interested in the truth to the point where it's kind of digital autistic people tend to get very often into this position where this is actually one of the ironies of the case because he's actually more autistic than are they yeah and he's getting I have to say it's well it's an interesting conversation and we can talk about it it's not my impression that Nathan is racist and I think the answer to is race realism racist is not necessarily but often is adopted by racist people and there are you know measurable differences in IQ but we don't necessarily fully understand what they're down to Nathan would argue it's overwhelmingly hereditary other people would point to you know Jews arriving in in America having very low IQs and within a generation or two having pretty above average IQs again Nathan will have his own explanation for that but to me I actually think we're playing the woke game here which is we're saying well if you're criticizing Jason Adi it's it really matters what your views are no what matters is was Jason are they a fantasist or was he not was he lying or was he not that's what matters here and if it turns out Now the Nathan Coffness told the racers joke in a pub 33 years ago or whatever, then that doesn't really matter and it's not relevant to this discussion is my view. I disagree. It's absolutely the case that when it comes to the story of Arda, that stands on its own two feet and should be deliberated and thought out and understood in its own two feet. But there are many offshoots to this story which are themselves important stories and the treatment of Nathan is an important one and I don't particularly want to do episodes on race realism. But it's a side story that's now being talked about because of this and it's important to understand why the left of villainizing him. There's other sides of this story. For example Simon Barron Cohen, you've had him on the show Cambridge University, friend of Jason Arda, he was also the director of the autism institute or whatever it is called at Cambridge. He was defending Arda fiercely. Now it seems to me that that itself is a story, right, because Simon Barron Cohen should know that Arda was not telling the truth. He's indefensible and not only that, it seems almost certainly the case that Arda didn't have autism. At no point a Simon Barron Cohen said and his very BBC interviews I've heard that he himself diagnosed Arda. It seemed that it was on his CV or self diagnosed, but he's laying down his reputation at the feet of Jason Arda. It's done. Unbelievable damage to him. It's gone away from your point of disagreement with me here though. My point was they're going to attack Nathan Coffness no matter what because they can attack him to blame him and others for covering the story instead of blaming themselves for elevating Jason Arda to his position. Let's move on though because I don't think this is super important to carry on. More importantly, we're all men here and I don't know if you know, but Rape in Britain is illegal. This is a leaflet. Yeah, it is. Or Francis looks very surprised, man. Your teacher is coming into a whole new light here with that revelation. No guilty on all charges. Thank you. Not guilty. It's not the same as innocent, but anyway. So I don't know if you know this, but it's illegal in the UK also mutilating the genitals of children apparently is as well. This is a leaflet that we can probably throw it up on the screen. It's been issued to asylum seekers in the UK, which has understanding behaviors and expectations for asylum seekers and some of the guidance is stuff like you probably shouldn't rate people. And this is absolutely fascinating because we have for a very long time, of course, been told that there is absolutely no reason to suggest that people coming here from other countries, which basically I think this fair to say treat women as sort of a second-class cattle. They may have a slightly different attitude to sexual behavior and in fact some of the crime statistics, of course, do bear that out. But what this leaflet is showing is while they are telling us the diversity is our greatest strength and no human is illegal and all the rest of it, they actually know that there's a problem. And they always did. I think that's so clear for why it's probably tempting to think that they were just blind to this, that when they rebuffed the suggestion that if you imported thousands upon thousands upon thousands, men from a country like Afghanistan, entrenched cult from misogyny, rampant sexual violence, all those issues were just like melt away as soon as they stepped foot on the white fifths of Dova, it was tempting to think they were just like really naive. This proves that they knew all along and they just let it happen anyway. And it's a grim kind of progress that we witnessed over the course of the past 24 hours, because after years and years of whenever you would raise these concerns, whenever victims would raise these concerns, you would have like an establishment which would just say shut up, that's not true, this is misinformation, you're being racist. Now, I think because we've had this steady drumbeat of stories in the press, there was one just this week of two Afghans who raped a woman at knife point in a park when she was on a first date with someone absolutely horrific story. Now they can't really get away with that. So the answer is okay, okay, I hear what you're saying, let me have a word with them. That seems to be the kind of plan here, like the idea that you could just even producing this leaflet, doing the graphics for it, coming up with these nifty little one-liners, did no one in the room think we could just not let them in. We could just send them back, I don't want to sound simplistic, but surely that thought passed their mind at some point. So yeah, it's confirmed a lot of what we knew already, but bloody hell in what fashion. I think also, I mean, look, Kenny Badenock has spoken many times about talking right and governing left, which is effectively gaslighting, the conservative government over the period of 14 years gaslight in a nation of many things, but particularly when it comes to immigration, promising the immigration would be lowered. It wasn't lowered, not only was it not lowered, it increased, illegal immigration increased. Keir Starmer talking about smashing the gangs, the gangs weren't smashed, not only were the gangs not smashed, it looked like they were even more profitable than they have ever been. And this is just another example of government lying to us. And my concern is number one, these horrendous crimes are happening up and down the country. And the fact that this type of leaf would need to be produced, but there's something far deeper going on here, which is this is damaging our institutions and our trust in government. What is going to happen to our democracy when people go, you know what, what's the point in even voting, you're not going to do anything that you say you're going to do, all you're going to do is not do the thing, and even worse going to lie to us. And as a result of your lies and your actions, innocent people are going to be hurt and have had the most heinous crimes inflicted upon them. So why should I vote for you? And then once that happens, which we're pretty much really close to, we're in a very, very, very dangerous place societally and it's terrifying. You know, when we decided to do the show, France has said, I'm going to be the comedic wall. So I'm just going to keep up my heart and do the banter. Thanks for that, mate. Winston, I have all the other thoughts. I was looking up some facts before about the propensity for crime amongst foreign nationals. Now foreign nationals about one in five in Britain, foreign nationals. They are sorry, they're about 10 to 15, sorry, 10 to 14 percent of the adult population. What's actually this is a side point, but amazingly difficult to get accurate numbers on foreign nationals in Britain. Like we actually don't know who's in our country. We don't know how many deliberately don't collect that data. Yeah, well, we don't know how many illegals there are. There's as little as a million as many as two million. But if we take the rough projections, foreign nationals account for 14 to 15 percent of known convictions of sexual offenses. They are account for 26 to 28 percent of convictions when it comes to sexual assault on a female and 21 to 22 percent of rape on a female age 16 or over. So way higher proportion convicted, let alone perpetrating and those who are not being convicted than the actual proportion of the population that they represent. But also it's more specific to some nations. I don't hear much about sort of German rapists, but we do hear a lot about Afghans. Was it Wayne Broadhurst, the guy in Uxbridge who was murdered by an Afghan? There was the rean and white, the woman who was murdered by a migrant and it's very specific countries they're coming from. You pay specific evidence on Afghan crime and this is from the MOJ. It's that they're 20 times higher than a bridge likely to commit sexual offense than a British national, 20 times higher. And in Germany, the rates are not as high as that, but 8 to 10 times higher than the date is better in Germany, so of Afghans recorded suspect rates of roughly 1700 to 2500 per 100,000 compared with 160 to 270 per 100,000 for German nationals. So 8 to 10 times, basically certain countries, there is a higher propensity for this kind of crime. And of course, they don't talk about that, the labor left, they can't talk about that. Instead they say, oh man, it's a problem with all men. But actually, no, specifically, it's much worse for these people from these certain specific cultures because not all cultures are equal, believe it or not. And we actually have a clip of Jess Phillips, the Labour politician talking about this in exactly the way you described. I understand that it's interesting, because it's to asylum seekers. We also run an enormous enough campaign teaching men in the country about how their behaviors could be perceived, whether that's stalking behaviours, harassment behaviours, harassment in public. That was to everybody in the country. We also have started a process of ensuring that boys and girls in schools undertake education around their expectations of happy, healthy relationships and actually the dangers of a lack of consent, for example. So this is just one example of a preventative measure. I understand people are interested because it's asylum seekers, at the exact same time, the home office ran a multi-million-pound scheme for men across the entirety of the country. What is this? Yeah, I don't get it. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, go ahead. Was that Jess Phillips is a repeat offender where this is concerned? Was that clip there? So we're going back in 2015, 2016 in the wake of those horrific sex attacks in Cologne committed by very recently arrived North African and Arab migrants, thousands upon thousands of cases. And she likened it to women getting cat-called, in Birmingham, of a Friday or a Saturday night. So this kind of pivot that always takes place. It's like the left's version of all lives matter, to a certain extent. You're trying to talk about something very specific and they have to generalise. They have to kind of shift the goalposts. They have to pretend that they're on specific problems with specific groups and specific cultures. When you see those signs up on the tube, saying if you press your genitals against a woman at rush hour, that's not okay. Who do we think that is for? It's not for the resistance. It's not for people who might have been of migratory background that have been here for a couple of generations. It's for people who are coming in from cultures, which again, in any other context, people would willingly admit, have backward reactionary attitudes towards women. I mean, the treatment of women in Afghanistan, for instance, is something that a few years ago you would be accustomed to reading a kind of panicked, amnesty, international press release about it because of the ingrade culture of misogyny, child marriage, forced marriage, the likelihood that if a woman is raped, she's more likely to be punished than the perpetrator, all of those kinds of things. It comes like dead last Georgetown University that are kind of table for women's equality of a hundred and something countries they looked at. It comes last for every conceivable measure of women's wellbeing. And yet again, the idea is that that will just disappear upon contact with terra firmer in the UK. And it's particularly strange because everyone remember about 10 years ago, there was this really frankly dumb conversation that was going on about rape culture in the UK. So it was this idea that Lads, Mags, Page 3, Dapper laughs were essentially creating a permissive attitude amongst British people but white working class Brits in particular towards sexual violence. And yet when you're confronted with something like Afghanistan, which I think is fair to say has a rape culture or a permissive attitude or certainly very backwards attitudes towards this particular issue, suddenly you get crickets. So in some case, I think it just shows the hypocrisy, but also shows the desperation that even when the stuff is staring them in the face, they have to pivot. You just think if they could just let this go, particularly the Labour Party would have so much more credibility, they wouldn't be hanging on to power in the way that they have been, but they can't let it go. And the psychology of why is really interesting to me. Well, yeah, it violates their sacred dogma, doesn't it, because what they will always want to do is a pretend that all cultures are the same. But even more importantly, when they invariably forced to admit that some cultures are different, they can't quite make the connection between a culture being different and the people who come from that culture being different. So we can admit that Afghanistan is a patriarchy because we hate patriarchy, but we can't admit that young men who come from a patriarchical society will tend to have sex as misogynistic and frankly rape attitudes to women. Some of them, that's not to say that all of them are like that, but in terms of the prevalence of those types of views and that type of behaviour, it's incredibly more incredibly obvious. And Winston was talking about the crime statistics of foreign nationals. I actually think it's really important to make the distinction that he then went on to make, because you will have lots and lots of places around the world from which people have come here. But I don't imagine the New Zealanders or like he said Germans or people from other societies that have similar attitudes to women's rights and so on are likely to massively ramp up sex offensives in the UK. But you do see that for people from certain regions of the world and it's not by accident, it's because the places from which they come have a different attitude to women. And if you are a woman who's ever travelled alone to those parts of the world, you will know this from your direct experience and it opens people's eyes when they do that in a very obvious way. Does another also look? No, I was just going to say like do this little thought experiment. Imagine those stats applied to white men. What do you think the Guardian headlines would be? I would guarantee they would run that story all day, every day, three times at breakfast time. But they simply can't do it. And do you know why? Is because anybody who talks, let's imagine Aaron Bostani decided to talk about that story openly and honestly on Navara Media. Aaron would have to release a video every day apologising. Because that's what happens in the left when you go against your own theme or one of their, you know, supposed mantras. You can't do it. Even when you tweet something as innocuous as saying Jason Arde was a con man. You can't do it. And if you do do it, you've got two options. You either apologise or you get kicked out by your own side. What's it going to be? And that's it. That's it. Let me let everybody on the left faces. Last word on this before we run. There's another logic fallacy or contradiction, which is that if all it's a problem for all men in Britain already, not just foreign nationals, then that implies that it is our culture to sexually abuse within. And so actually these people don't need a pamphlet because they are just the same as all the other men. So it's like not necessarily not necessary in the first place. Well, the other issue, of course, with immigration has been a big debate this week is finally, after many years, and I've been advocating for this obvious policy for years now, there is apparently a debate in the UK. I don't say why it's a debate. It's a myself evident thing that needs to be done about the fact that foreign nationals in Britain should not have access to the benefit system. And the reform party and also I think Restore have both been talking about this. I believe the Tories have now adopted it as well. So effectively, the entire centre centre right is now come to around to this position, which as I say, I think is eminently sensible. But there's now a debate. We're having a debate about people from whether people from other countries should get taxpayers money in the UK. And I'm just, I don't really, we seem to just, this is the thing that seems to happen in our country now every week where we just have some sort of moronic debate about something that is incredibly obvious. And I say this, I'm going to use my immigrant privilege here as someone who lived in this country as a foreign national for many years. It would never have occurred to me to even attempt to claim benefits, not least because the visa you get in your passport when you come here says no recourse to public funds. But apparently once you get on indefinitely to remain or once you get onto other forms of visas that you can have in this country, you now have access to the benefit system. You can live in social housing if you're an asylum seeker. We just pay for you to do whatever it is you need to do dental appointments and so on. How is this even a debate? No, it is, yeah, it's, it's when you talk to people. If you said, kind of thought experiment, you move to another country could be somewhere in Europe, could be somewhere more far flung. Would you expect in relatively short order to be able to just go on the dull? They would be like, of course not. The assumption would be if you couldn't support yourself, you might go back to the country that you came from, you might find some other way of supporting yourself. It's particularly kind of British mania we have in this particular area. And it does speak to the fact that just the idea of citizenship has just been so diluted and degraded. It should mean something. Of course, it should also mean that people are able to join it provided that they've contributed provided that they've integrated all of those, all of those things that basically everyone agrees with. But the fact that just by being here or just by being here for a certain amount of time that this kind of automatically kicks in is such a casual way to think about joining a country or being part of a country. And it's also just completely destroying any sort of faith or support in the welfare system. People need to feel like when state funds or when taxpayers funds really are being doled out, that they're being doled out for the right reasons and to people who you can kind of think of as part of the "we" of a country. As soon as that breaks down and that this is why I think Labour should recognise this being they are the kind of premier, welfareist party, the whole basis on which that kind of system has public support just corrods. I think that the one wrinkle in all of this is because people got so used to indefinitely to remain. There probably will be a lot of people who for all intents and purposes are integrated, are part of the national community, have got kids with a British partner, just never bothered to make that extra step towards citizenship, who might get caught up in the mix of all of that. But broadly speaking, I completely agree, citizenship has to mean something. And I have friends like that, but there is sort of to interrupt, but I have friends like that. And there is an obvious solution there which is okay, look, we understand you maybe it wasn't one that keen for whatever reason, it takes a bit of money, it takes a bit of time, etc. In the situation our country finds itself in, we're going to have to be a little bit more strict about how this is done. So please apply for a British nationality, we'll be happy if you've lived here for 20 years and fully integrated, go for it, that's fine. Winston Francis, thoughts? Well, so just on some details because this is worth just to highlighting. So there's about 1.26 to 1.3 million people in Britain and in the UK on universal credit. They are claiming over 10 billion pounds a year and sorry, those are non-UK or Irish nationals, right? So of the 7.5 to 9 million foreign nationals in the UK, 1.26, 1.3 on universal credit and other 620,000 are on other benefits which means that there's something like one in four foreign nationals in the UK are on some sort of benefits and I mean it's extraordinarily high and they're claiming over 10 billion pounds a year in a country where with three three three trillion pounds worth of debt and we're spending 100 billion on debt interest each year, right? So just for some context there. As for how this came about, I try to understand this, like did we become more lax that why is it that this has become the case? And actually we've actually always been quite strict on who can claim such benefits and this goes all the way back to the poor laws where you had to have legal settlement in a parish if you wanted to claim benefits, it goes through the old age pension act to 1908 and continues. What's changed is not the law on who can claim it. It's changed is how many more people have become within the defined, defined as settled and so as you say whether it's a science speaker and definitely for a main or various different settlement where they can apply. This is jumped, that's what's actually changed and it's jumped massively. Since 2020, in 2022 there were only 900, I mean I say only 900,000 is extraordinarily high number but they're 900,000 so 400,000 more people on universal credit since 2022. So it's because of how they claim to be settled and so they pass through the hopes that way. So that's the big change as far as I've understood it. Now whether I think maybe a debate is if they're playing national insurance rather than if they're paying just their taxes income tax national insurance like is there an argument there that they should have some sort of claim on the pension that would come from from that. I think that there is an argument that I would take the same position was that if you're a foreign national you don't you still have to pay for the privilege of being in our country but you don't get to enjoy the benefits unless you become a citizen so there's an incentive to become a citizen and actually buy into the system and and probably be a part of it. But there's also I guess the argument is that maybe employers should be given a relief where they don't have to pay for the pension of employees if they are foreign nationals and that might ease these things for employers. I don't know. It seems like a small detail to like get bogged down in. The big headline though is that we've just let anyone in and become settled and this is really the problem with mass immigration right is you can have a very relaxed posture towards many many many things until you bring in millions of people in a very short space of time in which case the entire system completely breaks down not because the rules were actually bad necessarily in and of themselves but because they're incompatible with a fraying society with plummeting levels of social trust and and all of the other consequences that ensue when when you have you know millions and millions of people and by the way Tom made the point about the labor government let's be honest this all happened under the conservative government this is not a left versus right thing it's a stupid versus not stupid thing and I'm glad finally that there are some non-stupid people in the pro-expo politics are waking up to this reality what do you think Francis well I think what this what this is is look let's put it in real world terms we're broke this country is absolutely broke in real terms since 2020 our currency has lost 40 percent of its value we've got a hundred percent debt to GDP ratio we can't afford to do this anymore it really is that simple so we either deal with the fact that a few people are going to start kicking and screaming calling everyone racist all we're going to do essentially things that are bringing in policies that are needed to prevent us from going bankrupt as a country that is where we are and the reason we are bankrupt as a country and we spoke about with Peter Hitchens on our interview in trigonometry is because we have been delusional for far too long we've been delusional about immigration we've been delusional about public finances and public spending we've been delusional about the issue of men and women and there's a whole host of subjects that we have been delusional about and you know what you can be delusional for a bit you can you know have the occasional period of your life where you know what you got reality doesn't matter I'm going to keep back and relax you know and just live a life where reality doesn't apply to me but the problem is is when you do that eventually you're going to be like that bloke who's in his mid 40s because you know what don't need the wife mate don't need the kids going to go to the strip cover going to live life I'm going to be who I am it's going to be great well eventually you're going to wake up one day realize you lost your house the wife and the kids and all of a sudden realities come home to roost and unfortunately the UK at the moment is in danger of living in a bed sit with a bottle of whiskey for company it's not based on my own life by the way well guys we're going to overrun a little bit because I do want to cover this final story before we do though I just wanted to say if you're watching this and you've enjoyed it there's two things we needed to do number one we haven't got a name for this show so give us your funniest most outrageous ideas and we'll play around with them and see if we want to run with them number two if you've enjoyed it tell us in the comments tell us what you thought what you like what you didn't like what you like us to improve obviously smash the like button obviously subscribe anyway gentlemen speaking of delusions one of the things that I've been covering for a long time is the ongoing derangement on what I think is mostly the American center center right basically you have in America sort of normal rational right wing people and conservatives and then you have the sort of Andrew Tate Nick Fuentes Tucker Carlson Candace Owens wing which are increasingly becoming these rabid conspiratorial lunatics and you saw this I don't know if you watched the great debate it was very popular between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson and which they discussed who really did murder Charlie Kirk now obviously the trial hasn't happened so we can't make any factual claims and one thing I will say about our beautiful country is one of the things I have really appreciated during this time is noticing that we have laws which prevent people from commenting on ongoing trials and thinking fuck me what a great idea this has turned out to be because if you look at what's happening with the childcare case over there good oh my god but anyway setting aside the factual stuff there is just this now thing in America on the right where it's like Israel is the new Russia now so if anyone's done anything if you know someone's got elected they don't like it's Israel if something which used to be Russia of course you know 10 years ago and so and you saw Andrew Wilson asking Candace Owens in this debate you know what is your evidence for these things that you're saying that Erica Kirk is complicit in the murder of your husband and her evidence was basically well my audience likes it that is you know in the summary of what she said she said I'm entitled to think this and clearly my audience is engaging with this what do we think is going on it's incredible isn't it I think you more than anyone else constantly been instrumental in not just pointing out but mocking the brain rock that is Candace Owens at this point so you're doing God's work but that is concern but it has been grimly fascinating hasn't it watching us was spiral into conspiratorialism naturally at what's at the end of every conspiracy theory the Jews loosely dressed up as Israel these days but we know what it is they're talking about I just found it it was like kind of stare watching that the boat's like kind of staring into a parallel universe where up is down left is right what is the basis of evidence for any particular claim doesn't really matter she would talk about intuition gut feeling anonymous sources that you just have to take as red I mean she was claiming what the not only did would was Israel and potentially Erica Kirk complicit or involved in the murder of Charlie Kirk but also that the French foreign Legion were trying to kill her presumably because of a campaign against that bloke that Emmanuel Macron married like all of this stuff is just totally more the way we usually think about things and it's it's kind it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic because it does seem to have a constituency now and one thing that things really interesting about the kind of conspiratorial mind as you see summed up in someone like kind of so is that presents itself as very questioning I'm just asking questions is the cliche I'm entitled to my opinions I'm entitled to this ascent but it's also it's based on a level of kind of certainty that you don't get in normal life I mean most times when a court case makes its way through and someone is convicted it's a beyond reasonable doubt broadly speaking people think even though there is some doubt there we've come to the conclusion that the evidence weighs in a particular in a particular direction at the beginning of that debate she said that she was 0% convinced that Tyler Robertson was the killer and that's its own form of blind faith in the strengths of the way. So I think we are gonna get more of it. We're probably gonna get more of it over here in the UK. It just hasn't quite filtered over just yet. It seems like. - You know what? When I was watching it, number one, my primary thought was, I won every minute that I've spent watching this and I want it reimbursed to me. Number one, number two, you look through the comments. The comments are fascinating because you're going, oh right, literally doesn't matter what Candice would have said. Her audience would have backed to their heels. They were utterly delusional. And number three, I kept thinking this, this would not have been anywhere near as popular before COVID. I think COVID basically gave an entire generation of people brainwrote where nobody trusts institutions, nobody trusts government, nobody trusts the law or the police. And as a result, everyone's like, well, the obvious thing can't be the obvious thing. I mean, it's the French foreign Legion. I mean, it's mental. I mean, who knows in it? Where was the last time you heard about the French foreign Legion? She was like, this means insane. I mean, it's probably not all right. That's a big hack. I mean, give her credit, mate. At least she's come up with some new theories. - She ricks me out, yeah. - Some new material, exactly. Yeah, she's gone up a little. But it's just an interesting thing. You say post-COVID people have lost faith in institutions. That's understandable. And look, there's good and bad and there's some institutions that are good and bad, et cetera. But how do you go from having no faith in institutions to now having faith in the intuitions and dreams of Candace Owens? 'Cause you don't have to go there, right? You could just say, well, clearly, we will lie to our origins of the virus. Clearly, in their attempt to prioritize public health, they downrank the importance of truth and therefore misled us about the side effects or whatever it is, but you don't then have to go into the derangement on the other side. But a lot of people seem to be making that leap, Winston. - I just want to start by saying actually, my resentment on this issue is you constant in for choosing this topic. This four hour long video that I suffered through two hours of, generally a horrible experience. It reminded me of all the negative experiences with women I've had in relationships, but without any of the positives, bundled into one and sort of a woman who doesn't, in any point, engage with the logic of the argument, but does everything to sort of run circles and just, so you have this Wilson lad who's shaking in frustration. I was shaking in frustration. It's so insufferable listening to her and in that particular conversation. And I'd also note that this is a woman who has been doing medieval blood libel for the last, as early as summer 2024. So this is a woman who's a bit nuts, but if I can push back against all of you, Tom, you're saying there's a sort of increased constituency for this kind of thought. Actually, at the political level, these kind of people don't seem to be that popular. Or people who are adjacent in their thinking, I think of fish back in Florida who is not done well. I think of Thomas Massey, I think of Marjorie Telegram. They might not actually think the same as candidates on these specific issues, but there's a bundle of people who have a sort of similar type of view. And actually, at the polls, it's not working. And so then we come to thinking, who is actually engaging with this stuff? Is it actually Americans? I mean, I'm sure there's a considerable amount of people in America, but is it people around the world? Is it, is it, when it comes to the anti-Israel stuff, is it actually people in the Middle East? Is it, you know, there's no doubt that there's worse anti-Semitism in Britain in my lifetime, not denying for a second that it's terrible here, but how popular it really is, it's not, have you guys actually got a sense of that? Like, can we actually say legitimately, this is a mainstream thought, or this is a really popular thought in America right now? I think it's hard to deny that there are a lot of people in America who are interested. I mean, Juan Joe Rogan says he's interested in Candace's perspective on this. You kind of go, Joe loves conspiracies. He always has done, et cetera. And this was the other point I was going to make. Well, I think you're right. You know, a lot of Tucker's audience has been demonstrated to be from Muslim countries, not in America, and a lot of Candace's own audience as well. But a lot of it is in America. You're right that it hasn't had the impact politically. But I've forgotten what I was going to say about the-- yeah, I've forgotten what I was going to say about what I was going to say. [LAUGHTER] Yeah, that's good. But no, it is. Especially because we've got conspiratorial thinking everywhere now, though. I mean, if you made the point-- Oh, Tom, I'm sorry to interrupt. This is what I was going to say. This is what I was going to say to Winston's challenge. Sorry, mate. It's not new, though, is it? Because look how big Alex Jones was at one point talking about stuff like this and Sandy Hook and whatever. There's something in the American psyche. And you guys know how much Francis, and I love going to America. But I think I've said this before. I think it's the flip side of the American dream, which is if you live in the society where anything is possible and it's amazing, well, anything is possible. Maybe the French foreign leader did kill Charlie Kirk together with Erica Kirk for the benefit of Benjamin Netanyard. Do you know what I mean? And maybe the one thing we probably don't appreciate enough is how exciting and enjoyable it is to engage in this sort of thinking, because it makes life special. It makes you special. You have this unique insight. Francis has made this point very often. This is often what drives a lot of these conversations. Sorry to interrupt, Tom. No, not to-- and off the back of that, I think that's one part of the appeal. Certainly of Alex Jones, when he was really at the height of his pump, and he before he got and got kicked off of various platforms, was that there's an element of this which is enjoyed as a form of performance, as well as a particular kind of pyrotechnic, spectacular example of this, the turn in the frogs gate, et cetera. But even with Candace Owens, when you see her actually on her own show, it's a kind of-- there's an element of drama to it. There's an element of performance. And as you say, there is also-- it maps on to something which has always existed in American society, certainly in the 20th century, which is this appetite for conspiracy theory. To a certain extent, it's almost recreational for some people. You notice, like they kind of get into it, get into a particular theory, move on to another one. So sometimes it's not taken literally, but it is by-- many people are taking quite seriously. Maybe it's because of that hostility to the state that they have on a much higher level than certainly a lot of European countries have. It's hard to work out where it sort of comes from. But also, it goes across the political spectrum now, so the point I was going to make, which is that you make the point constant about how we've gone from everything that goes wrong, every assassination, every murder. It suddenly becomes Russia's fault, with Netflix at Israel. But the Russia-Gate scandal showed that that was just liberal left conspiracy theorizing. And yet, the thing that was much more dangerous about it was that it passed the Martha's Vineyard dinner table test, whereas what Candace Owens is talking about, or what Stanley Walek's Jones is talking about, is going to get you laughed out of the room if you're at a newspaper or on Capitol Hill. So I think there is still the extent to which you've got conspiracy theories, and you've got the kind of acceptable conspiracy theories. And in a way, it's the latter camp, which can be more dangerous, because it is taken with a lot more credence, it looks like. Well, also America is the country of cults. If you think about a lot of the most famous cults, there are a lot of them were in America. And what does every cult have? It has a charismatic leader who basically talks bollocks, but does it in a charismatic fashion? And everybody goes along with them, whatever the cult is, and whatever the message is. And basically, Candace is an online version of that. She said so, she talks about bollocks, but because she does it in a way that is engaging and people find it entertaining, they go along with it. I think it's a really good point. That's a really good point. What's interesting to me, though, is the embrace of the stuff. I mean, Hunter Biden to me is an incredible conundrum, not him himself. There's nothing super interesting about him. But he's now sort of being embraced as this voice of, and I just, you take, for some reason, there's this thing about where you take some of the most personally reprehensible human beings on the planet. And then they go on these conservative massive shows and are presented as being like a valid person to talk to. I mean, Hunter Biden is famous for slapping around hookers while snorting cocaine off the rice. It's like, what is that? Why are we listening to him? Maybe we shouldn't do him here on Trigonometry, is what I'm saying. Oh, I should definitely do, yeah. Yeah, I think charisma is a, we don't talk about it enough. Charisma is so important. It's so important for spreading a message. It's so important if you are a public person in any sphere. And if you are very charismatic, you can basically sell what's a famous adage? He's so good at selling, he's so charismatic, he can sell ice to the Eskimos. I mean, that's what Candace is doing. Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the correct one. Well, and also, Kotlid is like making money. Candace was paid something like 300 grand for this interview. I don't know how much Andrew Wilson was being paid. They were certainly doing answer out it. I have my, when was the money, I think? I think it was, he kind of threw the gold. He paid her 300 grand, yeah. Yeah. The stream has now got five and a half million views and there's YouTube ads all the way through it. Yeah. Excellent. Well, next week, it won't be Winston and Tom. It will be Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson joining us on this show. Because clearly that is that is what the people want and it is our job to deliver it. Gentlemen, it's been absolutely pleasure. Thank you for your time. We have overrun massively, which is a great strong start. Thanks all for being here. Make sure you subscribe to the Winston Marshall show, make sure you subscribe to Spike and of course subscribe to Trigonometry. And we will see you next week where we will all try to be slightly more cult like and charismatic.