#180 - Frank Wright - Reality Is Radicalising People

Summary

---

The Peter McCormack Show – Episode #180

Guest: Frank Wright
Title: Reality Is Radicalising People
Date: May 29, 2026
Host: Peter McCormack

---

Episode Overview

In this gripping, wide-ranging conversation, Peter McCormack sits down with writer and political commentator Frank Wright. The discussion centers on Wright's viral condemnation of Britain’s decline and the sense that "reality is radicalizing people" across the UK and the West. Together, they unpack the failures of liberal democracy, the collapse of British institutions, the populist wave, and the urgent political and civilizational choices facing Britain. Wright brings historical context, a strident critique of liberalism, and a passionate call for restoration of national dignity, all in a tone that’s both combative and reflective.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Viral Speech & Reality as Radicalization

• Wright's viral moment: Wright explains that the resonance of his 10-minute viral clip (“Noticing reality is extremist, and the reason why it's extremist is because the extremists are in power.” [00:13]) is not about him, but about how dire reality has become for ordinary people (00:10–01:40).
• Silencing the obvious: Both note how mainstream media and political institutions systematically exclude the experiences and perspectives of ordinary Britons, treating truth-telling as extremism or madness (01:45).
• Quote:

  “Basically, noticing reality is extremist, and the reason why it’s extremist is because the extremists are in power and they've made reality awful and unbearable.”
  — Frank Wright [01:38]

2. Britain’s Decline: Institutions, Public Life, and Demoralization

• Collapse of services: Discussion of failing institutions, police forces not investigating crime, a health service that doesn’t promote health, and a justice system lacking justice (03:27–05:30).
• Material and cultural decay: Empty, desolate town centers, demographic change, “replacement culture,” and a sense that community and continuity are lost (04:00–05:30).
• On seeing adversaries as ‘sick and wounded’: Wright encourages a missionary approach to political adversaries, seeing them as casualties of a demoralizing system rather than as enemies (05:30–06:40).

3. Feminism, Family Life, and Economic Forces

• Critique of feminism: Both agree that current forms of feminism have had “detrimental outcomes for women,” particularly by encouraging women into office jobs at the cost of motherhood (06:46–08:40).
• Market-worship's destructiveness: Wright sees market ideology as eroding values, “paying to outsource your own motherhood,” and laments the loss of dignity and real meaning in family life (07:20).
• Quote:

  “The first three years of life, it's vital that babies have mummy and dad, ideally as much as possible, and you don't get that time again...this is part of the broader replacement culture that we live in.”
  — Frank Wright [07:28]

4. Propaganda, Pseudo-Reality, and the Liberal System

• Mass propaganda in the West: Wright claims Britain is among the most propagandized nations, with cultural products saturated in “rainbow Bolshevism” and internationalist ideology (10:03–13:34).
• The hidden totality of ideology: Citing Slavoj Žižek: “When ideology is total, it is invisible” (10:30–11:20).
• Historical roots: Post-Great War establishment of "international liberalism,” the role of figures like Walter Lippmann, Bernays, and efforts to undermine the family for global standardization (12:18–14:36).
• Quote:

  “These are just basically established facts...the family is basically prior to the state in its existence. It was there before the state and in its rights, its rights are prior...So it's an obstacle [to global standardization].”
  — Frank Wright [13:34]

5. Utopianism, Populism, and the Dead End of Progress

• Unreachable utopias: Discussion of the liberal belief in inexorable moral progress and its cult-like aspects (17:09–21:33). Quotes John Gray:

  "You row across an ocean of blood to get to utopia and you never arrive.” — Peter Hitchens, retold by Frank Wright [17:45]

• Populism as a symptom: Wright dismisses populism as a mere spasm against the liberal consensus, lacking policy depth and the ability to deliver substantive change (60:24–63:48).

6. Liberal Rights, Transgenderism, and Social Conflict

• Instability of rights: Traces the logic of liberal rights’ expansion and their intrinsic instability, especially as conflicts arise between differing rights claims (e.g., trans rights vs. women’s rights) (26:02–29:55).
• Essentialism vs. Nominalism: Wright advocates for essential, unchanging truths—both about human nature and national identity—over constructed, ever-shifting legal descriptions (29:37–30:02).
• Quote:

  “I'm an essentialist. There are things in the world that the basis of reality and being doesn't change. That man is changeless across time.”
  — Frank Wright [29:41]

7. Restore Party, Duty, and the Need for Strategic Planning

• Restore as a real alternative: Wright details his involvement with Restore, emphasizing a sense of national emergency and the party’s focus on long-term planning over poll-driven machine politics (31:07–36:27).
• Quote:

  “We cannot do with any more mad political visions. This really is a dire national emergency, and I believe this is the last chance we have to save the nation.”
  — Frank Wright [31:09]

• Contrast with other parties: Discussion on how traditional parties, like Labour, have become “machines for gaining and retaining power” with interchangeable leaders and no core principle (45:37–49:07).

8. Speaking Out, the Overton Window, and Risk

• Costs and courage: Both agree that the cost of silence has become too high; Wright notes courage is contagious and that the “cop in the head”—the internalized censor—loses power as more people speak honestly (49:46–53:32).
• Example: Mumsnet’s mobilization against trans-ideology in women’s spaces is discussed as a turning point for public opposition (53:07–53:33).

9. Immigration, Identity, and the Future

• Existential anxieties: A frank discussion on the demographic transformation of Britain, loss of cultural distinctness, and the consequences of mass immigration (86:03–94:40).
• Essentialism about nationhood: Wright employs the concept of “autochthony,” the deep bond between people and land, to argue for the importance of preserving national identity (93:01–94:40).
• Quote:

  “This is who we are. This is our people, this is our land. It belongs to us...We are the stewards of our homeland and our nation, which was won for us by our ancestors.”
  — Frank Wright [93:01]

10. Loss of Meaning, Economic Dysfunction, and Collapse

• From dignity to dependency: Both critique the transition from industrial Britain to “make-work” jobs, widespread indebtedness, and the creation of a dependency culture (100:17–103:50).
• Machine politics and the asset manager class: Critique of political elites, NGOs, and international financiers (e.g., BlackRock, Larry Fink) as the true power behind governments (77:12–79:17).
• Quote:

  “You pay for these work permits for non existent jobs...That is killing the nation. It's killing the nation. And what is pernicious about this is it makes us dependent on the state.”
  — Frank Wright [135:11]

11. Is There Hope? Why Reality Is Making the Case

• Crisis as opportunity: Wright is adamant that the worsening crisis will fuel change, that “reality is making the argument” and that the system is failing on its own terms (102:53–105:30).
• Call for restoration: He advocates a return to servant leadership, duty, long-term planning, and the rebuilding of national culture and resilience (117:51–120:27).

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On reality vs. media:

  “Those points of view of the ordinary common people are systematically excluded from the media...if you basically notice the facts about the awful reality these people, our political establishment, have created for us, they call you a nutter or an extremist.”
  — Frank Wright [01:45]

• On why people conspire in comfortable falsehoods:

  “You should see these people as victims of a system that has created an alternative reality for people to believe in, where if they acknowledge real reality, it undermines everything they believe in.”
  — Frank Wright [05:30]

• On the need for duty over personal ambition:

  “It genuinely isn't about what I want to see personally...the reason why I am so motivated ... is because Britain must be restored...This really is a dire national emergency and I believe this is the last chance we have to save the nation.”
  — Frank Wright [31:07]

• On elite power and the illusion of democracy:

  “Elite theory is about the idea that democracy is just an illusion and there's always a permanent elite. And that's true.”
  — Frank Wright [148:56]

---

Notable Timestamps

• 01:13 – The viral speech, and why it resonated
• 05:30–06:42 – On treating political adversaries as casualties of the system
• 10:03–14:36 – Propaganda, the beginnings of the liberal system
• 17:09 – Peter Hitchens’ “row across an ocean of blood to utopia”
• 21:26–23:08 – On human inequality and the breakdown of legitimacy
• 29:55–31:07 – What does Frank Wright want, and the nature of essentialism
• 45:37–49:07 – The emergence of machine politics, and the emptiness of the establishment
• 53:07–53:33 – Mumsnet, trans debate, and culture shifts
• 60:24–63:48 – Populism as a symptom, not an answer
• 86:03–94:40 – Immigration, belonging, and the existential stakes for Britain
• 100:17–103:50 – Economic dependency, loss of dignity and skills
• 117:51–120:27 – Servant leadership and Restore’s offer
• 148:56–153:28 – On procedural inevitability, illusion, and the urgency of action

---

Tone & Style

The tone throughout is intellectually combative, passionate, and sometimes bleak; Wright is unsparing in his critique of modern Britain and Western decline, but often returns to a note of duty, hope, and personal responsibility. He mixes historical allusion, biting sarcasm, and earnest personal anecdote, all delivered with moral urgency.

McCormack, for his part, brings an everyman perspective, frequently expressing confusion, frustration, and a desire for practical solutions—mirroring the mood of many disaffected listeners.

---

Summary for Listeners

This episode is a deep-dive into the crisis of modern Britain and the West—its failing institutions, identity crisis, and loss of meaning. Frank Wright’s historical and philosophical perspective, married with tangible anger at the status quo and serious policy critique, offers a stark warning but also a call to courageous, duty-bound action. For those seeking a no-holds-barred explanation of why “reality is radicalizing people” in Britain today, and what might be needed to restore the nation, this is an essential listen.

Transcript

[A]

It's reality that's radicalizing people. And it isn't really my moment. It's not about me.

[B]

I was on my feed and I saw it, and then I saw it again, and then I saw it again, and I saw it again.

[A]

The reason why it became so popular is because it just speaks to the reality that we all have to inhabit. Basically, noticing reality is extremist, and the reason why it's extremist is because the extremists are in power. Britain must be restored, and we cannot do with any more mad political visions. This really is a dire national emergency, and I believe this is the last chance we have to save the nation. The reality that we inhabit is so awful that the costs of saying nothing are higher than the cost of speaking out. People can see what they're losing now, and they know that when it's gone, it's gone forever. The system is failing. It's disintegrating now. It failed to break us all. England lives and we are going to win.

[B]

Anyway. Frank, you've had a week.

[A]

Oh, dear. I should never have left the shire.

[B]

Obviously, I think completely the opposite. And you've sparked a conversation and now you're here. Do you know what?

[A]

I was.

[B]

I was on my feed and I saw it, and then I saw it again, and then I saw it again, and I saw it again, and then I saw Glenn Greenwald retweet it, and then I saw Elon Musk retweet, and I was like, what the hell is this? I put it on. I was. Man, I was captivated. I think, as a lot of people were. I think you. You managed to do something I wish I could do, which is articulate every problem with this country in about 10 minutes in a coherent, intelligent, and compelling way. And if I wasn't radicalized already, certainly was after I watched it.

[A]

Well, like I said in there, it's reality that's radicalizing people. And it isn't really my moment. It's not about me. The reason why it became so popular is because it just speaks to the reality that we all have to inhabit. And why don't we hear it often enough? Why do we hardly ever hear that reality described? Well, those points of view of the ordinary common people are systematically excluded from the media and indeed, from any position of influence in society altogether. And that's how we've ended up in this situation where, if you basically notice the facts about the awful reality these people, our political establishment, have created for us, they call you a nutter or an extremist. Or, you know, they try and throw voodoo curses at you to silence you. So basically, noticing reality is extremist, and the reason why it's extremist is because the extremists are in power and they've made reality awful and unbearable. And that's why I think that moment spoke to so many people.

[B]

Yeah, well, I think there's three groups of people. I think there is the political and media elite, who. The political elite are just setting us off. And there's the media elite. You don't want to cover it because they don't want radical what. What is considered radical voices. But we can do that here, so that doesn't matter and we get the reach. But there's also this split in the country which I cannot understand where there is, let's say, for the sake of conversation, half of the country is seeing. Seeing the country one way and half the country is seeing it a completely different way. And I don't understand the other side, how they cannot see what I'm seeing. Everything breaking, everything falling apart, nothing working, the state of our town centres. I just don't understand how they cannot see what I see.

[A]

One of the things that I go on about sometimes is that you shouldn't really see people as your political enemies when they fail to see reality. And let's face it, this is reality and there's a sort of incomprehensible refusal to see that reality. I think that's what you're talking about there. How can you not see the obvious decline from things like the holes in the road to the fact that none of the institutions work and in fact, very few, if any of them actually do what it says on the door. You know, the police routinely don't catch criminals. And I think half a dozen, at least, perhaps three to four, maybe half a dozen major police force has been investigated for their basic refusal to investigate crimes like burglary and robbery and car crime and so on. So they don't like, you know, the health service. It isn't very healthy itself and it doesn't really foster your health. And if you look at the kind of people who work in it, they're not a very good advert for health, are they? The justice system isn't just so. It's not just the physical decline of our country, the material decline of it, the broken windows, the empty, desolate town centres, the dubious businesses that are increasingly filling them up, these are obvious signs. And also the demographic replacement, which again is obvious and is not just taking place here, but throughout The West. These are obvious signs and they're not good signs, are they? So in order not to see that, you have to be motivated not to see it. And what motivates people? Well, I'd say you should see these people as victims of a system that has created an alternative reality for people to believe in, where if they acknowledge real reality, it undermines everything they believe in. And they've based their personality on that, where the idea of whether they're a good person or not on that. And that's how the liberal system has worked because it's part of its political technique. And that technique has been developed for over a century from the beginnings of people like Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays who mobilized women into smoking cigarettes because he said that they were freedom torches. So you have this technique of attaching people's ideas of their own self worth, what it is to be a good person to these mad political projects that actually ruin everything and to make people meet that in the middle to say, oh, look, I've been misled into celebrating the destruction of my entire way of life. Well, first of all, you're going to refuse to do that because you feel like an idiot. Second, it will actually undermine your personality to some degree. And third, you'll have to realize you've been cheated all your life and you have. So when you try, if you do try to talk to people who've been captured by that system so that they recognize nothing but a false reality and real reality to them seems like a hostile extremist message, try and have a sense of being something like a social missionary. Look at them as the sick and the wounded. They're casualties on the battlefield. And that battlefield is the attempt to destroy our civilization by this mad liberal system. And these people are the wounded in that battle. And though it may be extremely difficult to see what you see as your bitter political enemies like that, these are our people too, and we must help them. And that's better than a permanent state of antagonistic vengeance with which there's no way forward but increasing division.

[B]

Man, I tried it the other day. We had never in decor in here.

[A]

What, what did, what happened then?

[B]

When we had a, you know, we had a good chat and we, I mean, we agreed that feminism in certain areas has had pretty detrimental outcomes for women.

[A]

Well, it's liberated women from womanhood.

[B]

Yes. Into, into an office to put things on screens while somebody else looks after their children.

[A]

Yeah, I, one of the, one of the phrases that I came up with a while ago was this. I Go to work to pay for the child care. So I can go to work to pay for the child care.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And it's just. But again, look, here's a good example of that, right? If you see a woman who's got a very young baby, like we did once, we went out with the kids and got two little kids and my misses and we saw this woman with a little Babington and obviously they're delightful. I was like, oh, look at your little Babington. And how old is it? Little baby's a few months old. And then she immediately said, I'm going to go back to work and the baby's a matter of weeks old. And then you just thought, how sad, how sad, because that baby's now going to be looked after by a stranger and you're going to work to pay for that childcare. And if you look at how much that childcare costs, those wages are probably likely commensurate to that childcare and the costs of transport and so on. And so that's what you're doing. You're paying to outsource your own motherhood. And this isn't just a political opinion. The first three years of life, it's vital that babies have mummy and dad, ideally as much as possible, and you don't get that time again. And there's nothing to replace that maternal bond. So when you look at it a bit deeper, this is part of the broader replacement culture that we live in. The idea that there's actually no essential value to anything, not even to a mother's bond with her own child, that can be replaced as well by another transaction that sloshes money around our consumer economy. And that's why I'm so much against market worship, because it destroys every single value.

[B]

Well, me and Narinda had a good chat on the economic side of things. I did try and explain to her because I try and come at everything from economics or the law. That's why I just come there. A lot of our shows, we base on economics, we base on inflation. And one thing I keep trying to explain to people is inflation is the enemy of everybody apart from the super rich, because the super rich benefit from inflation and everybody else has their entire life hollowed out. We made some progress on that, certainly, and then we got a little bit trapped in the everyone's a racist doom loop. But I think we made.

[A]

I did.

[B]

I think. I think we made some progress.

[A]

Oh, joy.

[B]

Yeah, I think we support. I was glad to do it.

[A]

You know what?

[B]

The truth is quite Liked her as a person. We had a good chat beforehand. She was very friendly, very nice chat about our kids. And then I just think when the cameras came on, it becomes a little bit performative and some of the incentives at play played out. So. But I think we'll do it again. And I think. I think if we had no cameras on, we'd. In some ways we probably agree on even more.

[A]

That's very likely. I mean, you'd probably be very much aware. Although, what are my comrades going to think of me talking to this bigot?

[B]

Yeah. Talking to this fascist.

[A]

Well, of course, of course, you know.

[B]

Yeah. So where do you all go wrong? Frank, you seem pretty well read on history. Where did it all go wrong?

[A]

Well, one of the things that you find that's very unusual about living in our times is that people don't notice how much propaganda there is in the so called Free West. In fact, we're the most heavily propagandized nation in the world. You know, like your flat packed furniture, your breakfast cereal, you know, your Internet experience, your entertainment, it's all got basically an ideological, international, rainbow Bolshevism message somewhere. And it does. And when you realize that practically everything in our mass culture is politically coded that way, you realize, hang on a minute, that's not an accident. So I would say there's two things to say about that. There's the development and installation of what you would call the international liberal system in the 1920s, directly after the Great War. And that wasn't an accident. And the reason why we tend to think that the system we have now is just naturally evolved, which it certainly didn't. It was deliberately created, is because it's everywhere. There's. There's a great quote from the fat Slovenian Communist, Slavod Zizek, whose name I can pronounce correctly but refused to do so. And he says things like. He says something like this. He says, when ideology is total, it is invisible. And so he's right. Right, because this ideology's everywhere, you don't see it and you just think, oh, it's normal. Which tells you one big thing about humanity, that men believe what's in front of them. And if all that's in front of you is this all the time, you can't imagine it ever having been any different. And so you can't imagine any different future or any political or economic alternative. And so that's why the system's so effective. And so that's why it doesn't tell you that it was actually created. And that's where it came from. Now, if you.

[B]

Why, though?

[A]

Why was it created? Well, with good intentions, from the point of view of the elite that did it, they would tell you it was good intentions and they would say to you things that, oh, we need to create an international financial and world government system because it'll end wars. And that's what they did. So, yes, today you would call these people globalists, but if you look at who they were in, like, you know, from the beginnings of the Federal Reserve to the setting up of the Council on Foreign Relations, they call themselves internationalists, which is a very nice way of saying we're going to dissolve you all into our utopia, right? And whether you like it or not, and then we're going to make you believe it's all for your best interests, which is what elites do.

[B]

You're talking about the creature of Jekyll island, aren't you?

[A]

Well, no, I'm talking about. These things are in the Congressional record. These issues that I'm talking about are a matter of public record. They're not in speculative works of, you know, kind of grievance fiction or even like, if you might call fringe history. These are just basically established facts. Now, Walter Lippmann, who is probably the greatest pioneer of 20th century propaganda technique, he was even better than Bernays. He wrote a book about public relations in 1923, I think, and he helped to found the Council on foreign relations in 1921 with people like John Dewey, who was a man who said he was an educationalist and a pragmatist. And he said we need to create a common faith, basically a godless international religion to unite the people. And this is how we do it. He did a series of lectures in the 30s about this. And then you had people like, obviously the big banker's name, which had people like JP Morgan and later on the Rockefellers, who were very interested in moving people towards compulsory public education and undermining the family and very involved in the liberation of women. Because the family is basically prior to the state in its existence. It was there before the state and in its rights, its rights are prior to those estates. So it's an obstacle. So what I try and help people to.

[B]

An obstacle to what?

[A]

It's an obstacle. If you've got a project where you want to make this international standard, political, economic order the only thing in the world, it has no competing explanatory power, then you've got to get rid of institutions and beliefs and traditions and culture and religion that stand in that way. So I try and get people to understand that that was the idea that what you're really looking at is you're not really looking at what people call woke. You're not really looking at people who genuinely believe in progressive causes. If you look at it all, what the actions are at scale economically, politically and socially, it is to produce an internationally standard culture. It's to standardize the globe under one system, one ruling elite that has one set of beliefs and one, if you like, placeless architecture which you can see emerging around you, that translates somewhere into everywhere and therefore nowhere. Like an international bourgeoisie, an international nowhere land. That's where we live whilst these people live in their shining penthouses on the hill.

[B]

But this is to protect themselves as an international bourgeoisie and extract the resources.

[A]

Well, you had a bunch of people, some of them seem to be well meaning. You had people like Bertrand Russell who advocate for a one World Government. I mean, I don't agree with him on many things, but he was certainly not an international financier or anything like that. But he genuinely seemed to believe that the answer, that there could be an answer to conflict and that that answer could be final. And that was One World Government. But he was the kind of rationalist that believes in human perfectibility, which I think is a liberal delusion, because history is rather like a practical joke at the expense of that idea when you look at it. So, you know, men aren't perfectible. And it's liberals who tend not to see the limits of mankind. And it's liberals who can't see the limits of liberalism or their own point of view, which is largely why the liberal system and our politicians and so on, because conservatives are just right. Liberals, of course, they can't understand why people don't like them anymore because some of them genuinely believe, oh, we, this is the perfect system. How can you say that? You know, because that's the, that's the limits of liberalism. It believes in its own beliefs but in no others. And it. And a lot of them can't actually see beyond that. So this goes back to what you said about earlier on. Like, why can't people see the problem when the problem's everywhere and it's from practical to moral, financial, spiritual. It's a crisis, it's an Omni crisis. How can you not see an Omni crisis? Well, they don't live in that world.

[B]

Or do they live in a world where they see us on a journey towards what they believe and we're just not there yet. And if we just, if we just get Zach Polanski or Andy Burnham or whoever, we will be one step closer. We just need to. We just need to silence the fascists. We just need to remove the fascists out of society. Is it that, Is it like. Is it that utopia you never get to.

[A]

Oh, that's a brilliant way of saying. But first of all, I'd like to say I prefer the term factist because the people who really, they really hate, the people who basically point out facts or your description if your, if your descriptions correspond to the awful reality, then they'll call you a fascist, of course, because you're just reality based. That's what they're against. If you understand that, then you see the trick. This is an acid attack to disfigure anyone who dares to name the real effects of this utopian system. But a lot of people put the boot in to Peter Hitchens. Yeah. And I have irresponsibly said on the Internet, you probably find it on Twitter. I think I even made a meme about it. Behead those who insult Peter Hitchens.

[B]

I like Peter Hitchens.

[A]

I mean, look, he's like our granddad, right? You can't give him. You know, there are things that he said, I'm not going to put the boot into him and I'll stand up for him. One of the things he said, which was brilliant, was he said. What was it he said to get to. He says utopia. He says, you row across an ocean of blood to get to utopia and you never arrive. Now that's an extremely intelligent remark because he encapsulates the kind of idea that you'd see in John Gray's Seven Types of Atheism, which isn't really about atheism, it's about that thick. But that is the most comprehensive demolition of the liberal idea that I've ever read and no one will ever better him. John Gray's used to be a professor of European thought at LSE and he's still alive and he's a northerner and he's pocket sized like me.

[B]

John Gray, did he write the book, the one that's Critical Libertarianism?

[A]

I can't remember.

[B]

I think he did.

[A]

He did one about. He did one called the New Leviathans, which might have put the boot into that.

[B]

Yeah, no, there's another one because I've been having my flirtation with my libertarianism for a while and somebody recommended. I've read his book. I'm pretty sure it's him.

[A]

Yeah, Well, I suppose having a Guns and Dope Party has a broad popular appeal, but it's not for me.

[B]

I think, I don't think of libertarian because libertarianism is also another utopia. Right there's in that there's no, no or minimal government and we all operate with the non aggression principle and have our guns and yeah. Live our free individual life and, and have free trade with each other. I think a libertarian is more as like a trajectory. I think at the moment I want smaller government, a lot smaller government.

[A]

Well, it's an understandable reflex when you've seen the terrible things that they pay your taxes on that they wasted on you. Basically you're paying taxes to destroy your civilization because the large scale regime program amounts to national suicide. Now if you look at the work of John Gray, he was educated by Sir Isaiah Berlin, who was a Russian Jew whose family Fred fled the Bolsheviks in 1917. His first piece of writing is his childhood memory of seeing someone dragged off by the secret police. So he ended up in England and he ended up being like an Oxford professor. And he was the greatest champion of 20th century liberalism. And John Gray got taught by him a bit, you know, and he tells some quite fond anecdotes about it, which is why when John Gray tells you, as he has been doing for over 10 years, that the liberal idea, liberal democracy is finished, it's just finished. All that stuff's over. No one believes in it anymore, it's run out. Patrick Deneen from Notre Dame, a Catholic philosopher and academic, said the same thing in why liberalism failed. And it's not just, it's not just them and it's not just this, this kind of speculative point of view. He tells you this is because of the ideas of utopianism, because the contradiction between the liberal idea and reality and its cult like beliefs and, and why people like August Comte, August Comte in the French Revolution could tell you that they have this belief in inexorable moral progress and human uplift and that's simply a cult. There's just no evidence for that. But most people do believe. When people say, oh, we're progressives, if you ask them, does that mean that, what does that mean? Does that mean you believe that everyone in the world, all humanity just gets better morally and intellectually because the calendar flips over, that's what you believe, that's a cult. So John Gray pointed that out as well, and he wasn't the only one. And, but he was a pioneer and he's given you the briefest explanation, the most concise one in seven types of atheism. Why the liberal idea is dead. Where it came from, how mad it is, why it produces these fanatics, why it makes people divorce from reality, and why utopianism generally is a disastrous belief system to be captured by because of Hitchens example, that you do end up justifying any amount of destruction because you'll always have your eyes fixed on this shining horizon that you will never reach. And that's just insane. But you can see the appeal, of course.

[B]

I mean, look, I've got a lot of liberal friends, as you probably have, and a lot of them are very good people and have nice ideas and they do want to be kind and they do want to help people and they do want to live in a nice, protective, happy world where everybody is equal. They're not all dangerous lunatics.

[A]

But you see, that's the fundamental problem. People aren't equal. Human equality is equal. Myth. It's just. That's just a fact.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And it's a fact that's been. I've been made painfully aware of when that giant ambushed me, which is the reason why I'm here. And also when I came here. Yeah, which caused some laughter in the studio, did it not? My little feet couldn't touch the ground because you'd had another giant sitting in this chair. Human equality is an obvious contradiction of basic reality. Physically, intellectually, individually, generally, and on a group stage as well.

[B]

Frankie, speak like a giant.

[A]

Maybe I should get some, like, stack heel shoes to bigger myself.

[B]

Like a giant. Yeah, yeah, I'm a half wet.

[A]

Well, I'm a half pint. So I suppose, you know, we all have our cross to bear, don't we? Yeah, but the, the thing that I'm. I'm on about there is that that's another example of the contradictions of reality. But people very much, when we get into things like this, it's easy to overlook that there's a good ending to this and we're living in it. As you see this kind of omni crisis develop, don't be sad about it. The system really has the techniques by which you're ruled, and the mad policies and so on, they really do amount to evil. And you really are ruled by what's effectively just a gang of crooks. And the state really isn't legitimate. And if you look at John Gray, who's our most respected political philosopher, he'll explain to you that. Right, that's not a radical point of view, that's a statement of fact. The state does not discharge its duties, it doesn't provide prosperity security, and it can't supply meaning to your life. And it gives you no meaningful options either.

[B]

All right, let's talk to you about my sponsor, Leden. Now, if you're borrowing against your Bitcoin, there's one thing that matters more than anything else. Is it actually safe? Well, Leden have just dropped their lowest rates ever. But more importantly, they haven't changed the thing that matters most. Your Bitcoin is never lent out. So they're not chasing yield. There's no hidden risk, and there's no rehypothecation. Just collateralized loans done properly. Now, they've done over $10 billion in loans. And they've done this through bull markets, through bear markets, and everything in between. And they've done it without ever losing any client assets. So now you get lower rates, which means the bigger the loan, the lower the rate and full transparency before you apply. There's no monthly payments or early repayment penalties. And they give you tools to stay in control, from auto top ups to LTV alerts. So you're not choosing between a good rate and safety anymore, because with Ledden, you get both. Now you can check out your rate using the calculator at Leddon IO Peter. I mean, it's a problem with progressivism that if you're always looking for progress, you're eventually going to arrive at some of the most crazy lunatic ideas possible. But you know what? There's obviously some great things that did happen in history that came from progressive civil rights and, you know, some. Some kind of form of acceptance and civility around homosexuality and.

[A]

And, well, I wouldn't agree with any of that. I think. I think these are social solvents. I mean, like, if you look into people like the contest between people like W.B. dubois, who became extremely famous and was the first black man to get a degree from Harvard, lifelong communist, bitter grievance merchant, but very well known and died a rich man. And then if you look at some like Zora Neale Hurston, who actually came out, and she was the head of kind of a Harlem literary school in the 1920s, and she said her grandparents were slaves. And she said slavery was the price I paid for civilization. If I'd left, if I'd stayed in Africa, I'd have died in my 30s and never written a word.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

But there's a reason why you've never heard of her. But everyone's heard of the grievance narrative, right?

[B]

No, no, no, I'm with you. But what I'm saying is I think it's obviously a good thing that we don't have black people put at the back of buses, have to drink from different fountains. And it's good that, yeah, gay people can walk the street and not get beaten up just for being gay. I mean, there's a certain amount of progress that. I think you may disagree.

[A]

I disagree entirely with a complete foundational belief system of liberal rights. I disagree with John Rawls, I disagree with John Stuart Mill. I disagree with Bentham and his utilitarianism. Because ultimately, what you're doing here is you're reducing people to a description. And that description comes from the right or power to determine or define what a right is. And as you probably painfully aware, if you disagree with these people enough and they pay attention to you, suddenly your rights, poof.

[B]

What rights should we have?

[A]

There's a difference between. What I'm saying is that these are descriptive or nominalist rights. Right. So your liberal rights depend on what liberals your rights are. And if you're not a liberal, you don't have any. That's basically how it works, right. If you don't disagree with them, they'll probably respect your rights to a degree. But your rights rely on them saying you have them according to their descriptions of what rights are. And if you notice, over time, those descriptions are liable to change, which means they're unstable, which means they're contingent. And they would say, oh, well, due to progress. That's why our description of rights have changed. But there are various mechanisms that make that progress happen, such as, for example, the expansion of rights to transgender rights. Now, that's partly a result of technology, of surgery and of pharmaceuticals and of the viral transmission of the craze, which is how they admit it, social contagion, if you like. And they've admitted themselves, people who are advocates for that, so that that's how it's reproduced. So this is a kind of cultural production process that's also an industry.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

But if you. But when you look at how those rights have been expanded, you see where there's an essential conflict, and that comes down to the description of what things are. So on the one hand, you'll have a man who is basically impersonating a woman, insisting he is a woman, and then you'll have some women who will object to that and say, well, I don't want you in my toilet or in my women's prison or in my hospital, because you're fundamentally not a woman. And the question of rights then becomes again, as it always is, a question of who gets to define what a woman is who gets the right. That's a universal. Sorry, that's a particular instance of the universal idea of liberal rights. It's basically what they say it is and it's liable to change.

[B]

But hold on, isn't that what I was saying? This is where progressivism has maybe gone too far. But rights also come from the law and the law is established by government. But sorry, if we just go back far enough, we wouldn't advocate for a world where we still have black people enslaved for being black.

[A]

I don't think that's a very interesting way to frame this discussion. If you look at what Patrick Deneen said in his book why Liberalism Failed, he said that when you start off with defining rights like this, you're always going to end up with a paralysis. And I just use the transgender example because it's obvious where you have a conflict of one rights based group with another and it's effectively insoluble because they're demanding their priority and they're saying that no, we have the privilege to define who gets the right to do this and where there's a conflict, that conflict becomes insoluble when it's a question of if you like equal rights but from antagonistic factions and it can't be resolved. And he said that's one of the paradoxes of liberalism because the question of whose rights become prior can't be answered by that system. Because of course everyone's rights are equal, but it shows you that they aren't. You have a bunch of people here saying that one thing is true and then there are the other people saying that's false and the system simply can't compute that. And so you have conflict. And that's because those rights depend on the power to define reality in words. And that's related to the way that we are ruled. And that's this creation of this pseudo reality that's basically a matter of words and images to make you feel good.

[B]

No, I understand the point you're making, but then what rights should we have?

[A]

Well, I'm an essentialist, you know, and

[B]

life, liberty and property.

[A]

No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm an essentialist. There are things in the world that the basis of reality and being doesn't change. That man is changeless across time. He doesn't progress, he doesn't develop morally and intellectually because the calendar flips over.

[B]

What I'm trying to understand is what does, what does the world look like that Frank Wright wants to live in?

[A]

You see, this is the thing, because you Can't.

[B]

You went, you went to make a field. Yeah, to campaign for restore. So there's something in what Rupert Lewis restore that you believed takes the country in a direction that you want.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And as I said, I'm a bit of a half work. I read

[A]

people usually pretend to know everything.

[B]

No. Do you know what? I think it helps with the job. I do. I said before there's three types of podcasts that you can listen to. Like this, there's two smart people together, a moron interviewing a smart person and two morons. And so today it's a moron with a smart person. And I get to ask Jeffrey and I get to ask dumb questions. And the 20% smart people watching will go in the comments and go, pete's such a dumbass. And then the other 80% go, oh, I had that question too. I don't understand. Like, I think, I think there's a lot of people out there now sensing there's a lot wrong with this country. Well, things aren't going well, but what is it we want?

[A]

When you ask me that question, what do I want to see? It genuinely isn't about what I want to see personally.

[B]

I mean, I love your kids.

[A]

I've got a lot of ideas about things and you know, I mean, I'm, I'm a traditional Catholic. I have a very probably a tediously detailed understanding of political history and political economy and go on about that forever until you do finally get an audience funded shop collar that can be remotely operated by viewers. So I can just be tased into the compliance sack. But you know that, that's not about what I want to see. The reason why I am so motivated to do anything I can is to help Rupert Loads restore is because Britain must be restored and we cannot do with any more mad political visions. We can't have any more personal ambition projects, vanity projects, enriching your friends, insane ideologies. This really is a dire national emergency and I believe this is the last chance we have to save the nation. And that is a serious duty. And that is a duty of the state. It's a duty to our families now, it's to our people now. But our future. We don't have a future as a people. If we don't save the nation now, we're going to go gradually extinct in our own homelands. My children won't have a home. And not only that, the entire economy will fall apart because of the dependency culture, because of the various problems we have. We really are looking at an extremely bleak and disturbing future in which we probably lose control of the ability to contain events maybe within our lifetimes if we don't stop now. And this is about basically an emergency situation which needs responsible action to be carried out by genuine men and women of demonstrable integrity and capability, not some mad vanity project, not some, some personal ideological vision or other. But if you talk to people, they want common sense, they want to return to reality. Some dignity to our lives would be nice. The fact that we need things that work. Maybe we won't have everything that we have right now because we're facing a dire economic crisis, but what we do have will function and we can look to rebuilding it over a reasonable time scale. Now, one of the things that restore has, that is so markedly absent from practically any dimension of politics in the west anywhere, has been absent for the last three decades, is long term strategic planning. You've got politics now that just looks at two year, maybe if you're lucky, four year election cycles. And to be honest, most of it's to do with kind of the Twitter cycle. It's just the speed of information. You can't plan and you can't make a nation prosperous and secure on that frivolous timescale where you care more about the headlines tomorrow in a bunch of newspapers or on some app than you do about the fate of the nation. The people that you're nominally there to represent, govern, and whose lives you're shaping. That needs long term strategic planning in things like the economy, industry, energy, in national security, in diplomacy. There's a difference between politicians and statesmen. And it was said in the 19th century that that difference was that politicians think about today, tomorrow and the next election, whereas statesmen and diplomats think about the survival of their civilization into the coming centuries. And we need a bit of that now because the time is short and the emergency that we're facing is deep. But it can be stopped and we can save the nation. And it is a duty. It's not a matter of what I want, it's not a matter of what anyone wants. I don't even want to do this. I despise most people on the Internet. So you must be glad that I haven't seen you because I don't have any respect for the, you know, kind of grifters and things like that. And I'm not saying that you're one, but you look, I mean, I suppose I may have to one day say, look, I'm not like the other grifters. But the thing is, is that you can see why, you know, you'd be suspicious of the media sphere because it's been so toxic and it's been so full of lies and it's so venomous and it permissions so much damage in our lives. So that's why, that's why I say that. And also about the political system, because despite whoever you vote for and whatever they promise you, the same mad policies get continued and the country goes down the toilets, right? Everything gets worse while the line goes up. And we can all see that happening. So you can see why people would be despairing and disaffected of the entire media political complex. But like, that is the reason why I'm doing this now. I don't want to be in the media, I don't want to be a part of that system and I certainly don't want to be in politics because of the abominable reputation that politicians have given it throughout my life. You know, they're worse than the journalists. It's a question of how many lampposts do we have really. But the thing is that you have to do it. And that's why I've met so many people in restore. They've been so nice to my little son as well. They're just genuinely motivated by a duty to save the nation. And it doesn't matter who they are or where they come from or what they've got or what they haven't got. That's why they're all there.

[B]

What was the turning point for you? When did you realize. I mean, I've obviously, like you seen things go to shit for more than a decade. But there must be a moment you said, okay, this is it, I can't take this anymore. I'm, I'm. I'm going to get involved.

[A]

Well, I, I don't know what. Well, I'm going to get involved in politics.

[B]

No, like what, what was, was there a particular moment where you were like this? I can't, I can't sit and stand by and just watch this anymore. I have to.

[A]

Yeah, there was actually. It was when my kids were little and my messes had a job as a lecturer and so they get like holidays and things like that. And I would have gone and had to do something like maybe an education or something like a kind of private. But I was offered a job to do some kind of school improvement consultancy stuff and I was thinking about doing that and I really profoundly didn't want to do it because what you're basically doing is you're being paid quite well. To reinforce institutional failure. So basically this is just a way of grifting off the taxpayer and that's just morally wrong and I didn't want to do it. So I came up with a brilliant idea of joining the Army Reserve. Now, at that time I was a self identified trans mummy. I invented that term because my message would go to work and we had two little bairns and I would like look after them, papoose and backpack and toddlers and stuff. And when I joined the mob, it's the infantry, so they're quite, you know, punchy. And the sergeant saying to me, like, what's your occupation? I said, transmum. And he goes, I'm not writing that down. Let's chuck the pen. And I said, give us it. And I did. I put it down. I put it down on my attestations. Well, I'll show you if you want. But yeah, yeah, no one argues with that nowadays because, you know, because of progress. Right, that's it. I even. I did. There were some harsh words exchanged when I put on the black woman's wig that I found on the 53 bus instead of my helmet whilst we were doing a section attack. I said, when he'd stopped bellowing into my face and threatening to kill me because it's a terrifyingly huge collar, Sergeant, I said to him, I said, look, it worked for General but naked. Because if you look into his war, like he used to send his troops into such as they were semi naked wearing ladies wigs and handbags and things, and they believed it made them bulletproof.

[B]

Was that in Africa, wasn't it, General by naked?

[A]

Yes, yes, it was, yeah. It's Liberia.

[B]

Liberia, yes.

[A]

He's called Joshua Blighy, actually. Now he's. He's gone on to become. Become a preacher, to be honest, and goes on. And so he's successfully had a kind of career transition. There's like a kind of second act to his life, which is fascinating in itself, but yeah, he's a real person. And so, you know, I was quite satisfied that I managed to insert his somewhat memorable soubriquet into this exchange with this kind of fuming color sergeant who clearly wanted to kill me for the wig, by the way. I discovered it on a 53 bus once and it was as if I heard the voice of the Lord telling me to pick up the wig and put it on. And I said, who am I to disagree? And magical things happened to me ever since.

[B]

But come on, what radicalized you? The.

[A]

I decided to try and go in the army full time. And I did. And I saw what happened to it. I saw what happened to it as a kind of serving soldier. And I saw the demoralization, the misery and the gradual capture of this institution that I love, the army and what they've done to it. It's heartbreaking. It's genuinely heartbreaking. So demoralizing. It's so impoverished and it's being gradually destroyed by these insane values where, you know, you. You will see adverts for new hairstyles, transgenderism. You can no longer refer to people by their names. You've got to use their rank, you've got to call them infanteer instead of infantryman, because it might offend people. You have kind of pronouns, days and things like that. And ultimately I just realized and thought, I cannot serve. I'm not serving the crown, I'm not serving my country here. I'm serving an ideology, and it's the rainbow ideology. And that's not mine. And that's a very sad thing to say. And there are many like me as well, who are actually real soldiers and not just some, you know, dress up dolly, as I prefer to refer to myself, not some just kind of occasional mascot. But there are, There are a lot of serious people who've left the fighting arms because of this. And. And again, when I was going on about the other day about people of genuine talent and commitment being forced out for ideological reasons, that includes our. Our fighting men who are there to defend the nation nominally, and many of the armed police as well, because I've met quite a few of those. And you remember after the shooting of Chris Carver and the prosecution of the police officer that shot him because he was an armed criminal who just shot someone with a pistol that he had in the car at the time that police officer was convicted of murderer. And after that, I think around 400 of our senior close protection officers, people who protect the king and the government ministers, they just resigned and went back to their normal jobs because you don't get. It's not like a designated job. But they didn't take the risk. It was a disgrace. Increasingly, people in the special forces, like the SES and so on, are realizing that when they do get sent into war and then they're kind of privately congratulated, several years later, the same state that did that will have you prosecuted for war crimes or something. So there really is a kind of mad disconnect between this. Like the state doesn't. The state's so mad now that it will actually throw its own protection in jail or persecute them and then wonder why they've got no competent armed police to protect them when they're walking around Westminster. And they'll wonder why they haven't got any special forces to send off in these mad wars we shouldn't be fighting anyway. And that's because they've prosecuted them and they've basically persecuted them out of wanting to doing the job anyway. Because if you look at why people do these things, these liberals don't understand this, but we do that kind of thing, that there's not a great deal of money in this. There is a risk like that. You die. Men do this because they have a sense of duty. But if you don't recognize duty, you don't recognize honor and loyalty and so on, and you can just discard them, or when it's politically convenient, you can just throw them under the bus and prosecute them because it doesn't mean anything to you what they've done. Now, first they were useful to you, but now they disadvantage you. Do you see where that utilitarian, right, that idea of morality from use and preference and the avoidance of pain and the promotion of pleasure comes into it? That's a moral decision for these people. Oh, well, it makes me feel good. Oh, it keeps me away from disadvantage. Oh, it's morally good then. Well, that's just nihilistic. It's despicable. And that's how despicably these men have been treated. But if you go through every institution from education to health to civil service, anyone who really is motivated by a higher sense of purpose than themselves, who has a sense of obligation to our people, to their communities, to the nation, we're effectively punished and marginalized and even prosecuted for doing your duty. I mean, that's evil.

[B]

It's the destruction of all the values that made us British.

[A]

Yes, and this is what I get back to you about. Look, when you look, I'm doing this kind of series about how the liberal system was created. I've written a.

[B]

A book.

[A]

I haven't got it published yet. It's called A Brief History of Liberal Democracy. It explains to you this isn't just some mad idea I've come up with. It's just we're not taught this in our schools, but it is all very well documented and there were very great speeches. It was obvious movement. So when you look at it, this is to supply a system where you believe in only the beliefs it's made you believe in fundamentally and not a question. And gradually you find that there are Penalties attached to questions that you, if you ask the wrong questions, that, you know, if like an alarm goes off and the ejector seat fires you out into the gulag.

[B]

Well, it's the, it's the friend enemy Marxist doctrine. Let's scare people off.

[A]

I think it was a German jurist, Carl Schmidt, who talked about that being politics, being about friend enrichment.

[B]

So I'm going to talk about restore a little bit more, but also I want to talk about reform because there was a period of time like I just hate the establishment. I just generally hate establishment authority. People in charge, people tell me what to do. I wasn't very good at school at listening to people. I just, I don't like it.

[A]

Did you get to get good at being in subordinates? I did.

[B]

I've always, always been a bit of a rebel. Listen to punk rock and skateboarded. Just, you know, it's just one of those kinds. So I, I like telling people with unearned authority to fuck off, basically. And, and the reason I really hate the current political class is that as I commonly say on Twitter, every five years we have a personality contest and we elect the most unimpressive people to make the most consequential decisions for our country.

[A]

Well, that's machine politics, of course.

[B]

But you look at this, which is

[A]

evil, by the way.

[B]

Oh, I agree. And Ian Dunt wrote this great book, How Westminster Works and why it doesn't. Just exposing the incompetence of stupidity. These people. And you look at, I mean, Keir Starmer to me is, I'm sure people say he's a good guy. Just see a beige unimpressive man with no real, no insights, no strategy, nothing of intelligence says just limp lead in a country to be replaced by potentially Andy Burnham, who is just like another high tech socialist, or Angela Rayner, who is interesting as character but not as a politician. Ed Miliband, who's. I look at all these people and think, I've. In business, I've met some impressive fucking people. Some people have grown some amazing companies. People where I just sit and listen. I just like these people are impressive, yet we have these people elevated above them to make even more important decisions, which is fucking morons.

[A]

Well, I mean what you've seen here, like, obviously Tony Blair is the Dark lord. Yes, of course, you must be aware of that. And did you see that fantastic video of him where he pulled the rug on Keir Starmer about the days after the election? And it was like, you know, you never cross the dark Lord. It was just so loud I'll send it to you. It is hilarious. But the point being is, is a Blair is evil, of course. But what he did was he created Western machine politics. And what does that mean? It means the Labour Party just became a brand. It had no connection whatsoever to its origins or its principles or anything like that. It became a brand and it became a new brand. New Labour, new, new, good, new and improved. What does that mean? It means it's become a machine for gaining and retaining power. And that's it. So the people you pick, they're just components, even the leader. Because the meaning of the whole thing is the machine. There's no more meaning to it than the machinery of power. We're going to get into power and that we're going to strip away everything that makes it difficult. Anything like principle or talent. Yeah. Or flair or character. These all just make them, they make the machine less efficient. If you look at the idea that I said to you earlier on about if you look at the kind of international, liberal, global project as basically just a project to standardize the world, you can see why machine politics fits into that so well. Because that standardizes the candidates, the policy, the process, the media, the message discipline, everything like that. I mean, for example, by contrast, right, if you were in a modern political party now you will have a communications director like, you know, the Prince of Darkness, Peter Mandelson. I mean it came as such a shock to people that he was such a baddie, like such an Epstein criminal man who's been called the Prince of Darkness for decades, who knew that he wasn't a goodie, you know, who knew, like lol. But you get something like Mandelson, some suspicious looking character who's turned up from nowhere with a mustache and they would tell you, you can't say this, you can't say that. That's called message discipline. So after I were, after I left the Shire and disastrously had my sausage phase broadcast across the world, I contacted some people in the party and I said, look, do you want to give me some message discipline guidance? What I can and can't say and basically no, you know, I mean Harris the Pitt told me last night, he said no, just, just carry on as you are.

[B]

Well, I think the most effective thing that Rupert Lowe has done is establish the brand of don't care. Yes. What you think.

[A]

But it's so liberating.

[B]

It's wonderfully liberal, liberated. And somebody said to me recently, he said the thing, one of the things about political leadership is there's a difference between what you can say and what you can think. When you enter the ballot box, it comes down to what you think. No one's watching. What do you really think? But in certain walks of life it's very difficult for some people to say what they think. They face cancellation and their career being sabotaged or being attacked, you know, with words or with fists. Some people just cannot say the things they really want to say. Maybe in their family environment they don't want to upset somebody.

[A]

This comes down to the fundamental question of how free are our lives, right? There's a reason why they no longer refer to it as the free world and that's because there are obvious penalties attached to anyone actions or words, right. That are deemed to be inappropriate.

[B]

But Rupert Lowe's don't care message has shifted the over to window to allow people to question things that were unquestionable before.

[A]

Well, they were always. Look, I think it's interesting to look at that point of view and you can think of it like the cop in the head is that really you're probably not going to suffer immediate consequences for just noticing basic facts about reality. If you're rude, if you're offensive, if you're nasty, then you probably deserve to face those consequences. But if you're just saying, hang on a minute, these, this is all wrong, there's a serious problem here, right? You know, we're all being harmed and somewhat being deceived along the way about it, that's fine, that's, those kind of things are actually punished and that's, that's a problem. But when you realize that you can actually say things and your life doesn't immediately fall apart, that shows you that sometimes there is more fear than danger and that's a means of political control. And so if you liberate people from an understandable but essentially non real unreal fear where there's no real danger, they realize, oh, oh, I see.

[B]

Well, there are certain dangers, some people, some walks of life in the media.

[A]

But some of that danger is definitely self policed, sure, but there is some risk, however, as more and more people realize, right, I can say these things and not disappear in a puff of smoke, right? I can notice basic facts about reality and other people are doing it. It encourages people to say that and that changes the culture because fundamentally what we're talking about here is this isn't a question of good and evil, this is a question of who has the power to do what. Does the state and its ideological bureaucracies have the power to tell you to be afraid to basically notice the awful conditions of your life, honestly or not. Now, shouldn't we have the power to say what's right and wrong about our lives because it is our lives. I think we should. Right? I think that's what it comes down to here. Why do we tolerate a system that makes us all censor ourselves because we're terrified of being unable to feed our children if we simply notice what's wrong with our lives?

[B]

Well, I think that's what's happened. It's breaking. And people aren't tolerated anymore. Hence why.

[A]

But this isn't a great watershed of tolerance. This is the fact that the reality that we inhabit is so awful that the costs of saying nothing are higher than the cost of speaking out. We have to say something now because it's getting so bad. Reality everywhere is making the case for

[B]

people, but it comes back to your long term plan in. Because there were short, for example, you know, the first people who came out against trans people in sports and trans people in prisons and trans people in, you know, women's changing rooms were attacked, viciously attacked, were canceled, were aggressively stalked and harassed. And they opened the door for other people to actually say, actually this is wrong. And so it takes a bit of bravery and courage.

[A]

Sometimes I think it was Mum's net that really moved the needle on that. Because I remember, I remember I was being babooned by my very small kids at the time in this kind of static caravan up north and I had like a minor epiphany and I went in and said to our last. I said, look, it's Mumsnet's Mobilized. There's like 2 million women now saying, no, we're not going to have Theresa May's Gender Recognition Act. You can't just say this into being.

[B]

You can't just.

[A]

That would. That. That law, if you don't remember, would, would make. It would legally protect you. If you just said, I'm a woman, then you are one. I mean, that's mad. But that's trans sanity. That's trans sane. So that's a different, that's a differently sane view of the world, if you like it. Is this exactly the same categorically as a man from Western Africa turning up in Ireland and getting a passport and saying, I'm Irish. That's exactly the same thing. It's exactly the same as an Algerian or a Pakistani coming to England getting a passport saying, I'm English now I'm British. No, you're not. You've got a passport You've got a document. But that's an essential question. Being a man, being a woman, changeless, that's an essential question. Being English, being an African, being an Irishman, that can't be changed by description. There are limits to that. Liberals don't like it when you recognize the limits of the power of make belief, because these are make beliefs. It's all makeup. It's makeup. Right. And if you remove the makeup, it's very ugly underneath. And that's why they love makeup so much.

[B]

So I was getting to the point, I was going to ask you about reform because there was a period of time. Yes. There was a period of time where they were the only hope.

[A]

Oh, yes.

[B]

And it felt like they had the momentum. It felt like they had the anti establishment. They were kind of like a ragtag bunch in the commons. And then there was a couple of incidences with one with Rupert himself, and then two when.

[A]

Well, you mean when they tried to get him arrested.

[B]

Yes. Yeah, yeah. And. And also just the period of the last few months when they've tried to recruit anyone who will come from the Conservative Party where.

[A]

Or indeed from anywhere in the world.

[B]

Yeah. And it just felt like, here we go again. It's the same.

[A]

It looks a lot like the nhs, doesn't it? You know, like, you know, we're basically being sold this thing as a kind of national institution of salvation, but it's increasingly stuffed by migrant labor, you know. But I mean, the reason why people attach so much hope to that is because they've been so demoralized by a political deadlock that's taken place throughout our entire lives. You and me have lived through a time where we thought there's no realistic possibility of any change. There's just no way out. We've all seen Adam Curtis's the Trap, you know, that this system was intentionally created to create that belief that there is no alternative. TINA is the acronym for that. Like Francis Fukuyama, you know, all that stuff. All that stuff. That this is the end of history, that this is perfect. There's something stable and permanent about the liberal system as it imagines itself when it's not. In fact, it's a system of permanent change. Like you said, if you're a progressive, you have to keep progressing, which means naturally that what you do next year will be more extreme than this year we've progressed. But if you use the argument to create turmoil in people's lives through these mad social movements and current thing crazes, then people get this sense of constant Turmoil and instability and disorientation. And so they can never really respond to the power that's creating all this because they're baffled by the effects, so they're blinded to the cause of it. Well, the effects are all so bad now that the sum total of that is to produce the most horrifying consequence for any political elite ever. And that's to mobilise the common people in recognizing and taking interest in political power, in how they're ruled, because they can now see the cause of all those bad effects. And it's the system that rules us.

[B]

Do enough people see it?

[A]

The reality that we inhabit is mobilizing people to do that. Now, it's not just about the fact that shopping is going to go up, that your fuel's going to go up, heating your house is going to go up whilst the value of your money is going down. It's not just the fact that many households who actually work, you've got to find several jobs in there just to stay afloat. They're not getting on, they're not investing. That's the kind of reality that's radicalizing people, if you like. They're saying, look, my life isn't working. How do I make my life work? How do you think? Why does nothing work? Why does everyone, if I work, talk like a Dalek? Why does customer service culture come out of that terrible telephone tree that treats you like some kind of antibody, to be isolated and like. Like an infection, to be isolated and neutralized? Right. That culture's everywhere now. It's pervasive. If you act like a human being, you're seen as a threat in that customer service culture. And so that's the culture that we have, where you live as this kind of alienated individual consumer unit with diminishing rights, no real aspirations, as if you're lost in this wilderness now where you just think, well, most people are trying to survive. They haven't even got any idea about how to get on. It's desperate. It's a dignity free environment, modern life and in every dimension, from meaning to morality, to what kind of future we have for our children to, you know, do people even have the time to think about the world when they're exhausted from just trying to pay the bills?

[B]

Well, then maybe it's understandable that people do think short term, like the politicians. Oh, God, if I just. Just one more vote.

[A]

No, no, not at all. What this is producing is a deep sense and a real sense of reality, which is that this is a very real crisis and it affects everyone.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

And that's why people are taking such an interest in politics and more and more of them will, because most people would very sensibly spend their entire life never having a single political thought. Right. And that's a good idea because politics is usually a sewer. But the reason why people are getting interested in it is because of the damage it's done to their lives. It doesn't leave them alone. There's an ideological message in everything. It's telling you that everything that's bad for you and your nation and your people and your body and mind is actually good for you. And people have noticed this and they've noticed it's ruining their lives and that the economy and politics aren't working for them and so they're going to do something about it.

[B]

Yeah, look, I'm not sure on that. I think I. Pretty much my whole life I've had a recognition of people's interest in politics. And this back and forth between the left and the right has gone on. I remember my brother and my dad arguing when I was a kid about it. I think it's always been there. I think. I think what's different right now is there is a feeling of existential crisis.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And we're finished if we don't fix it. But I think that feeling of existential crisis is it's coming up in both a left and right wing kind of populist movement. You do have a left wing populist movement under Polanski and his gang of nutters. And you do have it under reform and also restore. And I actually, funny enough, I actually think the left wing populace and the right wing populace are kind of recognizing the same thing. They've just got different answers.

[A]

I don't think that populism is a politics. It isn't. It's a spasm. Sure. Populism was just basically a reaction against what populism is and was. And it's, it's almost played out now because you can see that it's just fraudulent and it doesn't have any depth and there's no point getting interested. It won't, it won't help you. What populism is is a spasm of rejection of the liberal consensus, the forced consensus of our politics since the end of the Soviet Union, if you want to say that, you know, so you can vote for left liberals or right liberals or extreme liberals, but that's it. And you're going to get the same stuff, whoever you vote for. That's it. So it's a rejection of that system because of the awful reality it's produced. And people can see that those awful effects, they're their lives now, and that's the cause of it. So they don't like that. So then you get people like Nigel Mirage and you get Donald Trump Turner and they say, look, we hate the system. You know, they hate us. And there's this big jamboree of kind of, you know, and also genuine hope because people are so demoralized, like, oh, thank goodness someone's finally turned up. And that's where it's really pernicious, which is where, you know, that's where populism really is pernicious. Because they don't deliver and they don't help you, they don't help their populations. They make a lot of empty promises, and then suddenly you realize they're not doing anything for you at all. And they won't, because they're not genuine people of integrity. And they don't have a politics. They don't have a serious political economy. And if you want to know what that is, that's the relationship between the politics and economic ideas that you have. And one of the fundamental questions of that is one question we've never heard all our lives, is what's the economy? For now, under the economy that we've had, that we've lived through, you and I, we have been increasingly for the economy. We're basically there to be consumed by it, and our lives are meaningful to it, to make the line go up and so on. Fundamentally, the economy isn't for us, we're for it. And it's an international model too. It's a global economy. Remember that. So you don't really matter as a person or a place or as a culture or a people or a history or tradition or a religion or meaning or even a civilization. We're just, as I said, a global borderless bazaar of increasingly mutually hostile strangers all hunting a bargain. And that's the system. That's what the economy is. That's where the politics comes from. For that to tell you that that's utopia, well, it isn't. It's a nightmare. So the question that I would pose is, do you think populism has an answer to that? And it doesn't. It's basically just a bunch of grifters. So I'm not a populist. Restore isn't a populist party. It has a serious political economy that is looking immediately to rescue the nation, if you like, put the fire out.

[B]

Right, sure, sure.

[A]

But then to build a system that genuinely does restore the national resilience of the infrastructure, industry and energy basis of the country and thereby providing real jobs and real dignity to people's lives through long term strategic planning.

[B]

No, look, I agree, but there's a lot of voters out there who are confused between the difference between reform and Restore. There are a lot of people who are now reform voters are looking at Restore and saying, you're going to split the vote. You're going to hand the election to the Labour Party. You're going to hand it to Burnham. They can't fundamentally see the difference between Rupert and Nigel, and they can't fundamentally see the difference between the policies because they look similar to somebody who's looking at service level.

[A]

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think the party's 80 days old and I think what I found by talking to people like working class scum like myself, they very much take to it. When they realize, even if they have never heard of you before, a lot of people will be like, oh, wow, really? This is it. They immediately do see the difference.

[B]

My son, if he was here, he would be voting for a Conservative Party. I'm not going to answer for him. I think he'd vote for Restore, but he would vote on the Conservative side of things. But if you speak to one of his friends who's maybe enamored by Zach Polanski, and you ask them why they're voting or why they like these leaders, their complaints about what's wrong in society are generally the same. Cannot get a house, everything's too expensive. Society seems unfair. It doesn't matter how hard you work, the state takes more. They're basically saying the same things. And it's how do you convince those who think Polanski and more of the same, be kind socialist movement is the answer? How do you convince them? No, actually, what it. What, what we actually need is what you can tell.

[A]

Conservatism. You can see why. You can see why Polanski's doing well, because as someone, I think I'll try and remember who it was because it's a comment deserving of attribution. But you lost to a bunch of hippie women was what someone said to Matt Goodwin about the Gorton and dental by election. It was a really cutting remark because it was true. It might have been Parvini. It was very funny.

[B]

I love Neymar.

[A]

Well, he does come out with bangers on the Daily, as he says in his little bayou. And it's fair enough, that was a banger. And it was lol. But it's also true now. Why do you lose to dancing hippie with. Okay, there's a serious point in there. There often is, when he makes jokes, you know, and it's this. It's that the Green parties mobilize vibes, right? When people feel bad because of bad things, if you offer them feel good, but really a program that's going to make everything worse, they won't think about the program, they'll think about the vibes. As I said to you before, one of the reasons why that technique works. Let's have people dancing, let's have bright colors, let's have a party atmosphere. Yeah. I mean, our party, our political economy is insane and it will destroy the nation by collapsing the borders. We'll just be overrun with billions of people from the third world. We will die out. As Eric Zamur, who I think coined the term Remy Gratian, said. He said, le termeonds de nurtre monde, le termondisation du norte monde, the third worldisation of our world. Now, that's not an invidious remark, it's just a statement of fact. And that's what the Green Party's policies would do. And I don't want to live. I want to live in my. I don't see the wisdom in unscrewing my front door and applauding a horde of strangers from every part of the world into my house, dilute it and make it their own, and eventually expel me and my children. That's effectively what we're doing to the nation under those policies. It's mad. Furthermore, if you look at the standard rate of increase in violent crime, sexual crime against women and children across Europe, which directly correlates to unlimited legal and illegal migration, then you can see that there's a serious danger to exactly those women who are out there dancing in their hippie skirts, celebrating kind of policies that will see them much more likely to be raped and murdered. That's an ugly thing to say, but it's true. Why do they do it then? Because it's obviously clearly irrational and it violates the policies of, if you like, the essential idea of nations. Now, you know, if you believe in God, that I do. God created the nations and obviously they're distinct from one another. And the social teaching of the Church and the moral justice of Aquinas. And St. Augustine says that you have a duty to defend your people and keep your nation secure, which is a principle. Also comes from Aristotle. So that's the kind of classical 2000 year wisdom of yes, we need to look after our people. It is a just thing to do and God blesses it. It's not evil at all, it's just sane. The fact we're in a position having to defend sanity, basic sanity. No, I don't want my country to be overrun by people who see it as somewhere to plunder and understandably they're out for themselves.

[B]

Are you talking about the politicians? Are you talking about the.

[A]

I'm talking about. I'm talking about these extremely attractive opportunity for people from very distant, less functional nations to come here and make good for themselves. Probably at the expense of the people who are here. Right. What about our rights? That never gets mentioned either. That's obviously mad if you're going to let that happen. If you're going to celebrate the idea that yes, I want violent crime rates against women and children to go up, which is an obviously uncomfortable but ugly fact, but a fact nonetheless. That too is mad. Who says I want to destroy my nation and I want more crime against children and women. That's what these women are effectively dancing for. When you take away the vibes so you can see how dangerous that is as a political economy. That's the kind of world it's going to produce. And yet why does it work? I'll tell you why it works. Because if you turn the music off, those women feel bad, they can't have their vibes anymore. And if you say, oh look, that's going to destroy the world that permits you to go and dance in the street in the first place without being raped and murdered. And they say, oh well, you're a terrible person for saying that. But by the time they realize that's true, it'd be too late. Now what you're doing there is you're robbing them of an illusion by which they live part of the meaning of their lives and their idea of themselves as a good person, it gives them status, it gives them purpose in their lives. That's what a belief system does for people. So you must be gentle and kind to them when you tell them. No, what you believe in here is not going to produce the feel good vibes outcome that you want to live in. In fact, it's going to destroy it.

[B]

So if you'd just stepping at home and looking after a baby that maybe would have given the feelings that you.

[A]

Look, even that's a terrible thing.

[B]

I know I'm not meant to say that and I probably get to.

[A]

No, no, no, I'm going to tell you the truth about this. I mean, we had kids late in life because we were, who were misguided fools at one point, and thank God we had them when we did because it would have been terrible. But in my wife's life now, there are lots of women around her age who have now lost the ability to have children. And it is an unspoken but obvious tragedy in their lives. Now, this isn't about insulting women or anything like that. It's just awful. It's just awful. I mean, it's heartbreaking. You look into a woman's face. It's not every woman. I'm not saying it's every woman, but I've seen this often enough in my wife's personal friends and people that I know myself. Women that I know myself. You can see it's too late now. What, what have I got? You know?

[B]

Well, look, Frank, when I was in my late 30s and I was single and I was dating, I was also dating women in their late 30s.

[A]

You were just looking for the right man.

[B]

They didn't, they didn't around. They very many, many dates. I didn't have that many days. But large percentage of the dates they're asking you on the first day, will you have more children and will you get married again? Because they don't want to go. They don't invest in a second date, third date, fourth date if you're. By the way, I don't want any more kids. And there's a lot. And, and you know, you try and get to the bottom of this. Why don't you have kids? Well, I went to uni and then I wanted my career and I got my career and, and then, and I left it a bit late and, you know, didn't meet the right guy or met the right guy. And we, you know, we've taken it away from them. I've already said to my daughter, and that pisses some people off, if you want to have kids, you need to be thinking about that in your early 20s and be ready for it. And I, as your father, will support you. And don't wait until your 30s. It could be too late. And even just having that conversation, there's gonna be some women who, who, they won't listen to this, but just say they stumbled across this or this gets cut and bought on. Tick tock. They're gonna go, that's a man shouldn't be talking about women. You don't understand. You don't understand what women have fought for. Blah. Like, I know where, I know what's going to come but, but I just, I've seen what you've seen. I've seen in the eyes of people I've been on dates with. And I had two kids and I didn't want anymore. And it's like, no, look, there's something

[A]

fundamentally poisonous and evil about the, the redesignation of family life, motherhood, fatherhood, as some kind of prison to be escaped from. You know, like I was in the reason why I'm so interested in being a critic of the liberal ideas. I was a liberal. Right. I did believe in it.

[B]

You're a reformed liberal.

[A]

Oh, look, I mean, interesting. I mean that in the broader sense. Yeah, actually from the spectrum. But also, I would remind you that conservatives are liberals too.

[B]

Oh, no, I'm saying it coming from this. I came from the same place, but

[A]

that's why I take an interest in that. Now. If you look at this, if you look at the way that our lives have been formed and our values have been shaped, they haven't produced the paradise on earth that the liberal ideology said it would. Liberation, the sense of women's liberation. Women have been liberated from womanhood. You know, you've got this idea of the family as a prison, that children are a ball and chain, that you should farm them off to some stranger immediately. That they can be translated into another series of consumer transactions because nothing should get in the way of you and what you want to do. And. And then you realize suddenly there's no real meaning in your life.

[B]

Well, so has this kind of like female left wing activism? Has it become a replacement from the biological need to provide care?

[A]

Well, there is that sense of pathological altruism. And I've come across this in this campaign that I've been doing internationally to criminalize surrogacy, because surrogacy is basically the hire of women to produce babies for sale, which is obscene. And it came about because in 1993, a court case was conducted in California, in the United States, to establish the right to buy a human life. Now, as mad as that sounds, that's why surrogacy is possible. Now, all forms of it are basically commercial, despite what people tell you. The United nations report established that, saying there's no difference between paying costs and buying them because they're effectively the same amount of money. So that's what's going on. And when you look into that, you see, well, look, where's the bottom? Where's the bottom? Where do we say, oh, look, we've fallen this far, we can't go any further. There is no limit. There is no limit to the degradation of human life if the only right is fundamentally the right to buy. If you replace the value of human life with price, that's it. And you can see that when I do these campaigns, I talk to feminists, I talk to people who wouldn't be, my political friends, who look at my problematic haircut and they see my terrible timeline on Twitter and they see me as a religious bigot and an extremist. But nonetheless, they and I, the sane ones in my camp and their camp, because there are people who object to this on both sides of the argument. There are people who criticize me from my side. There are people who criticize those campaigners from theirs. For us talking to each other, I said, look, this is a common evil. We all recognize it's evil. If we come together, we can stop it. That's a pragmatic common good. And I believe in the common good. I don't believe in making bitter enemies from people who I profoundly disagree with. I believe that we should make realistic compromise with anyone that we can to stop obvious evils happening to people that degrade people's lives generally. And if you permit, this is a very important point, if you permit human life to become a commodity, something to be bought, sold, hired and traded, right, then our lives, all of our lives, are meaningless. They mean nothing. I mean, nothing but money.

[B]

Hasn't it become that already, though?

[A]

Yes, it has.

[B]

But aren't we all servants of the banks now?

[A]

Yes, we are. This is. The liberal system was effectively created by the same kind of people who instituted the Federal Reserve to create the debt system so they could print endless money and finance mad social revolutions in your country to replace your civilization with itself. That's what the liberal idea is. It's a political economy that replaces everything else with itself in every area of life. And that's why they love this consumer idea, because it is amoral, a cultural ahistorical, a national and a religious. It's got absolutely no meaning anywhere. It's the chicken ability of the human condition. You know, the reason why chickens so universally popular is because it doesn't violate anyone's cultural or religious prohibitions. And so it's like the universal meat. And that's what we are being turned into, a universal meat and a universal sausage machine to be pumped into little casings through a series of light industrial sheds that we are born in, eventually expiring as well.

[B]

You know, nothing will be happy.

[A]

Well, that's. That's Utopia, isn't it? But like the, the, you remember that, you know, most of this stuff came from the corporations too. Look at Larry Fink of BlackRock, you know, sponsoring DEI and ESG and so on. They quietly wound that down a couple of years ago. But prior energy, now the damage has been done, as it were. But you see, as I said to you, these rights are apt to change. What they say is morally imperative changes from one time to the next. And the reason it changes because it becomes more or less convenient to the ruling elite to promote these ideas at the time.

[B]

Well, so who has more power? Is it Larry Finkel, Keir Starmer?

[A]

Well, of course it's Larry Fin.

[B]

So who really, I mean, does this parliament even get to run our country? Or are they running it at the whims of the asset managers?

[A]

Again, the question of sovereignty is fundamental to any serious project to take up the duties of the state and to save the nation. Now one of the Blairite things that happened was that you found the, the sovereignty of the parliamentary power. So the sovereignty of Parliament, cabinet office, the Prime Minister's office was dissolved into a series of NGOs. Largely the power of the state now exists outside the state and it exists in these, if you like, liberal ideologies that aren't the NGOs, non governmental organizations. And the purpose of doing that is to make sure that your political ideology survives every election. So no matter who actually gets elected, you've got institutions like the bank of England and you've got institutions like policy groups and so on and the public bodies that are never going to listen to you, they're not going to work for you. And as you saw with Liz Truss will turn around and actually sabotage the highest office in the land because they want to get rid of you. And if you don't think that's true, there's a serious and credible threat of this happening in France and perhaps even in Germany, with people adjacent to the European Central bank and the national bank saying that their last resort, to defend the liberal system from the Rassemblemont Nationale and the alternative of your Deutschland is to cause a bond run in the markets to collapse confidence in these people and try and get them out. Because the liberal system's obviously finished, it can't win elections fairly. And the reason why it's unpopular is because of the deeply unpopular things it's done to all our lives. And so they're trying to do two things. There's Tony Blair's digital ID nightmare and he said for a number of years now, oh, the real reason for this is to stop populism. So basically to stop parties, stop you voting for anyone but us.

[B]

Yeah. And doesn't his son have a digital ID company or some involvement? And doesn't his daughter in law?

[A]

Are you politely suggesting there might be a bit of business double dealing in this?

[B]

I'm not saying these people are corrupt.

[A]

Oh, you weren't really.

[B]

I'm just saying there's some coincidences that seem to be popping up.

[A]

Do you know what you know? I mean, if you look at Tony Blair's extraordinary fortune, I think there was a conversation between Ehud Barak and Jeffrey Epstein that remarked upon his unusual ability to create money. Now if Jeffrey Epstein and Ehud Barak are saying that you're a bit dodgy in the way you make money, what does that say about you?

[B]

I wonder, what is it? What is his net worth?

[A]

Tony, Look, I, I, let's not make any agations about the Dark Lord. Let's just leave it at this. It's a mysterious mystery that can never be solved.

[B]

I want to know isn't that it's estimated that general around 60 million pounds for a prime minister.

[A]

Nonsense. He's got more money than that, hasn't he? I mean like that's what they were going on about.

[B]

But, but for therefore, for someone like Rupert Lowe, he has to do more than just win an election. He has to root out a cancer at the heart of the establishment.

[A]

This is the point. This is the point. Now if you look at people who were, there were serious people involved with Donald Trump, pardon me, especially around the second election, there were people who did things like the center for Newing America, the Heritage foundation, and they have this project of recruiting, I think up to 70, maybe 80,000 people to restaff the state because they knew that if they didn't get rid of the civil servants and if you like the deep state bureaucrats, then they wouldn't be able to govern. And you have the same problem here. The same problem here is that our ostensibly impartial civil service, they are not impartial, they're highly politicized. And that's more obvious in some departments than others. And you can see how heavily involved they are, if you like in the kind of rainbow Bolshevism, they openly display it. And most of the, the lanyard class have kind of bolshe coded lanyards on, don't they? You know, usually kind of rainbow hues and so on. So you can see that that's just interchangeable the identity of these organizations. Drive up to any major hospital, you'd be lucky to see our national flag outside any of them.

[B]

But you'll probably see the pelican crossing.

[A]

You will see the banner of Satan outside there. You know, the, the one with the. I don't know what it means, but there's. There's the kind of rainbow flag and it's got that triangle on it and then there's this kind of circle at the thing. And I've never dared ask what the brown circle's for, but for me, I just like to think of it as the pitiless eye of Sauron himself. So, you know, you see the institution that's extensively there for the nation. It's a national institution. It isn't. It's flying an enemy flag. It's flying the flag of an enemy ideology that is itself actually deeply unhealthy, that involves the mutilation and sterilization of children and so on, and the various other things about that lifestyle that you can read in Gabriel Rotello's book. If you ever want to read a book that you. That so harms you, that you feel like Lady Macbeth, you will never be clean again. Read Gabriel Rotello's book on called Sexual Ecology. It's a gay man's account of the AIDS crisis and why it happened. And it is a serious corrective to the misleading narratives of that. And it's absolutely. Well, you won't be the same again. It's a truth bomb written from the point of view of a man in the lifestyle. And he wrote it as warning to his fellow gay men. So, you know, that's a foundational book. And it was a man called Kevin Michael Grace, Canadian Catholic and journalist, a very wise man, who put me onto that and put me onto a lot of things, actually. Very, very helpful. I've been fortunate to have blessed with some very good friends who are far less foolish than I am.

[B]

I'm intrigued to see your bookcase, Frank. I buy a lot of books, I read a lot of books. I have no ability to recall and re quote from these books the way you do. It's a very.

[A]

No, I'm not. I just make it all up.

[B]

No, you don't. And the way you're able to build strong arguments that clearly span a lot of different texts that you've read to give yourself an understanding of the world where it is. It's an impressive quality. And take the compliment.

[A]

My life has been a series of humiliating mistakes. And realizing them and realizing that I was profoundly mistaken in the way that I saw the world. And of course that comes at some great cost. And then if you develop a sense of principle, then you realize, well, you know, I have to now adhere to what is true rather than these misguided beliefs that I have. And that comes at a financial and a career cost. And then eventually, you know, you either sink or swim. And so what happened to me was when I realized that I couldn't in good conscience continue to basically bilk the taxpayer by becoming an education consultant, and when I was profoundly heartbroken and it really did upset me what happened to the Army, I just thought, I can't do this.

[B]

But is it also liberating? I listened to this interview Owen Benjamin did with Tucker Carlson recently, and I found Tucker's. I did an interview yesterday. I mentioned I found his arc interesting. I feel like he's starting to see the world for what it is. But Owen Benjamin was cancelled and his life since he's been cancelled seems pretty good. He seems pretty liberated. I think it's liberating to be able to say whatever you want.

[A]

Oh, it is. But I mean, I said to my wife at the time, I said, look, I, there's, there's a chance they will keep my commission open for two years because I was a soldier and I went for a commission and I got it. I just, they could say, well, we'll defer it for you. So I said, look, I'm going to try writing and, and I will, I will give it a good shot, but. And she says, okay, what are you going to do? And I said, well, if I'm going to do this, I don't want to contribute to the slop wave. I will tell the truth and shame the devil. So there's obviously going to be. And she was delighted to hear that when I said the word then I may be arrested. She's like, oh, no. But bear in mind this was about the time that, you know, the, the Ukraine war just began, this Covid just winding down. We, we knew people who, obviously it was terribly febrile time and it was very unset, very dark, very icy time, very, very chilly atmosphere about the intrusion of the state and dangerous time really to be a bit of a dissident. And so, you know, if you're not a fan of the politics of national suicide and you come out with things like that at that time, you probably expect to get a knock on the door.

[B]

Did you?

[A]

And no, no, not at all. And that, that's another thing. It didn't happen, might do now, don't care because I developed the idea that you you have a. You have a duty. Not everyone is at liberty to discharge that duty because of the significant risk to their livelihood. But if I've got myself into a position where I can speak for my people and their real concerns, and I've resigned myself to the fact that I don't care what it costs me, someone has to do it.

[B]

But then you are liberated. You're probably. You're a free man.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. But it comes at the recognition that people may destroy you and, you know, in every way.

[B]

But an ideology might destroy your soul if I don't.

[A]

We. There's no real time for the kind of luxury of reflection, direction. We have to do this now or we're finished. And so that's why I'm doing it.

[B]

What does finish mean?

[A]

What does finished mean? It means that within the light. But by the time my son is my age, he's nine now and I'm 52, he. He will be living in a country where he is an ethnic minority, and that will continue on that trajectory if the policies that have produced it aren't stopped and reversed. And then eventually we'll just die out.

[B]

Explain to people why that matters, because I've had this conversation in a couple of pubs now where I've opened with the conversation about how do you feel about immigration? And I've walked step by step through to the point of becoming an ethnic minority. And even saying those words to some people frightens them.

[A]

This is because to acknowledge that reality, it sets an alarm off in their heads where they think, oh, I'm a racist, I'm a bad person. People might hear me, someone might record me on their phone, and then I'll lose my job. These are all real concerns. But some of them aren't real concerns. Some of them are because of the cop in the head, or if you like what Walter Lippmann called in 1921, the pseudo reality by which the elites rule you. And this is what he said. He said about doing this in an increasingly democratized and liberalized world. We can create a pseudo reality, a picture to put into people's minds, and we can change that picture, and that's how we'll rule them. And we'll create their desires and their beliefs and their concept of good and evil, and that is what you're seeing in the pub. Whereas if you recognize that that is simply a means of making your elections look legitimate when there's no real choice on the table ever, for example, if you realize that's a means of just selling you a series of false gods, which it also does sells you idols, then you realize that that's unfortunate. And although I feel for you and I think you're a casualty, you're mistaken. And this is too late to entertain those mistaken beliefs because these aren't beliefs, they're facts. And if you have to explain to someone why it matters that you, your people, your ancestors will be wiped out in your own homeland, if you have to have that conversation with them, it isn't really worth having the conversation because. Because if you cannot recognize the significance of that, that, that is an inevitable reality. If we don't reverse what's been done to us, if you don't see that that's significant, then I don't think it's worth talking to you about it. I think we should step over you and act regardless.

[B]

Well, let me push back on that because stepping over you and marching on regardless might require us to end in a situation of conflict. If you don't build. Just bear with me a big enough tent.

[A]

Oh, yeah.

[B]

Okay. The reason why I think it's worth having that, that those conversations, the reason why I invited Narendra Kor, by the way, I've invited plenty of people from the left. They either do not reply or I've had three agree. Two, we've agreed the date and they've not turned up for various reasons. But the reason I think is worth pursuing it is because I think this level of conversation where you're discussing the ethnic rights and the ethnic people of the country, I don't think there's a big enough tent that will vote for that in the democratic system tomorrow. I think the overtime is shifting. But I think if you can explain it in a way and also explain a way to say, by the way, they do this in other countries. In Pakistan, they have 10 seats in their parliament for minority religions.

[A]

You start to explain why Pakistan's gone about removing 2 million people from Pakistan. They have a large scale mass deportation program that doesn't get any press in the west. Because if you talk about large scale mass deportations, you're kind of. You're a terrible white man who wants to do awful things to brown people. But when you realize that, you know, people who aren't white do this to preserve their own people as well, you realize it's just sane.

[B]

Yeah, but I think that's why you need to try and have this conversation.

[A]

Oh, yeah, I understand what you mean, but what I'm saying to you is, is that if you. I think that it's quite an extreme position that somebody would simply refuse to recognize that there's any significance at all in me and you and our people vanishing. I mean, that's really quite far gone.

[B]

If we were a rhino, they would protect us.

[A]

Well, perhaps they would. Perhaps they'd protect Tufty the red squirrel. You know, I love Tufty, but by the way, what I mean to say by step over and march on, I don't mean, you know, to violently suppress people. And I do not approve of people who advocate violence or talk of civil war. These people are usually people with no direct personal experience of fighting or violence. No one's ever tried to kill them. They haven't seen anything like this. I understand their concerns, but that's reckless talk. And that is the kind of thing that responsible politics is there to prevent ever happening. It is a serious threat over time. We're not here that we're not there yet. But one of the reasons why we need to take sensible, managed, moderate and humane action is to prevent the worst possible outcomes from materializing. Because if we simply act like the three wise monkeys, you know, oh, we'll see. We won't see this evil. Oh, we won't hear that evil. Oh, you can't speak that evil. Then evil will be everywhere and it'll be too late and we'll inhabit it, and then you won't have any political order or control.

[B]

Well, there's. Arguably, evil is everywhere at the moment, and there are solid arguments that it is too late. Can you turn this around and let me even ask you why it matters? Like why does it matter? Why does it matter that we preserve the culture of this country? Why can't it evolve into something multicultural? I'm not asking you because I need convincing. I'm asking you to tell other people,

[A]

first of all, it's not going to evolve into anything. That's an egregious phrase that I'd reject.

[B]

You understand the question change.

[A]

Why is it better to have your own home than it is to have a bazaar full of strangers? I think that makes its own argument. I think that if you prefer to live, if you want to have a home, if you want, then I think that's a sensible, insane thing to want.

[B]

But some people want a home full of strangers.

[A]

The simple thing that I would say is this. Is that from the point of view of being sane, if they don't go home, our children will never have one.

[B]

What do you mean they won't have one? How will they not have a home then? They're here because.

[A]

No being Here. If being here is almost interchangeable in every dimension with being anywhere, then you're nowhere and there is no place like home.

[B]

So it's actually about maintaining a culture and an identity of a country.

[A]

This is who we are. This is our people, this is our land. It belongs to us. This is something that we don't own. We are the stewards of our homeland and our nation, which was won for us by our ancestors, where our civilization took root and was fostered. If you take little samples from people, from their DNA, even to this day, you can find out where they come from to a very precise degree. Regions of the home nations, you know, like Ireland and Scotland and Wales, and which part even of Wessex or North Yorkshire or Lanarkshire or Carmarthen you come from. And that's possible even today. And that's possible because we've been here for thousands of years. This is who we are. There's a concept called autochthony, right, which auto is like yourself and chthonic means from the earth. And there's a dimension of human meaning that is about being connected to the soil and the place and that that's who you are. It's not just about some irrational feeling or a sense of sentiment for postcards. This really is our land and this is where our people come from. And if we start to degrade that and then it just becomes, if you like some kind of safari for illegal sexual adventures for some people, or a land of economic opportunity for another bunch of people, if it's just a sort of bargain to be consumed by anyone who can get here, then that isn't really, as I said, I want to live in a nation, not in a market. There's a difference. That's the difference.

[B]

How do you sell that to a big enough 10?

[A]

Everyone, everyone likes to have a home. And if we all try and live in each other's homes, it's going to get rather unpleasant, isn't it? It's a basic fact of life. It's that the reason why I think it's not going to be a difficult sale is because it isn't people like me. It isn't people even like Restore that's going to have to sell. The reason why Restore is surging so much, the reason why it's so full of people, people from all walks of life, people who are so obviously sincere and dedicated to a higher purpose than themselves. They're genuinely motivated by servant leadership, duty, and by their sense of obligation to the future and to the past. They're people who aren't selfish. They're good people. Right? The reason why those people exist, the reason why the party's doing so well, the reason why it's becoming so popular and it will continue to do so, in my belief, is not because of people like me. It's because we can see that these things that are valuable in life are being destroyed. And once they go, they can't be replaced. And that's what gives meaning to our lives. It's not political propaganda or little adverts on the news that's going to do that. It's reality. People can see what they're losing now, and they know that when it's gone, it's gone forever. And that means more to them than whether or not they're going to even be able to keep their job. Because their reputation might be at stake for being seen handing out leaflets for this. They might be framed as an extremist. They might be pilloried. There have been people who've been threatened with assault in the street for simply knocking on people's doors and talking to them about a registered political party. I've seen that myself. It's terrible. But people are willing to take these risks because there's far more at stake than their own personal interests and even their own lives. This is why I trust that party. Because it thinks about things in terms of the civilizational timescale. Not what's in it for me, not what's in it for us, but what's going to happen to our beautiful nation and to the people that come after us if we don't stop this now. And that's an argument that's being made by reality, not by me. And it's critical time, yes, but it's that realization by people. Look, it's not working. Not only is the economy and the politics not working for us, it's destroying everything of value in our lives. And it isn't extremist, it's not even right wing to say this. It's just basically saying, let's stop the politics of national suicide. That's a decent idea, if you like. It just looks like, let's restore some sanity and reality and common sense to our lives. And like I would say, I would strongly advocate for the return of dignity to the lives of our people, especially to the long neglected and demonized white working class, which is where I come from. Because I've seen people, my friends, wounded, killed in wars and left to die, deaths of despair from drugs and dereliction in desolate places that were once not just okay but nice places to live and now they're awful and we've just been forgotten. And you go through these empty wind blown desolate town centers just full of filth and strangers and there's no, there's. There's nothing there for you. There's no meaning or control in your life. There's a great song by Morrissey I went to see the other month and it was really quite striking because you know I loved him when I was younger and he's got this song called Nobody Loves Us and it's heartbreaking and there's no one like him that's. That's consistently written if you like rhapsodized the isolation and if you like almost good humoured permanent despair of the plight of the working class in this country. The Morrissey, he's our poet and he sung our song for years.

[B]

Wasn't that who Labour were meant to

[A]

be there for you? What?

[B]

Wasn't that who the Labour Party were meant to be?

[A]

I joined the Labour Party when I was 15. My dad was in a mine and he obviously did things like that and I believed in it and I thought it was for us and I got into the history of it and everything like that. And when you saw people like Mandelson come on, you saw in 2003 he transferred the funding of the Labour Party from the trades unions to billionaires. You've got people like Trevor Chin and so on now. You know, they've obviously got foreign interests as well. The Zionist billionaires. Mandelson did that. Look it up. That happened at the same time as the cash for honor scandal of Lord Levy. So, so that was who got to say what the Labour Party was about and what it was for. And they said oh well we need to modernize. We'll get rid of the block vote and stuff. But basically that party was made for the working man. That's why it's called the Labour Party. And this party went on to remove the industry. It continued the kind of Thatcherite destruction of industry and the concentration of our lives into these miserable lanyard policed make work email jobs with no dignity in them instead of real jobs that would have really built the country where you have developed the kind of skills that can never be taken away from you. Like my uncle was a fitter and he could make fittings out of pipes like pop a copper pipes and that to watch him do it. And he was proud of his work. You know when he'd set it all out like plastic. Now anyone can do it. Everything's Replaceable. There's no skill, there's no trade. There was an Oakshot lecture between John Gray and Maurice Glassman. And I met Maurice Glassman at that ARC thing. He was only a decent man on stage. And John Gray said, problem with our economy is we've got a knowledge economy in which no one knows anything. And Glassman goes, yeah, no one knows how to make anything either.

[B]

The end shitification of everything but what's

[A]

been subtracted from our lives, right? You pay for these work permits for non existent jobs that, that probably don't, maybe even shouldn't exist. That's your degree. You pay for that with debt by becoming a debt slave. You become indentured when you're 17, 18, and so you become habituated to being in debt all your life. And what have you done that for? Because they've made the degree, if you like, the barrier, if you, that you can't pass to get a job. But once you get that degree, you realize there aren't the jobs that you hoped for. And so where are you then? You're still in debt. And then you see, and then you realize they haven't actually transferred you any useful knowledge in your life. Oh well, I don't really know anything. I can't really do anything. Oh dear. Can I make anything? Do I have any practical skills? No. What's been subtracted from our lives by our political economy is, is so much knowledge, so much understanding, capability, self respect, dignity. The meaning of our lives. When you look at it like that, you see this is a huge crime against us. It's a civilizational crime. It's so big that you can't even name it. We used to be, we used to lead the world in industry and innovation and human capital and so on. And it's impoverished us to this point where we're in debt. We get in debt to end up knowing and being incapable of doing anything. Knowing nothing and being incapable of doing anything. And it's astonishing when you see it on that scale. And that's our people. And I care about that. And it's heartbreaking because I've watched people's lives spiral down without any meaning or control into an endless void. And then they end up dead from a drug overdose or someone smacks them in the face like they did to a lad at school. Now I remember him now in the Scouts. It's heartbreaking. And he died because his skull got broken for nothing. Because he had nothing better to do with his life than try and sink himself into drugs and booze and he was a good lad and loved it.

[B]

Him we lost meaning.

[A]

Yeah, there's nothing for him. There's nothing there. Nothing at all. Nothing whatsoever. And so this isn't just about I want to look good in the polls or let's get a great public image or that. If you come from somewhere like that and you know people like this and you've seen that with your life, like I don't own a house, you know, I've got no meaningful chance of doing that. There's just no chance of it. Just give up. It's just unrealistic. It's not going to happen. Right. And that's just the way it is for a lot of people like that. Most people are just trying to survive and it's not good enough. And it didn't have to be like

[B]

this, but fighting that economic machine, that debt machine, the distraction system of the asset managers around the world.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, well you see the happy days are here because if you look at the crisis like this, the crisis is going to get worse. The economic crisis is going to get worse. Political crisis is deadlock and paralysis. They know they're finished, right? And this means, yeah, it's going to be hard for us, but what this means is the depth of this crisis is going to be so bad that it gives you the opportunity to change it. Because people will see for themselves this is just not what it's probably going to collapse. Oh dear. Everyone's got that sense now. There's an increasing looming black cloud in the horizon and there's some storm coming. They don't know what it is, but they have this terrible feeling. That's the feeling that's precipitating the moment for large scale, profound political and economic change. Because we will all be realizing very soon that something's very seriously wrong. And if we don't change, we're finished. And it doesn't matter whether you like me or not, whether you agree with what you think my politics are or not, because I genuinely am for the common good and not for some mad political ideology.

[B]

You'd get on well with my bitcoin friends.

[A]

Well, you see, the thing is that that's what we need. We need a rational, sane, decent, humane and genuinely long term plan to rescue the nation and rebuild it. Not some vanity project, not some personal ideology, not some reaction, not some spasm in the polls to just say, oh look, we're not them. It's not good enough to come before the people of Britain at this point, at this serious crisis, when we're Threatened, really, with collapse and even annihilation. It's not good enough to come before the people and say, oh, look, vote for us. We're not labor, we're not the Tories. Isn't that great? That's empty. It's another empty promise and it's not going to deliver for us and we'll just fall further down. There's a book in the middle of 20th century, early 20th century, only mid 20th century, by T.S. eliot, called Notes towards the Definition of Culture, where he attempted a very difficult project of trying to define what a culture is. And he was good at it. But in it he said this one thing. He said, in my life, I've seen the standards of our culture, intellectually and morally, fall so far. And I've heard people often remark, he said something like this, that, oh, surely it can't go further, as if it just gonna. It's just gonna hit some bottom. But Elliot made a very important point. He said, it's not going to bottom out. There is no bottom. There is no limit to how far down man can fall if he doesn't choose to stop it himself. And we have that feeling of free fall building in the population now, and we know that if we don't stop falling, we'll disappear.

[B]

What did you see on the streets of Makerfield when you spoke to people genuinely like the. The mixture of people you spoke to?

[A]

Well, to be honest, I was. I was surprised, given how febrile life can be, that people didn't come out howling at us and so on. You know, one or two people were unwilling to tell you who you'd vote for because, you know, that's what you do. You say, hello, you know, have you heard about us? Are you. Are you going to. Do you know, there's an election on and have you thought about voting for anyone? Would you mind telling us who it is? And there's like, well, sometimes they're quite free and easy about it, sometimes they're not. But you found that there's a lot of people even who. Because it's the north, and I'm going to say this. People are nice.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You know, so they'll tell you. And even if they said, well, listen, love, I'm gonna vote, I'm a Labour voter, but I'm gonna tell you this. And a lot of them said this, right? I didn't prompt them or anything. They said, well, basically, Andy Burnham's just using us, and they don't like that. And I'd say something like, well, that's just Machine politics, isn't it? He says, yeah, well, it's not good enough, is it? So I'm undecided now, so there's a lot of that. Yeah. So I don't think the numbers for labor are as hard as they would because Labours are very highly developed, even though they're not really Blairites, a lot of them anymore, because it's full of. You've got like a kind of Green faction. You've got like a Morris glasman faction with McSweeneyites and so on. Shabana now. And you've got like, you know, the kind of old Blairites still left. You know, Burnham's a bit of Blairite and, you know, that's the kind of thing you've got, like, you've got a collection of factions and they don't really agree with each other either, so there's a kind of internal power struggle going on. But, like. Like, they're still very good at this kind of electioneering, so they're not going to tell you that their vote's softer than it really is. But, like, I think what they're doing is they're showing you the people that would traditionally vote Labour as the actual lead figure. But when you talk to those people on the doorstep, they are much more hesitant to commit to voting labor now because they think they're being used. And they've said, well, what's he going to do for us? He's done nothing for Wigan whilst he's been the mayor.

[B]

You know, they didn't get the two pound bus farts.

[A]

There's a sense that, that this is just a cynical move as a career progression for a man who isn't interested in them, which is what it is. Right. And again, you know, if you're white, working class, you're used to being lied to and used. And, you know, they'll knock on your door once every four years and they'll tell you you're great and that, but really they take your vote for granted.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And they're not going to do anything for you. So there's a lot of that perception as well. There were a lot of people who. I was honestly surprised how many people would come out and say, immediately, yeah, we've heard of you, yeah, we're definitely voting for you. People come out. There was, in fact, there was one bloke washing his car and me and my son were red hot. And I said to him all, give us a spray, will you? And he thought I was joking. I tried to get him to douse me, but he wouldn't. And then he, he saw the, the leaflets in my son's house, said, oh, yeah, love Rupert, love Restore. So there was a lot of that too. There's also a lot of people who just don't know who we are. And when you talk to them about it, they're really interested, like, genuinely, like, oh, no, this is different. Like, you know, and, and, and that's one thing, I think, the, the enormous potential for growth. I am going to say this because I thought it was. I thought this is a bit suspicious. I've got a habit of investigating positive sounding claims because I mistrust them. Right. You know, never mind about this, but everything. But I heard people say to me, like, oh, yeah, you know, like, there's a lot of people from Reformer are coming to us. I'm like, oh, yeah, that sounds a bit. I, I expect that's why you say that. But it turned out to be true. And there are people who said that too. There's also a lot of solid reform voters and there's a lot of people who say, oh, well, you are splitting the vote. And we would have that conversation with people and say, well, look, do you think you can trust this man? You know, are you really splitting the vote between a genuine alternative or not? You know?

[B]

Well, look, I mean, even if the revoke does get split to the point where Andy Burnham wins, I don't think that's a disaster. I mean, look, if Restore win Makerfield, that is gonna, that's, that's a, that's a political earthquake. It's a political earthquake for reform. And I think it's been quite interesting just scouring social media for the last two days, seeing how anyone associated with reform is attacking. But, so, but my point is, is that even If Restore get 10, 15% of the vote, it's, it means they're, that they're in the race and it means more people become aware of them and then more people are going to be asking, well, who is Rupert Low and what does this party stand for? And so, look, I don't think we still have to win Makersfield. I think if they do, it's the end of reform.

[A]

You are seeing the emergence of a party that's gone from nothing. I think the party's 80 days old with very little public awareness.

[B]

No mainstream isn't covering them at all.

[A]

Well, you've been excluded from that deliberately. But even then, a good 10% of the people are solid for you anyway before they've even heard of you. And that's grown exponentially now into, I think there's at least double that on average. So you can find that, like I said, it's reality that's making the argument and people are going out and finding out about themselves. And the popularity of the party is growing visibly, palpably, and it's doing so outside the established networks of the manufacture of public opinion that created the forced consensus in our politics that's put us into a crisis today where people are looking for genuine change and people they can really believe in, people like themselves, people who care.

[B]

Right.

[A]

People who have a sense of duty to them, to their people, to the nation.

[B]

But how will the machine turn against it?

[A]

Well, you see, I think that what you've begun to see is that because restore's there and we have policies that are clearly set out, we're not going to deflect from them. There's not any softening of the position on these. It's been well thought out. And RESTORE are beginning to be very worried, I think, because I think even Dan Hodges said recently on the Twitters that they appear to have gone into some form of disarray. I think they're rattled. Like, for example, you mean reform? David Bull's disappeared.

[B]

Yeah. Where's he gone?

[A]

Who knows? There's been a lot of dissent and difficulty about it. And this is because here's the question. I think reform is a protest vote, which is basically, look at us, we're not them. Look at us. We can give them a bloody nose. Look at them. But when you look underneath, there's really what you're getting from these people is not what you think you're going to get. And people realize that, and they realize that we're the party that's actually going to be.

[B]

You're getting the same of what we've had for the last two decades. But that's some bullshit.

[A]

You can see that the merest that is translating into political pressure on the party structure and the personalities at the head of reform, because they haven't had a challenge. They've coasted upon this wave of disgust and disaffection against the Labour Party, the Liberals and the Conservatives, obviously. And that's been fine for them. They've done very well and they've soared in the polls. Well, they've plateaued now and they're probably going to continue to go down as people realize, oh, hang on a minute, this is continuity, not change. And of course, if you have people like generic and so on in charge who are the architects of a lot of the misery that we're in now.

[B]

Osborne IN the background.

[A]

Oh, dear, oh, dear. Yeah, Osborne. Yes, well, I've done some quite extensive work on the. On the scandal that. That radiated from the Epstein files and he's adjacent to that. And that, again, is not just about the obvious. That basically shows you how you're ruled by whom and how extensive that network was, is astonishing. So I'll just say that about that. But I did go into that about Peter Mandelson and his appointment as the Ambassador and so on, and this is a network that goes back a very long way. And there were meetings in exotic locations involving Peter Mandelson where George Osborne was present with the Rothschilds and so on. And that is documented and it's in the files and they openly admit it. In fact, Mandelson still lives in a house in Wiltshire that is owned by Nathaniel Rothschild, for which he says he pays rent. It's not a council house, so nothing to see here.

[B]

Sometimes, don't you think they're just fucking laughing at us?

[A]

Yes, but the thing is, is that you can see that it's. You get occasional flashes of the man behind the curtain and it's obscene. And what that means is that people generally, who, like I said, most sane people would spend their entire lives ignoring politics because it's a terrible business, but now you're beginning to see. Hang on a minute, my life's wrecked. Who did this? Oh, it's them. Have a look behind the curtain. Good grief. I wish I never looked. Sometimes it is horrible, sometimes it is obscene. It's. Cannot unsee. Terrible, right? What these people are up to, what they believe, what they're actually like. And so if you like, when the spotlight's turned away from the hated establishment and it's not the limelight that Nigel's in, but the spotlight, when that starts to search them out, it becomes a searchlight, if you like. And it. It shows what they're really there and they feel very exposed by that because there isn't really much there. And that's. That's why I think you're going to see there that their vote, their support is extremely unstable and I think it will decline. And that's what they're terrified about, because they had once again fallen into the obvious political machinery trap of taking the votes for granted. Oh, look, we can. We're gonna. We're gonna. We're gonna. Dictatorial supermajority. Look how they hate the Labour. Look how they hate the Tories. It's. It's a done deal.

[B]

What's the mistake Pierre Poiev made in Canada. He fumbled.

[A]

Well, yes, but also he basically betrayed any serious policy platform whatsoever and was effectively just an embarrassment. But I mean, I would say, personally, I think conservatism is a doomed ideology. And if you want to know why that is, look at what they've conserved, which is precisely nothing.

[B]

Sweet.

[A]

There's a great meme where on the left hand you've got the rainbow flag and then on the right hand you've got the rainbow but the trans flag and it just says Conservatives Progressives.

[B]

So you're gonna run for mp?

[A]

I wouldn't go that far.

[B]

I think you are.

[A]

I think you.

[B]

I think you will. You might not want to discuss it yet because it's something you're thinking about, but if you do want to discuss it, I assumed you were.

[A]

Well, did you just assume my pronouns as well? You're such a bigot.

[B]

I did. I am.

[A]

Don't you think you're taking liberties? Look, I will do whatever I can.

[B]

The challenge is finding 400, 500 people of the right caliber to run for Parliament, to give a chance that Restore would win. Because if you say this is our last chance, I guess the one risk with Burnham is he wins the by election, there is a leadership contest. I think he's already been ordained.

[A]

Should he.

[B]

He would call a fast election? Because the longer this goes on, the less chance labor have. I think that's a risk. I think reform could win. I think they could probably beat them in the election. But either way, if it's an election in three years time, the big challenge they will have is finding three to 400, possibly 500 people. And of which one of those you've now put yourself in the running. And wherever we are, two hours into this, go, go to the comments. Two hours, we will. They're going to be saying, frank, you're going to be an mp. Frank, you're going to be in the cab. You've put yourself, you've put yourself out there. You know, somebody else has put you out there as a candidate. They asked you some questions on the street, not knowing who they were going to get, I assume. And they have created the. They broke the Internet that day. You were the main player. And now people. I've seen the comments already. I'm just saying this out there as a, as a thing.

[A]

The thing is, one of the greatest things I took from the army is the officer's manual, which is served to lead. And it's something that, thank the Lord, they have not yet Ruined. And it really is the best document on servant leadership I've ever read. And it says that if you that the best leader, the only real acceptable leader, is someone who is a servant who understands and really does the best for the people that they are not only nominally but actually there to serve. And that's what leadership is, right? So if I end up doing that, that will be what inspires me. My own personal sense of duty is, if you like, limitless, I'll do anything. I'll put leaflets out, I'll phone people up, I'll go knock on doors, I'll do anything. I'll be a willing task donkey. So whatever they want me to do, I'll do it. As for the larger problem, there is a technique to this. There's a technique to how you can find out people and say, look, we need to staff the institutions. We need to find men and women of the right caliber with the right idea, who really are. For the nation to do this, I believe that's going to be a simple task. I think I've seen that the vetting procedure within RESTORE is very thorough and it's carried out by people with serious military backgrounds as well as serious public service backgrounds that put my weekend warriorhood to shame. Yes. So there's that too. But here's the point, right? I'm not that special, okay? It's not about me. It's the reason why I think I became so interesting to so many people is like, oh, wow, look, that's just some bloke on the street. There's millions of us. You never hear from us. We've all been excluded from that. We have millions of decent men and women in this country who are not only capable of serving at every level, but who would be proud to do so. And I've met so many of them in that party and in my wider life that I'm convinced that it's going to be no difficult task to find people who volunteer to do it and that they will be good enough for it too. And I'll tell you why. The system we live under hates anything good. If you're competent, if you're talented, if you're morally good, if you're principled, if you're a decent human being, it persecutes you. It does. And it marginalizes you and it shoves you out. And so all those people whose lives have been parked or indeed punished by this mad system, those people have created what you might call a very credible counter elite. We have the ability, we have the intelligence the capability and certainly the human capital to pull this off and to do the job. Because we all see it not as an opportunity, but as a duty.

[B]

But we have an independent media as well. We can take on the BBC.

[A]

We do it welcome. Yeah, we do indeed. Yeah. No, but you. We can.

[B]

I mean, that first interview I did. No, sorry, the last but one previous one I did with Rupert Lowe is something like 1.2 million views. And look, that. That seat was available to Nigel for a year. We talked about him coming on. Never did. Just never did. Back and forth, back and forth. That seat is available. Does that Polanski come? I'm not mean to anyone. I mean, I mean to them on Twitter, but not in person. I'd happily have the chat with him. Kemi spoke to her team.

[A]

Oh, yeah.

[B]

Couldn't get it over the line. They just. And the thing is, is that the annoys me about. Is not my own personal ego, it is. You have an opportunity here to speak to the public through the BBC, the filtered people who've already probably made the. The general. Because I think the people who listen to a show like this are the apathetic, the ones who have been left behind, who've had their dignity destroyed, who've got no one to speak for them, who want to hear something else. It's not the question time, folks, where you get that parade of fucking idiots from every party.

[A]

But what you're talking about here, what you're explaining to the audience now is very important. You're explaining to them how the controlled environment of media and belief actually works. And one of the things I write about a lot and have done for a number of years now, now, is the role of belief in political power, in political technique, the manufacture and policing of belief, how it's made, how public image is presented to you, is a significant and even foundational factor in how we are ruled. It is, if you like, the. The animating spirit of political power. It's how you are ruled. That is why they're not just reluctant to do this. It's impossible for them to do this because then they lose the control of their own public image and the message and everything. Because you're not looking at a free press, you're not looking at an impartial state broadcaster. This is a highly refined technique with a machine designed to produce these results that can reliably produce the standard result they want. But I actually, if they talk to you, there's a danger that they'll be compromised in some way and that people will find out Actually who they are. And that's bad?

[B]

Well, I just don't think their handlers allow them. I think the machine sits above them because, no, it's not working out for anyone. Seven Prime Ministers in how many years, of which only one I think was credible, which was Liz Truss.

[A]

Look what happened to her.

[B]

Yeah, but, but I mean, Keir Starmer is going to be destroyed by this process. He's going to leave office as one of the most despised poor, performing.

[A]

Exterminate. Exterminate.

[B]

Just. Just like a. I mean, he looks a shadow of the man he was when he went into power.

[A]

Well, you know, this is it. But you look at him from any angle and he looks less and less convincing as a human being and more and more like a kind of insulting parody, like an animatronic insult to himself. The way he talks, the way he acts, he just looks odd.

[B]

But he will leave political office as a broken man if Andy Burnham does replace him. He will leave political offers as a broken man because none of them can deliver something that is positive enough for enough people in the country. They can't seem to break this debt problem. We saw the record borrowing. We see the 3 trillion of debt. We know the unfunded liabilities everyone is experiencing, the inflationary pressures of the printing press, but also the increased costs of things due to war. We're all experiencing this life. None of them are willing to. To break it. And it makes me just wonder. It's like. I don't think it's that difficult.

[A]

Look, Whitehall works as a series of factions as well. Yeah. When people talk about the Civil Service and the government, in reality the different departments, they're at war with each other for political influence, money, power and so on. And they're always trying to do each other down at the same time. Keir Starmer presides over a Labour Party that is completely disunited. There's various factors, factions vying for power. I'm not personally convinced that the labor together, Blue Labour, New Labour, people are dead in the water. I think you might see something from Shibana yet. I'm not convinced that Andy Burnham's got a clear run of it. And I think she's a very canny operator and the machine behind her, I think is better than his. Sure, you've got the Greenies, you've got the welfarists, you've got people. Basically, what this really shows you is that no matter who was in charge of the Labour Party, even if you had the most highly competent individual that you could ever have, right? Those factions are so antagonistic that you can't move anything, you can't change anything, you can't address the financial crisis or the industrial crisis or anything like this, because if you do, you'll infuriate a powerful minority faction party that will paralyze your government. So that's why the government actually can't govern. Now, the former head of the civil service came on the telly about a year ago saying, I think the government's going to grind to a halt, right? And he's nominally not a political person, but for him to say that is astonishing. I think he's named Simon Case, right? And he said that basically it's just going to stop functioning because of this antagonism, because there's no room to maneuver for political reasons, because if you do anything significant to address the national crisis, one third of the party will paralyze your government and then another third will fight them, and instead of supporting you and nothing will get done and you'll just be humiliated. So you're trying to create the impression that there isn't a shambles, that you aren't all arguing behind closed doors and you actually are a serious and stable government, while meanwhile, nothing's getting done to put the fire out.

[B]

But this is what it comes back to, what I think Keir Starmer should do. Like, if I was Keir Starmer, what a dreadful thought. If I was to wake up tomorrow, implanted in Keira Keir Starmer's body, do you know what I'll do? I'll get on my mobile phone and I would record a message to the nation and I would tell them exactly how dysfunctional is and why it's dysfunctional, why he can't do his job, why, when you pull one lever, it has all these first, second, third order effects that I would just be, I can't do this job. We are dysfunctional as a nation, but they carry on like, they're all carrying it on. They all live it, they're all in Westminster. They see the dysfunction, they're aware of it, but they all carry on the charade. I'm like, you know, he's going to leave the office a broken man without any reputation left at all. It's just a destroyed man, yet he could leave as a. As a legend, as a hero, just to record a video and say, I'm quitting. This is why I'm quitting. Government is completely dysfunctional. We don't serve the people anymore.

[A]

You have to.

[B]

You have to, as a nation, come back and your country. I mean, what, I mean, the. What that would do, that video. It'd be the most shared video in the history of this country. And it would make people wake up and realize it actually is us and them. It's not us again, it's us and them. That's what I'd love him to do.

[A]

Well, he did try it once and I think it's because of McSweeney and the Blue labour rights. And if you read Glassman's book and you talk to him, he talked about

[B]

the levers, didn't he?

[A]

Glassman talked about. Basically Glassman's project is a kind of soft nationalist socialism. It is, it's. It's a non progressive, non woke form of rational industry and reality and so on and getting rid of all the mad policies. Glassman's the man who came on the telly recently and said the Labour Party is effectively seen as a, as a kind of criminal cabal of, of pedophiles and perverts. And there's a lot of credence to that charge. Well, well, he's a lord, a Labour lord. You know, you listen to him. But look, these people are very pragmatic and so they're behind that island of strangers speech that Keir Starmer gave, which spoke to the nation in a way that would really have brought down a lot of the temperature over the migration crisis and the crime and the misery and the terrible sense that this is going to inexorably get worse and no one's ever going to even recognize it. So when he did that, that made everyone breathe a sigh of relief. Oh, finally even he notices it. Great. But he was pilloried by his own side. So much for that. And his own power was threatened in the parliamentary Labour Party because of the backlash. He never did it again. So basically you can't even speak to the problems. And obviously that's one of the most incendiary ones if you need approval. But if you do speak, if you even just mention it, you didn't even say, I'm going to do anything about it. Oh, look, here's part of the problem. Oh dear. There's hysteria. That's how bad. That's how bad it is. Right. It's hysterical. It's dysfunctional. You know, the lunatics have made an asylum of our nation. We're just not obliged to go mad along with them.

[B]

Kind of. Are they going along with it? That's the problem with these election cycles. That's why this, look, this restore thing is kind of interesting. Because I know this. I mean, I'm gonna have personal consequences for. I own a football club.

[A]

Do you?

[B]

Yeah, I own a football club. Yeah. This is non league.

[A]

I didn't know that.

[B]

Yeah, that's what the Skull and Cross people keep going in the comments.

[A]

I thought you were a pirate.

[B]

They're like, well, that's. We are called the Pirates.

[A]

Get away.

[B]

We're called the Pirates. Yeah.

[A]

Do you know what I read? A really bad leg injury like a year ago, and it was. My knee went up. I routinely engage in risk taking behavior, so it's my fault. But it was a really bad one. I thought, that's it. And I don't go to the doctors anymore because I do weightlifting and martial arts and stuff. So I know how to fix myself. So I just thought it'd get better or it won't. And then this woman I know who's a physio, she said to me, do you have a look? I said, no, it'll be all right. I said, all right. Well, she said, well, what are you going to do if it isn't? I said, I'll tell you what, I've got a brilliant idea. I'm going to become a pirate. I'll take it off at the knee, right? And then I'll finally get. Because I've got. Because of consumer feedback, if you like, because of my interests in traditional Japanese martial arts, I do have a few teeth missing and occasionally I've got to get them replaced.

[B]

Right.

[A]

This one, for example. Example. And you know, I'm not the best at it, but you know, it's the taking part that counts, you know? So I just thought I'll finally be able to get the golden teeth. Right. And then the thing and the wooden leg. Yeah. And I said, but there's a stumbling block and it's the parrot. Because I've realized that if you look at pirates with a parrot, the patch is usually on the parrot side. And that's rather a dark equation, isn't it?

[B]

I learned something recently about pirates.

[A]

What's that?

[B]

So I always saw the patch and assumed in my idiocy they'd lost an eye.

[A]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah. I thought the parrot had had it.

[B]

No, it's to do with keeping the vision.

[A]

Oh, light and dark.

[B]

Oh, God. What was it? Yeah. To navigate at night.

[A]

What?

[B]

Yes. Can you double check that, Kurt? What? The actual fact is on that.

[A]

But yeah, no.

[B]

So we, we bought this football club four years ago. It was in the 10th tier of English football. Mad idea. I Always call it mad idea.

[A]

Well done.

[B]

I was like, I'm going to buy a football club and get in the Premier League. I'm going to buy a team at the.

[A]

Do you turn up in a car coat with a cigar?

[B]

No. Well, like, no. So I feel like I'm going to buy this. All right, I've found a team at the bottom of the English pyramid. We're going to do it. We're going to get them to the Premier League and we actually won the league three years in a row. What? And then this year, we're in the playoff final. We're 21 up in the 92nd minute and the ref gives a penalty. I'm not just saying it because it's my club. It was just never a penalty. We went to extra time, we lost, which was devastating. But anyway, I bought this football club and it's been growing, it's been fantastic. But over the last year, as my. I've got involved in the town a little bit more. I put. I put into private security into the town because we had a plague of crackers and alcoholics that were making people's lives a misery. Got attacked for that. I had the. Yeah, I had the Bedford Islington elite come after me, counsel me, refuse to use my coffee shop, things like that. I'll tell you all that another time we'll have a pint and I'll tell you about that. But anyway.

[A]

Oh, dear.

[B]

But I. This comment started to come on. Oh, the owner of Rail Bedford is a. Is a racist. I can't go and watch their football team anymore. There are these professional consequences that exist, but I don't give a fuck. Fuck them, because I know I'm not racist, but the reason I like Restore, because I always come back to the economics. You can. You can deal with the immigration problem if you still. If people are still impoverished at the end of it and they cannot afford a holiday or they cannot feed their kids, they're still going to be miserable if we do not fix the economics of this country. Yes, we've got a big problem and Rupert's the only person who's come out credibly. He said, my policies will make Melee blush. And he's the one person who's come forward who said he's going to deal with the economics of this country.

[A]

Oh, look, I have to. That. I have to speak to that. Right. I'm not an economist. One of the.

[B]

You understand enough about the.

[A]

One of the important things about people who are to be, I think, taken seriously is they're willing to say I know about this but I don't know about that. Right. And I'm not like an omni smart ass, you know, I know what the limits are of my own capability but I do know I'm not going to mention his name. He's very serious economist in Britain.

[B]

Is he called Gary? He's not Gary Economics?

[A]

No, no he's not But I'm not going to drop him in Tax a billionaire because I don't know how many people are going to watch this. It's probably a lot of people but nonetheless I can phone him up and ask him about economics and one of the things that I get from his extremely well he's got a gift for, for giving you the, the precise detail of where the money is, what you can cook, what, what you can't. What's this? What's that? Every last penny if you like Australia. Astonishing. He's done this all his life. He's major economist. One of the takeaway pictures he gave me, which I've never forgotten is the amount of people in the country who are directly or indirectly dependent on an ever expanding state and how that within a few years time we are going to see the dependency overtake the productivity which means more people will be taking money off if you like the taxpayer than people are actually paying taxes. That's an economic doom spiral. Even I with my admittedly rudimentary grasp of actual economics can understand that that's suicidal. And he's telling me this is how this has been produced. We have a dependency culture. So I went to a meeting with him and I went to a meeting with him with a woman who runs a major recovery agency across Scotland who's been enormously successful in rescuing the stricken working class of Scotland from lives of drug induced death and despair. And I said to them both, I said look, partly the reason for this is because our system is a series of dependencies, addiction economies and a welfare state that basically pays you not to work with money that we don't have. And that is killing the nation. It's killing the nation. And what is pernicious about this is it makes us dependent on the state. So it's good for the liberal state because if you criticize them and then suddenly your benefits get digitized when. Oh dear, you know, no Mackie D's for you.

[B]

Cbdc.

[A]

Yes, there you are. But also it gives you a dependency leverage. So if you're, if you have really when you look at the dependency economy which is what we've got, it's not really an economy. It's a form of state sponsorship of people's livelihoods, directly or indirectly. That's politically dangerous because it means then that you'll be very uncomfortable to make any serious political or economic changes because you've become a sort of parasite on that system. Your livelihood depends upon that system never changing. It's a way of buying the electorate, of course. But furthermore, you then find that it increasingly generates jobs that really shouldn't be there and gives power and influence to people whose only qualification is their fanatical loyalty to that system. And this is why we're all getting increasingly hectored by the lanyard class. And you find that anyone who usually wears one of those brightly coloured lanyards, and we know those wonderful rainbow hues that those lanyards come in, you can reliably suggest they're probably going to be differently seined as well, and they're going to make your life very difficult if they detect any sanity in you whatsoever. So we are really bullied by these apparatchiks who run our civil service and our public institutions and so on, but really they don't. They run them as a kind of ideological club that provides livelihoods for themselves and their friends. And this is why they screech hysterically if you ever say no, we have to cut dependency on the state, otherwise the economy dies and the nation dies and we can't move that money into real investment for real jobs, real industry and a real future for our people.

[B]

I'm not a smart guy, I'm just a hard worker, right? But I learned some very basic things is that the more you regulate people, the more you stand in the way of entrepreneurial people, the less business you have, which will mean less jobs. Also, the good, the smart, the brave, the courageous will leave to other countries. It's like water. Capital's like water. It flows. The way it flows is they'll leave. And now we are in a situation where we are destroying the middle class. There's no incentive to be an entrepreneur. We are basically just feeding the bankers. Most people are going to work and they get into the end of the month, they've got fuck all left because they spent all month paying off the bankers. And if we keep doing this, the state only has one answer, which Rachel Reeves has been happy to use, which the conservatives were happy to use, which Zach Polanski will have to use, which reform will use, which is the money printer. And if they use the money printer, sorry, Zach Polanski, but the money multiplier doesn't fucking work. They just were going to get more inflation, it's going to get a lot worse. And I wish people would understand these people basic concepts.

[A]

Can I borrow your pen?

[B]

Oh, sorry, I thought you wanted to.

[A]

No, because I've just got to write Reeves down and I'm going to tell you very unlikely story. Okay, so after that unacceptably tall Will Coleshill had ambushed me and put me on the Internet by mistake, he came up to me in the car park the next day and me and my son are getting out of Jeff. Jeff is my 21 year old land Rover Discovery who mysteriously develops a range of issues from time to time. But he's all right now. So the plan was we were going to sleep in Jeff because he put the back there, we've got a mattress and stuff like that and he's come up to say hello and we're just having a chat and then at that time this guy drives up in a Range Rover and he's got the windows down and his missus is in there and I said to him, look at you. I said there's me with like, you know, bargain basement Jeff, but there's you in your mobile throne room living the dream and he's got those automatic footstep things that come out and he said oh it's nice. Guess what, these people have moved to Switzerland, right? They're successful English, lovely man and wife, really chatty, great people to talk to. I said why have you moved there? Nice place by the way. And he said the insane tax regime. He said so that's what we're doing and we're just persuading my mother in law to come with us as well and we probably will do. He said but no, there's no way I'm coming back. And it turned out he was a really successful businessman, thoroughly decent bloke, lovely fellow, the kind of person that we need to be in the country who's being exiled by insanity. Now here's a thing that I maybe shouldn't mention here but there's a fellow that I met before the election and he came around to my house, he's kind of family friend and he turned out to be an advisor for Rachel Reeves, a young man, very clever man, blue Labour time Oxford and. And I said to him, well you know, you must be very happy because it looks very likely you're going to win. What are you going to do? And he actually put his head there, he's like we're finished. I said what do you mean he Said, no, it's going to be disastrous. Everything he said would happen would come true. And I said to him, why is that then? And he said, well, I had to put together the Reeves vision and I sat down with Rachel Reeves to try and work out what it would be for the country and the economy. And I said what, what came out? He said well there isn't one. And I said, you what? He said there's no idea, there's no idea. There's no money, they don't know what to do. It will be terrible. We'll be out of power for a generation at least it's going to finish the party nationally. There's really no plan now.

[B]

Well, what in Rachel Reeves history suggests to you that she has the right ideas to manage a trillion pound economy?

[A]

Look, look, look. As you know from Dominic Cummings, the Cabinet's basically a pantomime. These people get their statements written down from them. Doesn't really matter who it is. I mean for goodness sake, David Lammy's there on merit, let's just say that as well, you know, I mean I personally want him to be the Prime Minister because I think he'd be the best advert for our.

[B]

You an accelerationist?

[A]

These people are clearly just put there. Yeah, let's agree that like they're non entities, they're not going to rock the boat, they're good for the machine and they don't really make the decisions. The really frightening thing is is that the people who usually do make the decisions have no ideas either that those people who will provide the public figures of the Cabinet usually with. These are the strategies we're going to do. This is the vision we're going to have for the country. This is how we're going to set it out for the nation. This is where we want to be, this is why we're doing this. They're not doing it either. No one's doing it. There's nothing. All there is is this paralysis of policy where the country's in a serious state of emergency and none of it's even being basically addressed because the second you even mention that fact there's a chorus of shrill outrage at the mention of reality. These people are counter reality fanatics and this is where we've ended up. This is why the economics are mad, the foreign policy is insane, this is why the domestic policy is non existent, why we're in an energy crisis, why we're not just dependent on the state as citizens and members of the state. Here the ruled are dependent upon the rulers to throw them a few crumbs. That's increasingly the case. But we're also. We've made the unforced error of becoming dependent on an increasingly volatile international, global trade and energy system. Yes, when we live right on an island that's basically made out of coal, surrounded by oil and gas, next to an ocean stocked with fish and seafood and so on. And we used to be the world's most, well, inspirational pioneering trading power. How talented do you have to be at disaster to squander all that into this mess? I mean, you're just some kind of suicidal genius.

[B]

I just, I just don't understand how Morden's here. I just, I mean sometimes it just, I bang my head against the wall.

[A]

It's like, yeah, but if you're constantly trained into believing in this pseudo reality by a series of Netflix Star Trek themed utopian paradise things in which people like you are always the bigoted foolish enemy and the villain, then, then you can see where that comes from.

[B]

But even in this scenario where I saw the first poll up in Makerfield and they put Burnham at 43 and of course I don't believe it, but at the same time there are labor voters out there who know that this Labor Party has been an absolute disaster, who are now thinking, ah, but if we just vote harder, we just vote harder this time to Andy Burnham, things are going to change. And you know, they're not like this country needs a fundamental shift in how it approaches productivity, regulation, investment, training, industry. And it's just like I look across the entirety of the political class and go, actually, who gets it? Who gets it?

[A]

Well, one of the things that's interesting about this moment is that traditional tribalist, I would never vote for the other party. I'm always for the Tories, I'm always for this, we're a Labour family and so on. That's breaking down because of years of betrayal. It's just these people have got together and betrayed us. This is a consensus, they don't change anything. The large scale policies continue regardless of whether men and women in blue or red ties are conducting them or even the liberals. So you even seen that these policies aren't in the national interest. It's, everybody's now getting interested in what the national interest is, except, except the corrupt political establishment. And that's what we're really talking about here. What's the national interest? What's the economy for? What's our politics for? Well, that politics doesn't work if it's producing this disaster and it isn't interested in that. It's interested in international interests and international mad schemes and counter reality utopian nonsense that we're all paying an enormous cost for. And it's not just in terms of money. It's in terms of the value and meaning of our life and our culture. Culture, history, tradition in the religion that built our civilization. If you look, as I do at Kenneth Clark's beautiful series Civilization, I mean, he was a tof and obviously I'm a commoner. But he stands there and he magnificently says, I find it very hard to say what civilization is, but I know what it is when I'm looking at it. And he was looking at the Apostolic palace in Rome or something. And later on in that series he says, the civilization that we know as European civilization was founded between the 9th and 11th centuries by the monastic system of the Catholic Church. The that put together our communication in trade, animal husbandry, settled societies, settled organization. That's where it came from. And that from that civilization, out of that grew the nations and empires of Europe, you know, the leading civilizing powers of the world. Like it or not, that is what they were. And with the liberal system, if you look at that with a revisionist eye, as I do, the purpose of the liberal system was to sweep that away and replace it with itself. And if you read people like AJP Taylor or Wyndham Lewis, you will see a history of the early 20th century that shows you that not only was the Great War the common disaster that we've all come to understand it as, but it was a sort of violent industrial revolution that swept away the old civilization of order and gave the opportunity by that massive crisis for a profound fundamental change. And that was the liberal system. That's basically the subject of Jean Renoir's film La Grande Illusion, where there's a conversation between Erich von Stroheim and the Frenchman and they say, look, the world that we belong to, that it's gone. You know, these European noblemen and the settled civilization we had for centuries, it's gone, it's finished. It has no use for us anymore. A new world is coming. And they said, yeah, that's right, you know, so. So even then, even then in a brief interval after the Great War, there was an understanding then that this is going to sweep everything away. And that's what that system did. And the fascinating thing about the liberal political economy, the liberal system, liberal Democracy itself, around 10 years after it was installed, after the Great War, it collapsed. Liberalism is the God that failed twice. It did it once before 100 years ago. And you don't remember that because you're not taught that in school, because that. That militates against the illusion of the invincible, eternal power of the system to which there's no alternative. But it did. There were over 20 liberal democracies installed across Europe from Argentina, away as far away as Japan, with bicameral systems where you could vote for a left liberal, a right liberal, or an extreme liberal, or even a Bolshevik and a communist, but no one else. And why did it collapse? It couldn't answer the financial crisis that the Federal Reserve created, which was basically the banking power of the international system, because it's a system. Liberal democracy is a global system. It's a system with international ambitions to standardize the world under its own standards. So it couldn't answer the financial crisis. It created itself. And it couldn't counter the violence of Bolshevism either. And so all these liberal democracies folded, or in our case, were suspended for 10 years. We didn't have elections from 1935-19, just after 1945, understandably, but the rest of them simply dissolved.

[B]

And that's what we're having happen here,

[A]

and it hasn't happened here. So even though things. We are in a crisis and the economic crisis is going to get worse, remember this, it didn't win. The system is failing. It's disintegrating now. It failed to break us. All England lives and we are going to win because our cause is good and just. And that's why we're going to restore Britain.

[B]

We're three hours in. I think we've done a good. Yeah, we've done a good here. We don't know. No, look, I mean, I just wanted to meet you and listen to you because of that wonderful 13 minutes I saw on Twitter this week. And look, this. Some of the things you say are going to make some people feel very uncomfortable.

[A]

Like what?

[B]

I mean, I'd have to go and get the transcript and get the best. But there's certain things that. No, because you're trying to warn. I think what you are is you're a warning. You're a warning to people about the reality of the future we face.

[A]

I mean, there's a thing in elite theory, which. Elite theory is about the idea that democracy is just an illusion and there's always a permanent elite. And that's true.

[B]

Yeah, true.

[A]

That's true. So elite theory has this concept in it called procedural inevitability. Right. And what that means is, is that things happen you don't notice this is going to happen, but it means that other things inevitably will happen, just like knocking over a series of dominoes. So some of this stuff you can say, well, if we don't change the procedure, this will inevitably be the result. Right. So that's just a rational and sane appraisal of the nature of reality and consequence. But when you point it out, it's alarming because we've all been trained to live in a pseudo reality, in an imaginary world where there are never any consequences for bad actions. But that we live in a time of consequence, that's inescapable. And what we can do now is mitigate those consequences. We can't avoid them, but we can mitigate them. We still have an opportunity to take decent, humane and sane action, but that the time to do so is limited.

[B]

Yes. That illusion people have lived under for however long, whether they're a youngster, they've lived in it for 5, 10 years and they're coming up to their first election to vote, or somebody who lives in at 34, 40 years. You are helping people understand that there's an illusion. You're warning people about what is coming. Look, I see it from the economic side. I think I know this country is. We're under a weight of debt we can't pay off. We spend more on debt interest, we spend on education, which I think should be a crime. And it's the fault of every weak politician who's lived on debt to give money away. I hate it all, but I'm just saying some people feel uncomfortable with this, but that's okay, because if this is a reality we're facing, we need to be uncomfortable so we can make some correct decisions. I predict we're going to see a lot more of you whether you like it or not.

[A]

We've had decades of giddying dreams of world domination and so on. Like the 30 year regime change regime that has basically left America financially and morally bankrupt and accounts for at least a third of its national debt, maybe more on some estimations. What's it delivered? It's broken the economy. That was an attempt to expand the influence of the west worldwide through the promotion of social revolution at home and abroad and kinetic warfare. And it's failed and it's actually broken the international institutions that were largely set up to produce that effect and to secure it. Things like NATO and so on and the international agreement, these things are breaking down and they're not going to come back because that world is gone. We've spent all our money on a dream that was impossible and now we're going to realize it. It's not people like me on the Internet that's going to make this case for you, it's reality. This false reality we've lived under is disintegrating rapidly. Now it will no longer supply the beliefs that you've relied on that's informed your personality. There's a risk that you might go a little bit dotty. The degree to which your personality relies upon the products supplied to you by a system that's going out of business. That's the degree to which you might become personally psychologically unstable and emotional. But you'll have to get over it because that business is shutting down. The business that supplied the beliefs that made you believe in these beliefs is shutting down. It can't afford to do it anymore. It's a very big business. But think about it like this. When you go into the supermarket and so much of the stuff in the aisles isn't even food, in fact it's kind of toxic trash which is some kind of byproduct of an increasingly efficient industrial process. That's the kind of food for thought we've been supplied as well. That's also toxic trash upon which we've become dependent. And in fact it's quite addictive as well. And it's quite a shock then to have a glass of clean water and some real food and something that actually nourishes you. But of course, if you don't change that diet, well, you're going to get sick and die. And that's the decision that we're faced with now. So it's why it's very intelligent of you to use the word existential because it does concentrate people's minds when there's real immediate costs attached and consequences. Because of course the consumer system, the political system, it encourages this idea that you can act without moral limits, you can act without any limits and there's never any consequences. And you can always make up a good sounding excuse, whether it's in launching wars or mad policies or indulging in your consumer addictions. And you can always get away with it because you know, hey, everybody's like the same and we'd all do it if we could and so on. Well, no, now there are hard consequences and the limits set to political action and indeed the behavior of our people and everything are being set by hard reality. And it doesn't really matter whether we disagree with reality. It's still there when we've stopped talking and Having tantrums.

[B]

Frank, keep doing your thing and be out there and be noisy because I think you can have a big influence on people. And thank you for a wonderful three hours. We don't often record this long.

[A]

Oh, dear. I. I did kind of make a little promise not to go on too long, but I've done it again.

[B]

No, it's good. I mean, I had a choice. I can. I can wind this up at any point I want. I just sat here listening and thinking. How do I. How do I even remember the books I read? Because I don't. I don't. Frank, keep doing your thing. You're a wonderful man. Take care. Tell people your sub stack.

[A]

Oh, God.

[B]

If they've got this far, if they've listened for the whole three hours, surely

[A]

they don't want any more. Thank you ever so much for having me on. It's very gracious of you. And, and it's. It's been a pleasure if you. If you do wish to hear more of me. I do do. Faith and Reason for Lifesite news on Wednesdays. And, and, and I've got a new series coming out for them which is about the 20th century History of liberal democracy. What the system was that produced the state we're in today, where it came from and how we get out of it. And finally you can see me on the Twitters, which is Frank Writer. R I G H T E R I got that wrong last time. And Frank Wright and Frank [e-mail], which is my inevitable substack. And I think that's depressing because everyone's got one nowadays.

[B]

I will pimp the out of it. Thank you, Frank. Thank you everyone for listening. We will see you all soon. Ra.