#133 - Max Klinger - The British Establishment Re-Racialised Britain And Now It Can't Control What It Created

Max Klinger is a lawyer and political analyst. He writes at Max Klinger's Newsletter on Substack and his work has appeared in The Spectator.

Britain's progressive establishment spent a decade re-racialising public life. It racialised Brexit, policing, and every institution in the name of anti-racism. Now the wider British public has adopted the same lens and applied it in the opposite direction, and the establishment is horrified. 

In this conversation we think out loud about:

• In what specific ways the British establishment has gone off at the deep end
• The real-life impact of anti-racist and DEI policies on the British public
• How the progressive left re-racialised British public life — and is now horrified that the wider public has adopted the same lens
• Ash Sarkar, Novara Media, and the hypocrisy of racialising everything until the racialisation turns against you
• Two-tier policing, two-tier sentencing, and the cases of Valdo Calocane and Henry Novak
• The Islamisation of Britain — jihadism, blasphemy law by stealth, and the demographic projections
• The future of British Jews and whether the trajectory is recoverable
• Whether the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish are allowed an ethnic identity in the same way as every other group
• The emergence of English national identity and why suppressing it is the most dangerous thing the establishment can do

Find Max Klinger:

• Substack: https://maxthinks.substack.com
• X: @MaxE2Review

Related episodes:
— #102 David Betz — What Britain Will Look And Feel Like When Things Get Nasty: https://youtu.be/gUtltMklkcM?si=Hz7qNjqOh-7WaYTz
— #106 Driss Ghali — France's Identity Crisis: Violence, Islamism & The Risk Of Social Fracture: https://youtu.be/Y2hS_7WkkDA?si=h1FvChJjhLL20hty
— #129 Andrew Hussey — France Is Fracturing: https://youtu.be/U5aKUYgHL8M?si=hph--ETBQjeVpJAW

Thinking Class is a long-form interview podcast on the cultural, historical, and moral forces shaping England, Britain, and the wider Western world. Hosted by John Gillam.

▶ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ThinkingClass
✍️ Substack: https://thinkingclass.substack.com
🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/37vvzrlxpo8eORDoTDRtbH
🍎 Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/thinking-class/id1717021615
🐦 X: https://x.com/thinkingclasses

New episodes every Thursday at 3pm.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hello, classmates, and welcome to Thinking Class. I'm John Gillam, and today I'm joined by Max Klinger. Max is a lawyer and political analyst. He writes Max's newsletter on Substack, and he examines the real life consequences of anti-racist policies, the re-racialization of British public life by the progressive left, the spread of Islamist ideology, and the suppression of free speech. In this conversation, Max and I think out loud about how the British establishment has gone off at the deep end, why the Progressive Left re-racialized Britain and is now horrified by the backlash, the cases of Valdo Calicane and Vikram Digwa, and what they reveal about institutional capture, whether the Islamisation of Britain is measurable and advancing, the future of British Jews in the United Kingdom, and whether the English are the only people on earth who are not allowed to recognise their own ethnic identity. If you find this conversation valuable, please subscribe to Thinking Class on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and Substack, and share it with anyone who might find it interesting. Enjoy the show, classmates, and now Max Klinger. Britain in 2026 is a country in which a Sudanese asylum seeker can attempt to behead a man in the street in Belfast, and the establishment takes some time to be able to find any evidence of terrorism. Whilst those who read books by Douglas Murray or anything deemed as Brexite can be referred to Prevent, a terror prevention programme. It's a country in which 16% of British Muslims hold favourable views of ISIS, in which Jews are assaulted with frightening regularity, and in which decades of organized rape gangs that targeted white working class girls have been covered up by institutions that were charged to protect them, and in which the government's implicit and perhaps sometimes explicit response to all of this is to tell the public that the real problem is their intolerance. We see attempts to impose digital ID. We've seen the legalization of abortion to term, euthanasia, mass digital censorship. Has the establishment failed or has it gone off at the deep end? And joining me today to discuss this is Max Klinger, a lawyer and political analyst. Max, you in your legal profession have documented, I suppose, the descent of the British establishment into something that is looking a little like institutional madness at this point. What do you think the through line is and how far gone are we?

SPEAKER_01 2:26

Hi, John. Yeah, thanks for having me on the show. I'm a fan of what you put out. It's a big question. It's a tough one to start with, but I guess I would say ultimately what we're facing across all the different sort of situations you just set out in your introduction is an establishment that almost never addresses the root cause of any of the issues which you just mentioned. So, for example, if you take jihadist terrorism, we've witnessed and experienced repeated brutal jihadist atrocities in this country. And after everyone, the response more or less is the same. So obviously, there's an attempt to tackle the issue of jihadism in the background with like the prevention services and so on. But fundamentally, the the the public rhetoric around it is always one of generalized obfuscatory discussion. So it's like we must oppose generalized hate and we must not look back in anger. That's a sort of typical response you'll see after, for example, a massive jihadist attack. Or after there's a brutal migrant crime. Um, the only thing really you'll hear from the establishment is that this cr the crime in particular was very horrifying, but no wider attempt to situate it within a broader framework which understands what has given rise to this sort of crime and why are they more prevalent if they are more prevalent than they used to be, and what is the public sentiment about this? Like how has it got to the point where people are so angry that they're getting violent at some points after such crimes. So I think generally what we see is obfuscation and deflection rather than an attempt to actually address the root causes of these issues. And the reason for that, there are there are many of them which we can dig into, but fundamentally is because often these issues undermine or run directly counter to established mainstream liberal ideological thinking, and they kind of reveal it for not being satisfactory and not being able to explain the situation we're currently in.

SPEAKER_00 4:16

I think what we've started to see as well as a response through the parliamentary system, the attempt to pass laws uh which will uh whether directly or indirectly, end up chilling free speech. It's not to say that all of the free speech is particularly conducive to good public discourse, but the reality is, is social media is typically the hotbed of place uh and the place of dissent toward the establishment and its policies. It's where the blowback to whatever regime we've been living under for decades takes place, and it isn't uncommon to find members of parliament talking about the dangers of social media and how it needs to be regulated, um that they want to ban social media for under 16s. And that's not the topic at play here, and the way that they'll do that is making sure that people upload their uh identity to uh a government portal. It's also a way probably of capturing adults who use it too. Um it starts to feel like, and I'm sure there'll be people who put it in even stronger terms than I, that uh dissent is being crushed. Um there is an attempt to silence it. And we've also seen lots of people getting locked up for social media posts. I think the United Kingdom uh jails more people for social media posts than the likes of Russia and formerly communist countries. How dangerous is it for us, even the most mild dissidents in the current environment, uh, with regards to what we say, how we say it? Um, do you think there's a there's a risk that that dissent is is is crushed under the boot of the state? That's yeah, good question again.

SPEAKER_01 6:03

Um I mean, ultimately, you can just look back in recent history, even relatively recently, basically before Elon Musk bought Twitter and freed it up, essentially removed all the various forms of censorship and shadow banning that were being implemented, but that we were repeatedly told were definitely not in existence, but were then shown to be like actively being engaged in by Twitter before Elon Musk bought it. Um people were being kicked off of social media platforms, left, right, and centre, for making what were at times relatively anodyne criticisms of mainstream, liberal, progressive, woke, you know, that general ballpark type of dogma. Um, obviously some of the people who got kicked off were actually completely mental and said really, really crazy stuff. But there were also people who were caught up in that who were essentially just pushing back against elite liberal groupthink. And that just in and of itself was evidence of how far these people are willing to take it, that they were willing to kick people off of what was essentially the public square for criticizing their worldview too vociferously or to get for gaining too much traction. And even if they didn't kick them off of it, they were able to kind of de-boost their posts. But it wasn't just within the social media context. We saw people at the height of Black Class Massa, for example, getting fired from their jobs for making what were actually just statistically correct and factually accurate statements. Like, for example, there was one guy who worked at Reuters, there are so many examples I could choose here, but there was one guy who worked at Reuters, I think his name was Zack Kriegman, who was a data scientist, I think, if I remember correctly. And he noticed after like June 2020 when everything started to go really crazy, he noticed people making like explicitly political, at times quite like racially based comments on his public Slack channels and so on in Reuters. Um and he basically pointed out, well, actually, I think this isn't very accurate. I I can't remember exactly the facts, but more or less he said, like, you know, this isn't accurate. Here are some more accurate statistical under like interpretations of the sort of comments you're making. Um, and he ended up having to leave the role. I think he was fired for it, but he was definitely pushed out. Um and that's just one example of many of people who ended up losing their jobs for criticizing ideas that relatively not long before that were quite out there and unusual positions to hold. They very quickly became mainstream and almost unquestionable. So, yeah, I do think there's a risk that we if if we don't treat this very seriously, we'll lose the ability to speak freely about issues that are very important. And you can see that as well with it, with um just after, you know, with the attempts to clamp down on criticism of aspects of Islam or of jihadism and or Islamist ideology more broadly, there is an actual risk that that type of speech could become deemed to be anti-Muslim hate speech under the proposed uh definition of that, which is being put forward by the Labour government. And again, that could amount to a form of what is essentially censorship of blasphemous speech or of speech that is deemed too offensive to be permitted. So yeah, I do think there is a risk of that if we don't take this stuff seriously.

SPEAKER_00 9:02

I don't want to make you say anything that might be uh compromising for you as a man who who works in the legal profession, but it hasn't escaped people's attention when they're talking about things like two tier Britain, and I know this isn't the same as as corporate lawyers, is people are finding the discrepancies between uh judgments being made by judges uh on cases which might um be um adjudicating over the the guilt or otherwise of um white British um defendants and ethnic minority defendants. And they find that whether for similar offences there are shorter sentences for the ethnic minorities, longer for the white British, and sometimes even in the case of um cases which are not comparable, so you you have the white British who are sometimes accused of much lesser crimes and still doing longer stretches in prison, and I'm sure you could find this in in other groups as well. Um, whilst the legal profession, I suppose, is quite similar to the corporate world, in that it instantiates a way of uh seeing the world, which is uh typically aligns to the the cosmopolitan anywhere worldview, uh, and they have tremendous influence given that we are in a country that almost idolises the rule of law, as does uh as do the other Anglosphere offshoots. What recourse does the ordinary citizen have against a profession uh and and and a trade that seems to have become an instrument of of ideological enforcement rather than justice?

SPEAKER_01 10:41

So I I guess I guess what you're angling at is like the almost the the use of the law to make it very difficult for people to pass policies that in some respect, or what you might be angling at, one aspect of what you're talking about might be what we've seen, which is basically the use of the law to make it very difficult for policies to be enacted that have a very significant degree of democratic support. For example, you know, often there'll be large democratic votes in favor of restricting immigration or restricting the ability of people to move into the country illegally, or um in favor of deporting people who commit brutal crimes. And we've seen essentially the use of the legal system by kind of activist lawyers to make it very difficult for the courts or for the government at the time to actually do that or to enact those policies. So that's definitely one issue which people are like notice is happening. Um I I think fundamentally, like one of the best things that we can do is just be honest and to speak about these issues openly in public. So to speak about the issues that people feel strongly about, not to be kind of censored or cowed into not speaking honestly about them, and also to use our votes to vote for policies that we believe in. Because if there is a a very significant discrepancy between what the government which we've elected wants to do and what the kind of what an activist legal class tries to allow to happen, I think that tension will benefit moving the needle towards what the democratic will is in favour of more generally. So I guess that's one good place to start. It's just you're trying to use a democratic process, don't use violence, don't do anything, don't go rioting, don't do th anything like that. Um and just yeah, try to uh say what you think, speak freely, and get your votes to make a difference.

SPEAKER_00 12:29

It's interesting you mentioned democracy. Uh I uh I spoke with Lord Jonathan Sumption a few months ago, and we were speaking about whether the institutions that underpin the British society are going to be able to withstand um the demographic transformation that's coming in which the the white British will become um a minority, or at least a minority of minorities in the country uh in the coming decades, owing to the the the large numbers of um immigrant diasporas that are are growing uh in an area of mass immigration. And I'm always struck that when people say what we need is really more democracy, is I I actually wonder whether that democra those that democratic will would be accepted if, for example, the British people voted beyond reasonable doubt that not only do they want mass immigration to stop, but they want deportations to start. Given that Brexit was uh something worth stifling through the parliamentary process for years. Uh, I'm not entirely sure those people who are part of uh establishment um uh figures would actually be so positive about democracy if people start to say, Do you know what? If you want us to stop rioting, we actually we're gonna put an end to this, we're gonna have a different um uh approach to citizenship and we're we're going to start removing people from the country. Um what do you what do you make of of that? Uh do you do do are you as optimistic that we can uh wrestle ourselves back on course towards a democratic future, or or do you think we are seeing uh a kind of d d dissolving of the the the state or or the country by a thousand cuts?

SPEAKER_01 14:25

Um I ultimately like so watching the Brexit referendum was quite an interesting experience for me, partly because it I hadn't really lived through what was an explicitly anti-democratic exercise by the political class in my life to that point. Or I hadn't witnessed one knowing that that's what I'd see. So with the Brexit vote, I was expecting I wasn't actually very strongly in favour of leaving or remaining. I thought about it for ages and decided, okay, I actually don't know what the right thing to do is here. It seems like 50-50 either way. I had sympathy with the leave side by the time it came to the vote because I saw the overwhelming just group think and dogma being pushed by the remain side to such an extreme degree. And by all the people I'd known, you know, these people who are obviously basically non-political, but somehow figured out that they had to be unbelievably pro-remaining in the EU, something they'd never discussed in the entire time I'd known them to that point, within the space of like a few months, once it became the right thing to think. I s I started to get sick of that in a kind of cultural sense, but in terms of policy, I wasn't sure if it was the right thing to leave or not. Um but then watching the vote and the aftermath, which are basically many years of what were pretty much explicitly anti-democratic sentiments being expressed and wrapped up in the language of democracy. So, oh, we're actually doing this to protect democracy because people didn't know that they were voting to leave when obviously they knew they were voting to leave, or like, oh, actually the democratic thing to do is to force everyone to vote again, take the option to leave off the table in in its true form, and then that's the only democratic solution. It's like that was so Orwellian and so obviously an inversion of reality that it hit home that okay, there is actually nothing intrinsic to the situation at the present, which means we're guaranteed to be able to trust that our democratic vote will be obeyed. But to that point, I hadn't really witnessed that. Um so I do agree that there is a precedent for people ignoring democratic votes they dislike, especially within the kind of governing class at that time and kind of at present, who still occupy many of the same positions. Um yeah, so if there was a vote which ran significantly counter to that worldview, I think there'd be the same sort of pushback. The situation now I do think is slightly different in the sense that, like I was touching on earlier, social media, partly because of Elon Musk buying it and freeing up Twitter, but also more broadly, it is less censorious. Um, and also with Trump in the White House in the US and kind of a broad populist sweep across much of the Western world, there isn't such a kind of hegemonic power structure which enables people to do things like overturn democratic votes without significant pushback from major different institutions. Like on Twitter now, there would be complete out a massive outcry if someone tried to overturn a democratic vote, which would be of the sort that wouldn't be it, you couldn't just contain that by the media presenting it in a kind of biased way. And I think a lot of the media too would also be more willing to push back against that sort of stuff now to a certain extent. So I think it's it would be less easy to act in that way. But yeah, there's obviously a risk that if someone votes in a way that runs countable to what we're kind of supposed to think, there would be a pushback.

SPEAKER_00 17:39

Well, let's think about that rising populist tide. Uh as you've pointed out, uh there are um certain uh aspects of modern life that uh is is is causing the populist tides to rise. Uh and we've talked a little about immigration, so uh the border border control or the lack thereof. Um and I and I've already mentioned the the corporate world, um the the economy in which um uh legislation and internal policy have um dovetailed to exclude those um from the uh economic um uh market uh because of their own immutable characteristics. So um white British typically going to be put towards the the bottom of the list, whether in the publicans or private sector, uh, with the focus on bringing people in on the basis of their immutable characteristics, primarily just don't be white, don't be British, and maybe don't be male. Um these um policies uh uh have have spread through all institutions, and I think they were originally intended, uh according to those who put them in, to reduce discrimination. Um in your view, based on what we've seen in recent weeks in this country and perhaps beyond, what do you think they've actually produced and and who's paying the price? Is it uh anyone other than the the white British or are there other people paying the price for this too?

SPEAKER_01 19:13

Yeah, so I think like maybe a slight difference between our different approaches. I don't tend to look at this stuff primarily through the prism of how it's negatively affecting the white British population per se. So I think to some extent, I do think that some on the right have kind of become too hyper-focused on the discrimination folk uh discrimination faced by white British people, let's say, versus what to me strikes me as the more pressing issue, which is basically just the willingness that was shown and the effectiveness that was shown in implementing a bunch of policies which were m more or less openly discriminatory in nature, under the guise of progressivism and which is wrapped up in the language of inclusivity, and it was just that disjuncture was so jarring to me. Um and it's also just not truthful, it's not based upon an attempt to actually solve problems in a way which makes sense, it's based upon more or less the enforcement of a particular interpretation of how the world works, which is misleading. Basically, the idea that any disparities and outcome prove systemic oppression and prove um institutional oppression exist, which is just false. Um, but that we were not allowed to push back against. So my criticism really is primarily focused on just how disturbing it is to watch basically quasi-religious ideas that don't stand up to real criticism becoming put on a pedestal and almost unquestionable. But yeah, it's undoubtedly the case that this stuff will affect certain people. Like if you're going to apply for a job, there was a point at which if you were going to apply for certain jobs in certain institutions, they weren't available to some people on the base of their ethnicity. Some jobs were only available to ethnic minorities and not to white people, for example. And that was being explicitly stated and advertised as a positive thing, which to me, um, as I'm a I'm Jewish, and so I don't know if I would even I might potentially there might be in certain of those things that I'd have benefited from as potentially being some form of like ethnic minority that the average white British person wouldn't have. And that would have still struck me as just an unjust and unfair thing to benefit from, to the extent that I would, although they kind of say that I'm like hyper-white because I don't really like Jews, those people, so it's all a bit confusing. Get my basic point. Um, so it's not really a matter of like identity politics necessarily as unfair just because it discriminates against white people. I think it's also just in a general outlook on the world which is discriminatory and isn't rooted in reality. Um, and then when it comes to the downstream consequences, beyond just um irrationality in the public space that we all operate in more broadly, there are obvious very harmful negative consequences in certain instances. So, for example, we we saw things ranging from um um For example, in the n in the US, when there was a guy on the on the train who was running around being completely crazy and attacking people and shouting people's faces, who's a convicted criminal who had like something like 60 prior convictions, who just repeatedly been let out of jail. And it resulted in this other guy, Daniel Penny, who's a Marine, restraining him, which resulted in the guy who was going crazy dying. And that in its turn in itself led to a huge outrage on the left and in the mainstream about the fact that supposedly a racist killing had occurred on the train. When actually what happened, which had been testified to by black witnesses at the time, was that Daniel Penny, the guy who stopped him going crazy, was essentially acting quite heroically, put his own life at risk to prevent someone from carrying out a dangerous act or hurting someone on the train. And that was only able to happen because this guy had been released on multiple occasions. I don't know if that's specific instance was due to like diversity policies. This is more an example of kind of like progressive policies in the justice system more broadly, leading to negative outcomes. Um, and then it was also more broadly discussed as an example of racism when in fact that wasn't what it was, which is a very divisive, again, is another negative, it's kind of another negative consequence of that way of framing every issue. Um but finally, a couple of days I think prior to that, another man in the same sort of area had run around and killed three people who had also been released early on a kind of early release justice scheme, um, which attracted far less attention and led to much less outrage. Again, it's that kind of disparity. It's irrational, it's irrational to be more angry about a man heroically subduing a violent person on a train with a string of prior convictions than it is to be angry about the fact that people are being let out repeatedly on maybe diversity-based or equity-based or just social justice-based early release schemes, and then are being able to go and attack people on the base of that. And there are also many other examples, like in Britain. Um, I've I've got a list of functions, but like for example, there's the guy who bombed the Manchester Arena, and there was nervousness about being seen to be discriminatory, so the security staff didn't search him in case of seen as Islamophobic to search a man with a huge backpack, who then would later go on to detonate it. You can just lift it list example after example. In Harvard in America, they found that there was discriminatory um acceptance policies, which resulted in Asian applicants who were actually the best qualified for the roles, systematically essentially being denied access to roles because there's an equity-based admission system, which again is just unfair. It's unfair for a really smart Asian kid not to be allowed to get a place in one of the top universities because someone has decided that they're not as entitled to that role as someone who's less qualified for the role on the basis of their immutable characteristics. You can just go on and on and on with these examples. So, yeah, I'd say that these are negative outcomes of that sort of policy.

SPEAKER_00 24:50

Absolutely. Well, I think it'd be remiss not to mention two high-profile cases, both institutional failures in or or perhaps successes, depending on how you're um uh whether you believe they have uh um uh have co-towed uh sufficiently to uh this this progressive ideology. But you've you've got the incident and Valdo Calicane, um, who murdered uh Barnaby Barnaby Weber and Grace O'Malley Kumar, who, for listeners who aren't aware, uh he um was not sanctioned by those in the um mental health institutions because they were worried about the oh uh what they saw as the overrepresentation of black people. They didn't want to contribute to that, and he he went on to um kill two people on the street uh mm through multiple stabbing. And then obviously very recently, Henry Novak, the the case which has hit um international headlines where um uh a half half Polish, half English boy was um was stabbed by Vikram Digwa, uh an a Sikh. And um when the family got round to calling the police uh to tell them uh that there was this chap struggling, uh they didn't say he was struggling because they'd stabbed him, but that he'd been racist to them and made the story up. Um and the the police showed up, handcuffed Henry on the base of the accusation that he'd been racist, and he he bled out in front of them. Um and it took them until he died for them to realize what had happened. Uh and I think it is these kinds of um stories that are radicalizing the normal person on the street. Because and there is a direct link to what we've been talking about with the the the suppression of dissent on social media is often the most information you can find about things like this is on social media because media articles are just so light on detail, and that the the the normal person living just a normal life can often not be really exposed to this. It's buried in column inches in the corner of the newspaper. Um well let let's get let's get on to um the racialization of society. You've you you wrote a detailed piece recently on Ash Sarkar. She is a contributor to Navara Media, she's a self-described communist, uh, she's a regular guest on mainstream British media, and she's now outraged that crime is being viewed through a racialized lens. Uh, and and you make the argument that it was her and people like her that re-racialized British public life in the in the first place. Uh tell us more about that, Max. Yeah, that's basically true.

SPEAKER_01 27:26

So, yeah, I mean the point is this wasn't specific to Ash Sarkar. I just chose her because she's kind of a quite slapstick example of this stuff, and she's quite well known. And it was just so easy to write a piece looking at the examples of her own hypocrisy because they were so glaring, there are so many of them. But the broad the broader point I was making applies, you know, across the progressive political spectrum and also kind of the mainstream spectrum as a whole. Um essentially, what she was saying, and what other many, many other progressives were saying, was that crime is being viewed through a racialized lens, and that this is absolutely outrageous because individual instances of migrant crime are being taken to draw um wider conclusions about all people of colour as a whole or whatever, which is I don't think is exactly true. I do actually have a degree of sympathy with that point. I I am slightly uncomfortable with how parts of the right, um maybe they're not even best described of the right, but kind of the populist movement as a whole, which in many respects I do have sympathy with and aligned with, but in in some respects, the way that they talk about aspects of migrant crime and just migrants in general, and the way they talk about issues related to race, it does sometimes make me a bit uncomfortable. Um, and their aspects of that I disagree with. So I to some extent agree that it is slightly problematic for every individual crime to kind of be used to draw these wider conclusions about the problems in society as a whole and race and like you know, race being at the root of all of this. But the hypocrisy is just so unbelievably glaring, in my opinion, because the woke movement, but also progressivism more broadly, very ruthlessly forced race to the front of everyone's consciousness, and it did it on exactly the same basis as the right are now, but actually with much less justification. So we were basically at a point in history in which society was more or less the most tolerant that any society had ever been in the history of the world. And it was at that exact point that after many years of still throughout our kind of cultural programming depicting things as kind of oppressive and kind of negative and the West as kind of the bad in every framing, the progressive movement went into overdrive in line with kind of the emergence of social media and peak woke, and more or less depicted everything in society as systemically oppressive and use individual instances of different occurrences, the most obvious example being the death of George Floyd. But you can also look at loads of other examples of like random individual instances of police shooting, like um Michael Brown, who was one example of one guy who everyone said said hands up, don't shoot, and it led to race riots. Um, Jacob Blake, many other examples like that, were blown up into these huge, first of all, national stories in the US or the UK, and then just international stories. And with George Floyd, it went completely worldwide. There were literally huge riots around the world which claimed something like 30 lives. So they're deadly riots, which killed literally 30 or more people in the US on the basis of one death, which we were just told was absolute proof, not just of an individual racist interaction with the police, which wasn't even proven in this case, if I recall correctly, but of wider, deeply oppressive, systemic oppression of black people, both by the police and by society as a whole, and not just in the US, in the UK too, and not just in the UK and the US, but across the whole Western world, which fundamentally was just an irrational interpretation. It wasn't backed up by the evidence. And it's precisely the sort of thing that the same people are now acting outraged about when people on the right try to use individual instances of migrant crime or individual instances of brutal terroristic atrocities to draw wider conclusions, some of which are unjustified, but some of which are actually very justified, particularly with regards to jihadism or violent Islam. Um, it's rational to actually draw conclusions from repeated multiple mass casualty attacks and to raise concerns about the spread of what is essentially a brutal supremacist jihadist ideology in the form of like jihadism, Islamism and so on, which has been spread across our society and which has resulted in multiple deaths and has been entirely imported. That's actually a legitimate concern. But if you have any discussion of that sort of thing, the people who've been aggressively re-racializing everything on the basis of individual occurrences suddenly say we must not draw any wider conclusions, even where those conclusions occasionally are actually valid. So I was basically looking at that in my recent piece and saying that, yeah, they are not the only you can't you can't blame things like violent race riots by the right entirely on progressives. I don't think that's fair. I think that the right also has to reflect and think about problems with its own movement that have allowed that to happen. But you also you cannot divorce the two things. You cannot divorce people repeatedly being told they're racist when they're not, that that their societies are absolutely oppressive when they're not, policies being implemented which clearly negatively impact them and certain other ethnic groups at the expense of others from certain people becoming unbelievably angry about or the large and also a large percentage of the population being very unhappy about the state we find ourselves in currently. So I think that it's it's all mixed up together, and I was trying to draw that out on the article.

SPEAKER_00 32:36

It does feel like the identitarian genie might be out of the bottle now. And I I think I think not only because of the nature of progressive policies, but but I do think because unfortunately, because of the nature of human nature is that they put enough people together uh that have quite distinct identities. And the distinctions between those will will likely be felt. We feel different, we tend to group together, but kin cultures typically have their own shared histories and songs and rituals and this, that, and the other. And that that applies effectively across humanity. And so I think I think it's probably fair to say that the and it is a huge experiment. I don't think any other nation really in history uh has gone through the level of demographic change that that Britain has, including the United States of America, um, and and very different history there. Um it's an experiment with a society that historical parallels show don't particularly work doesn't particularly work that well, whether it's Yugoslavia and you know the the different uh effectively very closely related ethnicities of the now Balkan states, or at least Austro-Hungary. Uh again, peoples that had lived side by side for a long time, but the first moment to break up that came, it did, and what they do, they they ended up forming around kind of ethno-cultural lines. And and it's not a conclusion that uh any of us with a kind of classical liberal sense want to draw. It's not something you want to think about, but but it is a truth. And um I I I I admire people like David Goodhart, who uh has been on the show several times and and who in a recent conversation with myself and Harrison Pitt had restored says, look, we we just need a wider ethnic identity as English people. We weren't talking about the civic identity of the British, but uh of an English national identity, sorry, not an ethnic identity, to be cross-ethnic. And it sounds good. I'm just not convinced it's going to happen. I don't think it is just because of the re-racialising of society. I almost feel like the re-racialising came through the back of people's own distinct identities. So Ash Sarkar, as an example, just sticking on her, uh one thing which she became relatively infamous for for amongst corners of the internet was um looking at the statistics of the demographic shift in London, uh, and when the white British, I think, had dropped to 39%, bearing in mind this was very recently in 2011, was the first time it dropped below 50%, is she she said, look, ethnic minorities are this, white British are this, we're winning lads. And whilst I know it's uncomfortable for some people to think about it through that white British lens, as you've alluded to it, is that the reason why there's such a reaction to all of this, and this isn't defending the antisocial stuff, it's not defending the violence, it's not promoting it. The reason why there's a reaction to this stuff is that there's a vindictiveness that uh is widespread through the institutions, and it appears that others are rather comfortable racialising things in a way that White British had never really done and had to do um in our lifetimes. And I I I've got to say, looking toward the future, I do look with my my my eyes kind of through my fingers, you know, what on earth are we facing into here? Um so it is it it is definitely it is definitely a worry, um, particularly as people become more and more aware of the asymmetry. What what do you what what do you make of the chances? That's my kind of slightly more pessimistic view. What do you make of the chances of a kind of widespread British civic identity um and and tamping down on the identitarianism across all sectors of society? Hmm, that yeah, that's a good question.

SPEAKER_01 36:41

Um my analysis is basically probably slightly diverge from parts of the populist right and also obviously massively from the left, but um taking it kind of in its whole, in the sense that I think I don't think there's an intrinsic reason why people from different and different ethnic backgrounds can't just all basically live together and get along. However, I think that there are a bunch of kind of speech codes and obvious issues that are really central and that should be specifically addressed. So one obvious one is like the massive spread of the rapid and completely unprecedented spread of Islam is presenting particular, many and particular um problems which aren't uniform across the spread of all ethnicities in the UK. I don't think that um a random influx of people like of like non-Islamic immigration has led to the same types of issues emerging as Islamic immigration, but also kind of like Islamist thought and jihadism and stuff like that more broadly. I think there's a distinction to be made, and I think the Islamist type threat that we're seeing is more explicit and it's very hostile to Western life and to citizens in Britain in a way that generalizing is kind of is almost unfair on all other ethnic groups to say, oh well, everyone is just kind of equally complicit in this kind of hostile migration, or even say that all Muslims are. That's not really my general point. It's just that that particular form of like mass migration and the spread of that ideological worldview, which is an actual is an ideology, it's not an ethnicity, the ideological spread of that worldview has presented very, very glaring problems, which we've seen basically just completely repeatedly and systematically. Covered up sounds conspiratorial, though in the space of in the in the case of the rape gangs, it was basically actually a massive cover-up, but more just papered over, gaslighting about as it being like completely through the roof. Um and yeah, we've not seen honesty about. So I think that I'd say that there are particular issues which result as a result as a consequence of certain types of migration, which pose bigger problems to just like generic ethnic mixing, which I think probably is actually possible in kind of an abstract sense. And then another point I'd make is that I think whilst it may be possible for there to be like everyone to just get along, basically, if you take away the explicitly hostile ideologies which mass migration has in some respects resulted in, which might just be so abstract as to be a meaningless statement because, as we've seen, we have seen the spread of like very brutal jihadism as a result of this stuff. Um it's also legitimate, and I say this as someone who is from an ethnic minority background, I do think it is legitimate for like the average white British person or people from an F from an ethnically English background to view the rapid, completely unprecedented speed of the dilution of their uh majority status in the country as something that just causes them alarm or stresses them out, basically. And there's no legitimate way for people to discuss that set of concerns without immediately being smeared as racist. Which again, I think, is disingenuous. Like almost everyone instinctively knows that if you think about the average Japanese person, you're probably thinking about someone who's ethnically Japanese. That's not saying it's not possible to be an African person or an English person, move to Japan and become a Japanese citizen or to have all the values and beliefs pretty much that the average ethnically Japanese person does, but you understand instinctively that there is something tied up with Japan as a nation and the ethnicity of the Japanese people. They're kind of interrelated. And if you suddenly, over the space of one or two generations, had more migration than the entire history of the country had ever experienced at that point and resulted in the massive diminution of that minority, of that group from a majority to an almost near minority, that would obviously cause profound social tensions. For some reason, when that happens in England, we're basically just meant to have absolutely not only have no concerns about it, but to treat it as really crazy to have any concerns about it. And as I say, I am from minority, so I'm not it's not like exactly it's not I'm not saying this from a personal perspective. I'm just saying it seems like kind of common sense that that is the sort of thing that would lead to a build-up of tension and it's not going to be resolved if there are all these speech codes erected that prevent people from discussing it openly. But I kind of try to narrow it down into those specific types of issues rather than because I don't really like this tendency which I've noticed on the right. There seems like this kind of general thing where, oh, there's a bunch of jihadist attacks and there's also concerns about the dilution of, you know, like the ethnicity of the country and so on. Then if there's a random attack by, let's say, a Sikh guy, like there was with the Henry Novart case, which I agree did throw up loads of issues about two-tier policing and all that sort of stuff, there is this tendency to be like, oh, look, well, this proves that migration is just completely untenable, even though Sikhs, I think, commit like slightly less violent crime like that than the average British person. So it seems a bit unfair. If you if you're not specific, it can end up in just this generalized dislike of all different ethnic minority groups being in the country, which isn't really as rational as actually focusing on the specific issues. I think depending on how we go about it, that will either lead to an outcome where we try to address the specific problems or where basically things become really balkanized and there's a kind of identitarian backlash among white people. Um which, yeah, I mean, I don't know which way it'll go.

SPEAKER_00 42:09

Well, not none of us none of us have that crystal ball. I think the backlash to uh cases like Henry Nova is driven by um the notion commonly put forward that typically racism flows one way from whites to ethnic minorities, and people have heard the phone call to uh the police by Vikram Digwa's brother. Uh some white guy just racially abused us. And I I think they actually bleed something out, so he also swore in that as well. Um I I I think people are now so uh getting so unbelievably sensitive to um group conflict uh amongst ethnic groups that they'll be they're going, oh look, here's another example, and yet we keep the borders open, and yet we see that diasporas can harden and form, and that actually that that you know they're not as peaceable as we're we're told, and that isn't an indirect smear on on Sikhs. It's I think this is the environment we live in now where people go, Ah, yeah, we're not all rubbing along nicely. This isn't the melting pot we were told it was going to be. Uh when can we stop this now? Because uh perhaps we, as those who have a longer ancestral link to the land, have, as you say, um a right to feel a sense of cultural loss and dispossession and and worry and concern. In fact, I had someone who has uh uh was of an ethnic but minority background show up to an event with with David Goodhart, Harrison Pitt and I she said it was interesting to hear three three Englishmen talking about what they're talking about because she'd never really been exposed to it. She never really heard Englishmen talking about the future of their country and coming from all different ways. I thought that was remarkable, really, given that you know. She was in England. Um and um I I think this is this is what we're seeing the emergence of is that whether people want it or not, we're seeing the emergence of the the the English national identity, ethnic identity even, um which hasn't typically been allowed largely so it wouldn't dominate the Celtic fringe, the Scots, Welsh and Irish, of which we've always celebrated that. You know, everyone even even the English get tingles on the back of their hand head when they're at sports events singing their national anthems. Um and yeah, you know, most of them have the anyone but England mentality. And the English are like, yeah, go on, home nations, yeah, do it, go on, do as proud. Um and I think people are worried about that, you know. Biggest ethnic group in the country, they're worried that it's gonna somehow go off the rails, and yet I think suppressing it is the most dangerous thing that you can do. Suppress it and then continue to do the things that are causing it, and it's people um so much uh angst. Um, it's not not gonna end well. David Betts, the the military historian, um speaks about it being the downgrading of the majority being a primary driver of civil conflict, and so the the refusal of that uh English identity will will continue to fuel it. Um let's get a little bit on to um the Islamisation of Britain. So you you've you've spent your time documenting this. Um I think when people hear the the term they uh can be unsympathetic. Um, you know, whether you're on the left or liberal leaning side of things, they'll think you're being scaremongering, that there's no such thing, there's not really any evidence of this. What would you say to that?

SPEAKER_01 45:47

Sure, and sorry, in response to your earlier point, which you were making there, I do actually think it's noteworthy that part of part of the problem about like the reaction to these individual crimes, which there are a number of reasons for it, but one reason there is such a like kind of build-up of this, what you're saying, like almost English identitarian belief system, is partly because of the disconnect between what we were told society was like, basically, which is that it multiculturalism and every aspect of diversity is just amazing, and the diversity is our strength and that anyone who has any concerns is obviously racist. And obvious examples that run counter to that become but when you are being told in such explicit terms, something which is just obviously dogma. That's not to say that there aren't positive things about diversity, but we were never kind of presented with this stuff and told, okay, look, there's going to be good sides to this, bad sides to this, and we can kind of evaluate it and see what we think. We are basically told, no, this is amazing, and anyone who has any concerns is obviously racist. And I think if you're told that for long enough, uh in tandem with also literally being told that everything is systemically oppressive when it isn't, then it will lead to a society in which people respond to brutal jihadist attacks or random acts of violence by kind of almost like with a massive amount of zeal, saying, Well, look, this is an obvious example of how what you're saying is wrong. And I think that urge to kind of correct or point out the obvious flaws in the narrative motivates a lot of people to become so kind of like vociferous around this issue. And it kind of makes sense. It's almost like a reaction. That's kind of what makes me want to point this stuff out. It's not necessarily that I always think, oh, this proves everyone from this group is crazy. I don't really like making that point. It's more just that when these events occur, it obviously highlights how much dross we were having to accept as just being like, you know, rational when it wasn't. So I think that's kind of the impulse. Um, yeah, and on the Islamisation of society point. Um my general point there is just that we've experienced over recent decades, but with like an exponential increase in the last few years, a number of very dramatic social and demographic shifts which have resulted in society in many respects reflecting societies in the Middle East or in Muslim different different Muslim societies, which have a range of social characteristics and problems which we're now seeing in the West, which would have been completely alien to British life for basically all of British history or for the last like hundreds and hundreds of years, and in many respects, all the way back like the history of the country from its inception. Um, so to choose like some obvious examples, jihadism is something which we now almost accept as a kind of run-of-the-mill. Like if there's a jihadist attack now and one or two people die, it'll be headline news. But it's something which most people won't even really remember in much detail in a few months. Whereas I remember after you know the the July bombings 2005, I think it was July, that that was like huge news as you would expect it to be. But nowadays, like attacks like that, they're kind of almost more run-of-the-mill, because we've seen so many of them across Europe and in the US in recent years. Um just the uptick in jihadism, um clamping down on aspects of free speech which are deemed to be blasphemous against Islam, whether that's through the use of like the legislative and legal system, through you know, the introduction of these semi-blasphemy type offences, which Labour are trying to get past, or just things like school teachers, like the Batley school teacher who showed his class a picture of Muhammad and ended up being forced into hiding and who is still in hiding, I think, with his family, because he faces a very realistic prospect of being killed for blaspheming against Islam. That is obviously completely alien to Britain, despite the fact that most people don't discuss it in those terms. Um, the complete ubiquity of the Palestine flag in the immediate aftermath of a massive foreign jihadist atrocity, which killed more people than pretty much any recent terror attack in living memory. Um, that resulted in Britain becoming completely awash with flags in support of the people who carried that atrocity out. And we're meant to think that this is just normal, but that's a completely imported and mental phenomenon, which again is a symptom of an Islamisation of society. These are not normal British things to experience. Um, Jews are now having a very tough time, and but their experience, like as a Jewish person, not even not all Jews necessarily know this, but we have a kind of familiarity with the history of Jews across the Middle East, and that basically can be summed up as they lived there for a bit, were constantly oppressed, had various different programs, and eventually just got completely ethnically cleansed from vast swathes of the land, and now basically it's just completely entire families, people who lived in these countries for hundreds and hundreds of years, just completely ethnically cleansed and kicked out, and also experienced a numerous brutal programs, constant oppression. And now in Britain we're seeing at times weekly or even near daily attacks on Jews, almost all of which are by Islamists or by Muslims who hate Jews. Um these are all symptoms of what I would call like, you know, the incre the increasing Islamisation of parts of our social life. And obviously that runs in tandem with the massive demographic uh demographic shift towards a more Islamic society as a whole. I think that the percentage of the population that believes in Islam has it's about six percent now, and it's project or maybe seven percent is projected to become between twelve and twenty percent by twenty fifty, depending on different forecasts. So, yeah, it's all part and parcel of the same thing.

SPEAKER_00 51:13

There certainly seem to be a few canaries in the coal mine, and I know we've talked about the the um the the rape gangs uh which have uh had both an ethnic and a religious supremacy aspect to it uh over over white working class girls and in some cases some some Sikh girls, uh if they've been present in the the communities. Um and yes, you as you just outlined, the the Jewish people in the country, Jewish areas um not only undergoing attacks and firebombing, um, but uh typically I can imagine this is leading to uh a a psychological uh unsteadiness um across the population, across the affected groups. Um but sticking with the Jewish people for a moment, what do you think the future holds for British Jews because in France that has overseen a similar demo similar demographic transformation, though different sources of immigration, but people no less antagonistic towards Jews? Uh French Jews have en masse emigrated to Israel. British Jews have seemingly been doing so at a slower rate uh in recent years. And so my question to you is do Jews still continue to leave the country? Are Jewish communities uh so worried about the future of the country that they do not see a future for themselves and so are more likely to leave? Um or is the picture looking different to that?

SPEAKER_01 52:47

Um I my instinct is that more of them will leave than have done to this point. I mean, like just literally anecdotally, people who are largely even not that political or and definitely not even really right wing in many cases have been telling me, like, oh yeah, either I'm thinking about weighing up how I could leave or when I could leave and what situation I might leave in, or that they know people who are leaving. Like if almost every Jew will know at least one person who's uh considering leaving or knows people who are considering leaving. Um even like I'm from a completely I'm completely non-religious and I'm not apart from like that I look a bit different, but like I'm not really like visibly Jewish in the sense I don't wear like a kippah, a yamaka, I don't wear any of the Jewish clothes, I don't really do anything Jewish. I never go to synagogue ever, pretty much. I I didn't use to until my kids started going to play group there. But like even I and my family and people who I know are starting to think, well, even in a kind of even though we're basically secular, this is still having like quite material consequences. For example, I've got a daughter and a son, and my daughter goes to now goes to this synagogue playgroup just because it happens to be down the road, and I'm like crapping myself every time she goes, because like I've actually we barely like don't even send her that much just because like she could get attacked, and getting into a synagogue is literally like going through like high security prison. And I've gone to synagogue two times, I think it's two times or three times in the last six months, which is more than I've gone in the last 15 years to that point. Literally, the first time I went, when I walked in the door, or around that time, news was breaking of the shooting on Bondi Beach. The next time I went, the next day, there was a massive ambulance that there was the firebombing of the ambulances. It's like two out of three times something very extreme has happened while I was literally in the synagogue or immediately afterwards, and it's just kind of indicative of the situation in in some respects. So I think that a lot of people will be considering moving. Um, and also just even if I was to send my kids to a Jewish school now, which I we might not, but just the fact that it's even a consideration that they might get killed or they might get attacked if they go there, is obviously worth thinking about. Um to some extent, I think it depends on the next election. I think if reform were to get in, or the conservatives, but that seems like this is not very likely to happen. But especially if reform got in, I think quite a lot of Jews who aren't super woke, because there is like a definitely a woke section of Jews, but the non-woke ones, which is now a very large percentage of them, would be much less inclined to leave if that were to happen, because it would obviously represent a kind of wider societal response to the type of threat that they are facing, but also that everyone else is facing from like jihadism and that sort of Islamism and general in intolerance. Um but that being said, I I actually have a sense it's it's hard to know where Jews can really go. That's kind of the age-old question. The only place really is either America or Israel. But in America, under the Democrats, those of Jews wouldn't be very comfortable with that, especially when they've like become super leftists and super like pro-Palestine in many respects. And also a large swathe of the right now in America, and to a slightly concerning extent in the UK as well, is kind of vaguely leaning towards anti-Semitism as well. So it's not even clear that they could go to America, really. So I think it literally only leaves Israel, which in itself is obviously really risky. So if you're going to move to Israel, you're going to have to put your kids into the army, you're going to be ringed by heavily armed genocidal jihadists. So it's not an easy decision. But yeah, in short, we'll definitely see a lot of people leaving. Um, but the next few years, what happens will obviously be key to figuring out exactly what happens.

SPEAKER_00 56:21

Hmm. Max, you've been very generous with your time so far. And thanks for being so open about your own personal experiences as you've been uh tracking your way through the quagmire that is British public life. Uh before I let you go, I want to ask you the same question that I ask all of my guests, which is what have you changed your mind on during the course of your life and what was it that made you think differently?

SPEAKER_01 56:48

Okay, I'll give at least a two-pronged answer, maybe more. The first thing, I mean, the most obvious one is when I started university, I was like a massive communist. So that I very quickly stopped being that after about a year of studying that stuff in depth. So that's an obvious, massive one. But the but the point about being a communist is like I was I was a communist because I was just really political when I was younger, and then I kind of started thinking about politics. And if you start to think about anything political when you're in school and you're kind of intellectually wired, and you read the books you get given in school when everyone else is just kind of mucking around in class, I was like really interested in. I was like, oh, well, obviously society is systemically oppressive, and obviously it's oppressing the working class and it's oppressing all these different racial groups because this is what my sociology textbook tells me, and like loads of people hung out with the kind of vague leftists and loads of the adults I knew were. And so it made sense to just that was actually the kind of like logical political conclusion you would draw. And then I got into university by kind of believing that stuff and writing about it in my politics exams, and then I started studying it at Cambridge in loads of detail, and very quickly was like, wait, this literally doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. So why are you telling me that schools are definitely racist without providing accurate statistical evidence, which in any way backs that up? But I remember asking the professor who was giving or the lecturer who's giving the lecture, who the whole point about the lecture is that, oh, schools are obviously um discriminating against minority groups. The question is how? And then they'll show these statistics, and it showed that like loads of ethnic groups are outperforming white British kids. So I remember being like, Well, I mean, does that not make you think that presumably the schools must be, if you apply your own logic, the schools must be systemat systematically benefiting these minority groups, which obviously you're not going to claim. And it was just like the lecture had literally never considered that point, and then there was no logical conclusion to the question. We just basically ended up, I just end up writing my exam. Oh, yeah, well, obviously the school system's really oppressive, and you get like top marks. And I remember um saying to another teacher who was like a massive leftist who was telling us we just had to clamp down on free speech and fight the fascists. And I said, Well, I don't think we should clamp down on free speech. And he was like, Oh, so you're an instrument of the bourgeoisie. And it's just immediately just once I so once I realised that, and then I started noticing people going to these protests who are like not very political people, but whenever there was a protest about something, they would definitely go and definitely make a huge deal about it. And if you criticize any aspect of that group think, they would immediately call you like an extremist and go really crazy at you. And then I realized these are actually a religious belief system. This isn't really based on trying to understand what's happening. It's based upon just parroting whatever you're surrounded by in terms of the kind of dogma around you. So I think that really made me reconsider all of that worldview. And I came out of university not able to pursue a kind of academic career, and so I stopped being um left-wing in that respect, and then I became kind of like just a critic of general groupthink, which because the group think was all leftist, makes me seem really right-wing, but I don't think that that's necessarily true, it's just what I generally criticize. Um and then one other thing that is completely unrelated to that, that I've changed my belief on, is just the spread. I was genuinely taken aback by the speed of the spread of conspiratorial thinking across the board, but also notably on the American right in recent years. Um in the last couple of years, especially post like October 7th and that sort of attack. I always knew that there was kind of this kind of conspiratorial bent on the internet and that different groups might fall into it at any one time. But I don't think that I would have actually believed how quickly certain aspects of conspiratorial thinking could become very influential, even at kind of like the top levels of certain aspects of the right. I wouldn't have necessarily believed that was possible, which in hindsight was kind of irrational because obviously you can see throughout history there have been different movements like witch burnings, aspects of the Nazis, party movement. All throughout history, we've seen these emergences very quickly of conspiratorial thinking. But it was interesting to see these figures like Candace Owens shift from making kind of quite stupid but quite making points I kind of agreed with about BLM and stuff like that, but not making them very well, into literally within a couple of weeks saying that Bridget Macron is a man, that the dinosaurs are made up, that space doesn't exist, that the moon landings aren't real, and that like Jews control the world. And it's like kind of all mixed together and it somehow always comes back to hating the Jews. And it was just interesting to watch the speed at that happened and then the the widespread appeal it had kind of across the board, not just on the right, loads of leftists as well believe this stuff. So I think I kind of changed my view on the likelihood that that stuff can very rapidly take off. So it's yeah, that's another completely unrelated way that I've slightly reconsidered my thinking.

SPEAKER_00 1:01:31

Well, two Max, before I let you go, where can people find you in the dark corners of the internet and what can we expect from you next?

SPEAKER_01 1:01:38

Um, you can read my Substack, which is called Max's Newsletter. Um I've actually got my name as Max K, but I think I'll update it to Max Klinger soon. But yeah, if you look if you look up Max's newsletter on Substack, I'll come up. Um I'm also on Twitter, so you can look up Max Klinger on Twitter or MaxE2 Review is my handle, or on Instagram, that's the other place I'm on I'm on Instagram, so check me out on there. Max Klingerpolitics is my handle. Oh, and actually I've got a YouTube channel as well. So I'll be starting a podcast soon. I had a podcast in the past, which is actually going quite well, but I stopped it a few years back, and I think I'm gonna get that going soon. And yeah, just more subsec articles, more Instagram posts, more Twitter posts, just more of the same.

SPEAKER_00 1:02:15

Max, all the very best. Keep fighting the good fight, and we'll speak again. Thanks, John. All the best, fighting.