Abortion and African Ingratitude

Thoughts on recent developments with the UK's abortion legislation, and African calls for reparations. Thank you for listening, please share the podcast with anybody you think might enjoy it. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:02

Good afternoon and welcome back to Flat Cap Nationalist. Gonna skip the preamble today, although I will give you an apology, heads up in advance, there's probably gonna be some bad language in this one because I'm talking about two topics that really piss me off for want of a better word, and that is the abortion issue and African ingratitude. So let's get into it. So I'm sure many of you will have seen that uh legislation in the UK has moved into the final stages that will decriminalise um abortion beyond the current twenty-four week limit. So a word about this. There are things going around saying that abortion up until the day of birth has been legalised, it hasn't been legalised, it's been decriminalised for the women involved. Not the medical practitioners, there's probably still going to be penalties in place for medical officials that uh carry out abortions beyond the twenty-four week limit. But for the women themselves, it's effectively yes, up until the date of birth, and there will be no criminal repercussions from that. Now of course, being a Catholic, I'm against abortion full stop. Uh it's not always been my position, but uh it certainly has been since before I converted to Catholicism. I believe it is murder, and the simple reason for this being that left to develop in the womb, it cannot possibly be anything other than a human baby. You know, a fetus uh it's just the what the Greek word for baby. So there there's nothing else that it can be. There's not a a single chance that you know a human lady is gonna give birth to a a stork or a squirrel or anything like that. It's it's a human baby and it is a life, it is a potential life. So I don't agree with abortion, I believe it is murder. However, I understand, particularly with the country being at least 50% atheist, that that's not gonna be the common view, uh, which is why since 1967, abortion has unfortunately been legal in the United Kingdom. So as it currently stands, the limit for when you're legally allowed to have an abortion uh in or you know tax taxpayer funded NHS is 24 weeks, so about six months. To me, it seems incredibly late. You know, I I I see people saying things about how, you know, oh I didn't realise that I was pregnant. Oh, I'm sorry, but after six months, you've you've missed six periods and you you didn't know. You know, I I mean I know that contraception i is not a hundred percent effective. We do know that. Okay, and this is a common thing that I've been seeing with people saying, well, you know, a lot of people that are on birth control, they'll have sex, they'll be pregnant without realising it because a lot of birth control can actually, you know, stop or interrupt the menstrual cycle, you know, and make make it so it's less predictable and you might miss it one month and uh be back on it the next month or something like that. So there are i I understand that some people are going to fall pregnant that didn't intend to become pregnant. However, I think these are a few and far between, and it certainly doesn't account for the the sheer number of abortions carried out in the UK. You know, in 2022, which was the sort of latest data point I could really find that was um considered to be accurate, 29.7% of all pregnancies in England and Wales ended in abortion. 29.7%. That's not too far off a third. Okay, so one in three women that gets pregnant, what am I supposed to believe you you didn't know and and that it was contraception that failed you? No. No, I d I I think when when you're starting to see figures, nearly a third of all pregnancies ended in abortion, that says to me that a lot of people they're using using abortion as a kind of contraception. I mean, I know people personally, they've had multiple, multiple abortions, and they refuse to be sensible, they refuse to stop sleeping around, they refuse to use contraception. And the reason for that being is there's this environment that has almost glorified the act of abortion. It's seen as something incredibly empowering to women to abort a baby. So there are a lot of women that just think, well, why would I bother with contraception when I I can just abort? And one of the more perverse things is that you can phone up the doctors and get abortion pills sent to you on the basis of a phone call. There's just something so perverse about the fact you you can ring a number, you can ring the doctor's surgery, and bearing in mind they're all taxpayer funded, this is essentially you ring a government department and they will send to your house pills for the sole intention of destroying the baby in your womb. That is disgusting. In fact, since 1967 when abortion was legalised, there's been over ten million abortions in this country. Ten million. So in the fifty-nine years since 1967, that would be equivalent to about hundred and just shy of 170,000 a year. However, data from the year what was this now 2023 suggested that uh there were 277,970. So that's well above the sort of average that we've seen. So we can see that the rate of abortion is just increasing and increasing as it becomes more of a normalised institution and as it becomes seen more to be empowering to women rather than being called out for what it is, the destruction of an innocent baby life. Now, 10 million abortions in 59 years. Now, this is the reason that our birth rates are not at replacement level, which is driving the need for immigration and hastening the decline of every element of our society. And the government, they must know that when you incentivise behaviour, you'll get more of that behaviour. Right? So think about the uh electric cars, for example. Now for a long time, for whatever reason, Western governments have signed on to the suicidal, you know, economically and societally suicidal policies of net zero. And to this end, they've been trying to push people to drive electric vehicles. I'm not going to get out in the weeds on, you know, the uh the rights and wrongs of net zero policies and all that, so I'm not gonna get into that. But I will look at how they tried to incentivize people to buy electric vehicles because nobody wanted them for the main reason they were nowhere near as good as the established ones that we've already got using fossil fuels. So, in order to incentivize it, what they did was they said effectively if you have an electric vehicle, you don't have to pay road tax. So they understand that removing a tax, you know, removing one more thing that you have to pay to use our roads as if we didn't pay enough already, removing that thing would incentivise people to buy them and think, you know what, I'm tired of paying hundreds of pounds a year for vehicle tax. I'm up for renewing my car, I may as well get an electric one. So they they do understand how incentives work. And on the other side of that, removing a deterrent has the same effect. You know, you if for example, if you were to remove the penalties for, let's say, speeding, yeah, you're not gonna get points on your licence, you're not gonna get fined for speeding or, say, drink driving, you're not gonna face prison time for driving your car drunk. Well, if they were to remove those deterrents, you can fully expect there'd be a lot more people speeding to a much higher degree, and there'd be a lot more people drink driving. So when you remove a deterrent, such as you know, legal consequences, you are gonna get more of that behaviour. So the uh the only outcome of this legislation that I can see is there are going to be more and more late-term abortions. They've been decriminalized, so there's no penalties to face. Yeah, so you're just gonna end up with more of them. And uh it makes me question, who the hell put forward this legislation? You know, what did they have in mind when they decided, you know, the uh the hill that I want to die on today is women's rights to abort babies up until the day of birth with no legal repercussions. That's a that's a very strange thing to go into the commons with. It's a very it's a very strange policy to throw all your weight behind, isn't it? But then it wasn't really given much of a hearing in the House of Commons. Uh it was waived through with uh I think it was forty-three minutes of debate. Think about that. Think about how many late-term abortions, which are viable lives, you know, are going to be destroyed on the basis of a 43-minute conversation between ideologically motivated people in the Houses of Commons. I can't help but feel, you know, it's it's the culmination of a load of slippery slope policies. I mean, going back to the you know, removing of uh deterrence and the incentivisation, so going back into the 90s, the Conservative government had passed legislation that basically forbade the teaching of LGBT or just gay topics, as they would have been called at the time, uh, in the classroom. And when Blair came in, one of the very early things that he did was he removed that legislation. Okay, so he's removing the things stopping LGBT topics being discussed in schools, and fast forward 30 years, and what do we have? We have way higher numbers than ever identifying as gay, lesbian, uh, bisexual, or increasingly transgender, because it's being pumped into the classrooms and it's being used to divert them into a certain kind of lifestyle. And the numbers bear this out. The number of people identifying as LGBT has exploded in recent years, basically alongside the introduction of these topics into the classroom. So people are being indoctrinated with this stuff early, and it is having very, very real outcomes on the rest of their lives, basically. The the way that they see themselves as they move into puberty and beyond, you know, that they're starting from this framework of LGBT, and we've seen the results of that. So I wonder what we're going to look like in 30 years' time when this is normalised, you know, when there are people that are born today that their entire lives that there will never have been any pushback against you know abortion up until the day of birth. And it is a very slippery slope because yes, we've decriminalised it for ladies, but the medical practitioners are still going to face consequences if they perform late-term abortions. It's only a matter of time before they start browbeating us with, you know, well, this this woman couldn't get this late-term abortion on the NHS, so she was forced into the black market to find somebody to do it. We really need to address this. You know, 30 years from now, I would not be surprised if all consequences have been removed, including for medical practitioners that should know better. You know, I I really wouldn't be surprised. I know people think that slippery slope theories are basically false, you know, they're full of fallacies. But we've seen it time and time again. You know, you you accept a little bit and before you know it you look around and think, oh holy fuck, everybody's gay. Or, you know, immigration's a trick, or one day you look around and think, Fuck me, I've been entirely replaced here, and I don't really see any reason why the abortion issue would be any different. You know, late term abortions at the moment are quite rare, but without a deterrent in place, what's to stop the frequency of them dramatically increasing the way it seems to have gone with every other issue that has been treated this way? You know, where it it's seen as some kind of compassion to allow things that, you know, on the face of them shouldn't be allowed. I mean, how do you tolerate the intolerable? You know, abortion is murder. Yeah, and even if you can't get on board with that, surely, surely, up until the day of birth, surely you can agree that that is murder. I mean if I were to push an eight months pregnant lady down the stairs and she lost her baby, would I be tried for murder? I I believe I I I would be, and rightfully so. You know, even even if it were say the the father of the baby that did the pushing of the lady down the stairs. Well that's murder. This is essentially it is women demanding the right on tap to be allowed to kill their babies whenever they want for whatever reason they want, and nobody can interfere with that. Now feminism really does have a lot to answer for on this one, I think. You know, it's feminist belief that any kind of restriction on the actions of women is oppression. You know, being told that they cannot do something is a form of oppression. And uh we will do episodes going on on this topic in the future, and but for the time being I just want to outline why I think this legislation is being brought about. There are many, many problems with feminism, but the overarching one is the destruction of the family unit. You know, feminist progress has seen households destroyed, you know, it's seen children growing up in the care of the state because both parents are at work. And this is not entirely their fault. It's a kind of symbiosis between feminists and the system that wants more and more people in the workforce, so it has a larger and larger tax base to draw funds from. But this has been championed by the feminist movement because it means women have been in the workplace, they've been earning their own money, financial independence, you know, is seen as one of the great goals of feminism. You know, it's also been used to to drive careers, choose a career over having a family. You know, and this is why you look online, you don't have to look very far. You'll find many, many people regretting choosing a career instead of having a family, and they only realise it when it's too late. You know, these these to me are the huge problems of feminism. You know, it it's a stumbling block for the family unit, which in turn presents stumbling blocks to wider society, because effectively the nation is a family of families, it's a collection of family units stacked on top of one another, working with each other to keep things moving, and with the disruption of that brought brought about by 20th century feminism, a lot of these issues are starting to come to the fore. You know, and I do believe that's the that's the origin point of this abortion bill is effectively an unwanted pregnancy is a stumbling block. It's seen as an inconvenience, a stumbling block to a lady's career. And we're living the 21st century now, you know, there's no reason anything should get in the way of a woman being a boss babe, you know, she should be able to go to work, rise to the top, you know, maybe on her own merits or maybe put there because that's the kind of culture we live in now. You know, and it's it's not to denigrate women. I know a great many capable and incredible women, but also we live in a system that sponsors the idea of uplifting women to positions that they might not necessarily belong in, but that's seen as a positive thing, that you know, it's seen as progress. And incidentally, this abortion bill is seen as quite progressive. And I want you to think about that because the way the word progress and progressive, the way these words are thrown around is always as a positive. It's seen as progressive is good. But I would put it to you that multineuron disease is progressive also. You know, cancer is progressive. Is that is that a good thing? No. No, we call them degenerative. And I would argue that a lot of so-called progressive values are in fact degenerative. You know, progressing feminism degenerates the family, which in turn degenerates society. I wouldn't call it progress, and certainly not progress at the expense of unsold millions of unborn babies, you know, particularly now up until the day of birth. I also think despite the way that men are often depicted by feminists, we're not unreasonable. Now this is why we've introduced laws and societal standards to prevent us from using our physical force against women or against other people. You know, uh with with physical force being seen to be the weapon primarily of men due to naturally higher strength. You know, we we decided we're gonna legislate so that we cannot just use our weapon to get our way. You know, but there's no such compunction when it comes to women. You know, the tools of women are are celebrated and encouraged, and not all women, of course, but a great many of them will use those weapons to get their way. And this is why, as we've seen politics become increasingly feminized, more and more emphasis is given over to feeling sorry for people and being empathetic and be you know, relaxing standards because they're they're just so oppressive when you expect people to live up to a certain kind of standard. We've seen this increasingly, and it doesn't show any signs of abating anytime soon. And the weapons that women tend to use are sex, tears, and the kids. Right. There's a lot of women who use sex to manipulate men to get what they want. And you know, if it works who can really blame them. But we've also, I'm sure most of us fellas been manipulated by a woman turning on the waterworks to get what they want or to get out of trouble or whatever it might be. You know, and this is encourage. You know, so while we live in a society that's dictated by emotions and exploring feelings and analysing reactions to things, you know, because this favours women, this is the realm of women. They are more in touch with their emotional sides, and more power to them for that. But when that's that's turned on us, it's used, you know, the you might have heard the term suicidal empathy, which has become increasingly common as politics has become feminised and the West has started to adopt policies that are essentially suicidal, but you know, they make people feel good because they're showing empathy to, you know, what they're calling refugees, but what any anybody applying a modicum of logic would say, no, these are invaders, these are military-aged men invading our country for, you know, presumably no good ends. But use that empathy that women are so famous for and suddenly you know, ah, they're just poor, fleeing, you know, just fleeing war, just fleeing a war-torn country and they want a better life, and it's it's our responsibility to give it to them. It defies logic, it really does, particularly when we've seen the extent of the damage that this has done to our society and culture. It really does defy logic, but there, there, there's the crux of it. Where men are seen to be more logical, women are driven more by emotions. And we've been told that using our logic is mansplaining, which is therefore offensive. Again, hurts the feelings of ladies, there's that emotional warfare coming into play again. You know, these are the weapons of women. And you ask any man that's been to family court, the kids are always weaponised. They are used as a weapon to get things in the woman's favour, and men just have to make the concessions because otherwise they aren't going to see their kids. We're now in this dangerous phase where suicidal empathy has moved into homicidal empathy, you know, where if if if you think that this woman's life might be inconvenienced by having a baby that she didn't plan for or didn't realise that she was carrying, well, now through this legislation, effectively what it means is the the voices of thousands of feminists past will be shouting to the lady carrying an unborn baby that she didn't know she had, kill it. Why not? Why wouldn't you kill it? Because i otherwise it's going to be to your detriment. And this is really symptomatic of a society that views parenthood as a burden. You know, I I saw just a couple of weeks ago, just a couple of weeks ago, Mother's Day, I was seeing all these anti-natalist posts about what a chore it is to be a parent and how much, you know, how much women regret having babies and should have focused on their careers instead. You know, another product of feminism. And I just think it's absolutely barbaric, but that is that that's kind of the route that we've travelled down over the years, over the last certainly over the last 10, 15, 20 years, but this has been in play for a long time, for decades. You know, and we've arrived now at this point where it is seen as liberating and empowering to allow women to kill their babies up until the day of birth. You know, what what kind of power does that give to a lady? You know, she could be eight months pregnant with with a baby, have an argument or break up with their boyfriend or husband or whatever it might be, and suddenly ah well, I know what's gonna get him. Let's go and kill this baby. Yeah, I'm not saying that's gonna happen, I'm sure there will be cases of it, but yeah, yeah, I don't know, it's just barbaric, and I think anybody that could even countenance bringing such legislation forward is an absolute monster. Now I would hope that we can get the Overton window kicked far enough to the right to reinstate the death penalty. I feel pretty strongly about that because I think it's it's a long time since we've been asked the question how we feel about it. Right, and I know a lot of the political elite aren't in favour of it because they themselves are committing crimes that would be eligible, certainly in the old days, for the death penalty. But I would like to bring it back and I would like to see every single politician, every Member of Parliament, everybody in the House of Lords, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury, who refused to strongly condemn this, right, refused to do so. I would like to see every single one of them facing trial for their life. For this barbaric legislation that they have put through. Because the evils of this are ongoing. This is not just something that's going to affect today. This is going forward. This could be decades from now. And under this legislation, babies are being aborted two weeks before their due date, a day before their due date. You know, this is an ongoing evil, uh and we should not stand for it. I know we're we're called to be tolerant, but you can't that some things are intolerable, and baby murder is certainly one of them. So I'd like to see the reinstatement of the death penalty so that these politicians can answer for the barbarism that they've just voted for. And as for Keir Storm with a personality vacuum that likes to moralise to us and preach to us and lecture us about decency, I don't want to hear that wanker say another word about decency when he's overseen this legislation. Not a word about decency when you cannot condemn abortion up until the day of birth. And anybody listening, not that I think any of you guys would be on board with such a thing, but anybody, anybody that doesn't have an issue with abortion up until birth, there's something seriously wrong with that person. Seriously wrong. We we don't want to be spending years sharing society with these people that think it's okay to murder babies. Now, having said that and having done that one to death for the time being, let's move on to topic number two, African ingratitude. Now this is something that really pisses me off. Well, for anybody who doesn't know, a few hundred years ago there's this thing called the transatlantic slave trade, right? And periodically this comes back as a stick to beat us over the head with. And the whole story around it is plagued with misconceptions and lies, misrepresentations, and ultimately it's aimed at appropriating wealth from the West to the global south, the third world as we all know it. Now recently, the United Nations decided that the transatlantic slave trade is the worst thing that's ever happened. Nothing worse than that has ever happened. Now it's certainly up there, you know. I mean I'd I'd certainly like to ask the Jews how they feel about that. You know, I'm sure they'd say the Holocaust, you know, and certain others might make a case for Genghis Khan and the Mongol invasion. But the slave trade's certainly up there. However, the way that it is used politically is to my mind completely immoral. So I have no doubt that very, very few people in the world today would make a case that the slave trade was a good thing. But what people should realise is that slavery it wasn't just something that happened to African people, okay, and it wasn't just something that came about in the middle of the you know seventeenth century or whatever it might be. It's been around for the entirety of human history. You know, it's almost human nature, and when you defeat somebody, you take their people and you put them to work for you and contribute economically to strengthen your own position for future wars. Now obviously it's quite hard to comprehend that really when we live in a fairly safe West where war always seems quite far away. It's something that happens in other places, but not necessarily here, right? I believe it was in the 17th century that Europeans first started trading with Africa, and they found when they got there well established slave trade markets. Because the tribes in Africa were perpetually at war, and each one of those wars produced slaves. So they were they were teeming slave markets in Africa, you know, and they this had been going on for time untold, you know, for as long as people can remember, this stuff would have been happening over there. Africans enslaving other Africans. Just so happened that at this point, with the arrival of the Europeans on the scene, they had a more capable trading partner, so they were able to procure slaves and trade them off to the Europeans, you know, and enrich themselves massively in the process. To such an extent that by the time that the British Empire demanded of the Africans that they stop the slave trade, many of them were so invested in it and they depended so heavily upon the slave trade and the wealth that it brought to them that they refused. Okay, that they didn't want to give up the slave trade. Now the way it's commonly portrayed is that this was an evil inflicted on the people of Africa by the barbaric people of Europe, instead of you know willing participants in a mutually beneficial trade agreement. And this is not to downplay the severity of the slave trade and you know the seriousness of the conditions in which the slaves lived and were transported. It's absolutely vile. Disgusting. And this is why eventually it was the British Empire that decided, no, we've had enough of this, this this cannot be allowed to continue, this is evil. Okay, and this was felt societally top down. You know, all the way from the governors, the aristocracy, the lords, the politicians, the common man, everybody, the landed gentry, everybody turned out against it, apart from a very, very select few that were actually profiting from the trade. Because here in England, slavery, you know, the the trading of a man, you know, buying and selling a fellow human being in this country, well it's not been legal for about a thousand years. Okay, and eventually we realise, hey, this is totally wrong, and what we should do is use our position of wealth, power and authority in the world to eliminate this barbaric practice. And we enforced that in the colonies, we enforced that on countries like France and Spain and Portugal and Brazil. We ended the slave trade for them too. And it wasn't an easy thing to do because, as we've already stated, it's a practice as old as the human race. You don't overturn something like that with minimal effort, so it took a lot of doing. You know, even even within the chambers of you know the British government, it took roughly 20 years of campaigning to get it finalised, that okay, we're going to abolish the slave trade. And after that, it was an ongoing mission to eradicate it around the world. We spent enormous amounts of wealth and lives, thousands of lives, with the West Africa Squadron that was it was given the task of blockading Africa so that slaves couldn't be taken. And this was very, very costly in terms of wealth and in terms of manpower. Okay, and what do we get at the end of it? Well, we get a narrative handed down to us from the establishment that we are almost uniquely evil within the context of human history for participating in the slave trade. It never mentioned that everybody was at it, that the Africans were at it, the Asians were at it, the Arabs were at it, the Europeans were at it, in the Americas, they were at it, everywhere on earth, anywhere you could find people, you'd most likely find slaves. So one nation, one empire, yeah, decided to use its wealth, its might, its influence to put a stop to it. So when everybody else is engaging in the same practice, it puts us all on a blank sleep, and then one nation stands up and says enough. And that was Britain. And I would argue that this is glorious. There's a glorious thing to be involved in, the abolition of the slave trade. I'm sure many would agree, right? So why then are we constantly, constantly beaten over the head for participating in the slave trade? Again, it's not to downplay the absolute hellish conditions that the slaves would have lived through. This is about historical accuracy, and I would say to organisations like the BBC that insist on inserting diversity into you know the Battle of Hastings and British history, English history, where there were no Africans. This is this is why it matters, because the series route is where many people get their first understanding of the nature of the slave trade. And in that, one of the early scenes you will see is Europeans chasing African villagers, chasing Africans down, hunting them in the bush and on the savannah, and dragging them back to be sold as slaves. And this is not historically accurate, this is not how it played out. And the the guy that made the series Roots admitted this, he said it was through dramatic effects. You know, but the first thing I learned about the slave trade was from my mum. I remember years ago, I remember her telling me about how we would go to Africa and we would brutally go out and capture slaves, and this is simply not the way that it actually played out in reality. The truth is, Africans were enslaved by other Africans. They were then sold to other Africans or to Europeans. So I I fail to see how in this context Europeans are uniquely evil, you know, but it's always it's constantly used. The transatlantic slave trade is constantly used to invoke white guilt, and out of that guilt are expected to blossom reparations. It's a word it comes back periodically, usually in election cycles in America, where they'll float the idea of giving reparations to black people as a mechanism for obtaining votes for the Democrats. But lately there's also been a lot of clamour from the Third World for reparations from Britain to the rest of the world for slavery. And again, they they try to play on white guilt that has been inculcated into us by our own establishment as well, and they do this to try and extract wealth from us. Never mind the fact that we don't actually have any wealth, and you know, our our economies are indebted immensely. That's a long time. Even if we started being fiscally responsible now, it's a long time before we'd have any wealth to actually give away. But part of the reason for this is we already gave away immense amounts of wealth to bring about the end of the slave trade. Because you see, the Africans themselves were making so much money from the slave trade they didn't want to give it up. And so for us to complete our mission of ending the trade, we had to substitute that wealth for them. We had to give them ridiculous amounts of money to get them to stop. Because otherwise, why would they? Particularly when their entire system of economy is predicated on the existence of the slave trade. Now we're we're coming in and putting a stop to that. What are they gonna do? Well, we had the answer for that. We gave them a lot of money, so that there was no need for them to engage in the trading of people anymore. And unfortunately, our treacherous establishment allows this to be used to browbeaters that you gave money to slavers. Yes, we did, and we did that to free the slaves. So this ingratitude is coming from the descendants of people that were freed by us giving up ridiculous amounts of wealth. So vast, in fact, was the sum that we spent ending the slave trade, we only finished paying it off in 2015, or just over a decade ago, which means anybody in the UK working and paying tax up until that point has paid towards the end of slavery. So I think we've done enough. Not to mention the fact that the money we gave to the slavers, well, where did that go? Where did that go? Why did they not use that to improve the lives of their citizens? You know, or the billions, in fact, probably reaching into the trillions at this point, that's been donated from Western countries, usually triggered uh through mechanisms built on white guilt. We've given them probably trillions of pounds at this point towards water and food and stability and eradication of diseases, you know, medicines, contraceptions, which they refuse to use. You know, we've we've done more than our fair share, you know, and reparations I I see it as racist personally, because they only ever come to majority white Western nations because they know that we have guilt. Okay, now that that guilt is not, I don't believe, is organic. I believe it's fostered and sponsored by those above us because it serves their agenda to have us feeling guilty and feeling that we need to be as charitable beyond charitable to the third world in order to atone for sins that we ourselves never committed. Now this is why in a recent UN decision on whether or not reparations should be paid, our treacherous government decided to abstain from voting. So they didn't say, yeah, we're in favour of giving reparations, but they couldn't quite bring themselves to say fuck off. Which is what they should have done. Okay, because otherwise, they I mean this issue is never going to go away, is it? Yeah, you've got people campaigning for us to give up whatever wealth we actually don't have to these people who historically have shown that when you give them wealth, they squander it. You know, and and let's not pretend that all the issues facing Africa are caused by the white man, are caused by Europeans because this is simply not true. We've done more than anybody to help that continent, but the fact is that it's such a corrupt place, with so little in the way of genuine civilization, that you could send all the money in the world over there and it would disappear, and there would be no tangible results. Why is it, for example, that in the eighties there was an enormous, enormous effort put forward to feed the people of Ethiopia? Yet the people living in Ethiopia now, below the poverty line, the people the number of people starving to death in Ethiopia is higher now than it was in the eighties. Why is that, despite all the help that we've given them? You know, why is it that the parts of Africa that we ran were far more successful? You know, it comes down to the people at the end of the day. What happened to Rhodesia? Rhodesia is a great example for a while. It was the jewel of Africa. You know, it was run by Brits, and it was populated mostly by Brits, and it was the shining jewel of Africa, it had the highest standards of living. And when the black population saw the removal of the white population and the overthrow of the government, and then came Robert Mugabe, well, what happened to Zimbabwe? I mean look at it now. Is that a place you want to live? I don't bloody think so. Okay, so this cannot all be pinned on the Europeans, because of the slave trade that we ended. You know, we've done more than our fair share to help Africa, but Africa cannot help itself. Now I find myself wondering, is this tied in with their intelligence by any chance? Now I know this is a little bit of a taboo subject, isn't it? You're not supposed to imply that anything, any societal consequences might be ethnically or racially related. But the only place in the world where you will consistently find IQs below 70, which I believe is the level for retoldation, for want of a better word, the only place you will find that consistently is sub-Saharan Africa. Okay, now I I read this economics book a long time ago, very old book, but he described African economies as stupid economies, because what they would do effectively would say, hey, we've got far too many unemployed people. So what we're going to do is we're going to take part of this guy's job and give it to this guy that doesn't have a job, so now there is less unemployment, without realizing that what they're effectively doing is doubling the cost of achieving that job. Now, if that were to that that that kind of thinking, that kind of logic were to be applied throughout the entirety of the society over there, it might explain why billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions of pounds, dollars, euros, whatever you want to call it, just seem to disappear, and there never seems to be any real improvement in the quality of life over there. I actually think there's a much, much more compelling case for Africa owing reparations to woods. Now I know this is never going to happen, um, but I would say there's a much more compelling case because we are the ones that put lives and money on the line to go and end a barbaric practice that they themselves now see as the greatest evil ever perpetrated against humanity. Okay, but who were the ones doing it? You were capturing Africa. You were capturing slaves, you were enslaving your own people and selling them on. Okay, I would argue that's a much, much greater evil than buying the slaves and transporting them. Not to downplay, once again, the evils of the slave trade. But if we're talking in terms of relative evil, I would say the Africans are far, far worse. And what's worse than that is they're ungrateful for every effort that has been made to improve life for them. We ended what they themselves will tell you is the worst evil ever committed. Ended that. Gave them unbelievable amounts of money to stop them engaging in the practice, they squandered that wealth, and here they are with their begging bowl once again, and without a government with the balls to say, fuck off, this is going to continue. Okay, and I I'm I'm sick of it. And it also makes me laugh to think let's just say they went ahead with the reparations, which they're not going to, but let's just say they did. And we have to pay reparations now to Africa. You better believe at that point all these people, all the black people in Britain, they're saying I'm as British as anybody. Are you sure about that? I I think if there was a bill coming your way for slavery, you'd you'd try and dock your way out of paying it. Or maybe rightly so, I would say rightly so. You've already done your part if you've been living and working here, you've paid your taxes, you've paid towards the end of slavery. Nobody could ask any more of you. But I think it's wrong. I think it is wrong, particularly in 2026 when we are what, 150 odd years removed from the end of the slave trade that we we bought about. I think it is wrong to demand payment from people that never owned slaves to people that never were slaves. I think that's there's something fundamentally wrong there. You know, and this is without even getting into the fact that the vast majority of people in in Britain did not benefit one iota from slavery. You know, in fact, it probably made their own living conditions worse. There's a very, very small number of wealthy elite, you know, that enriched themselves through engagement with the slave trade. But for the vast majority of people here, they were living in substandard conditions themselves. Yeah, most of them had no greater life expectancy than the slaves did. Yeah, and they certainly had no more money than they did. You know, I think there's this image, because Britain had an empire, and everybody in that empire was living the high life, but it's simply not the case. You know, some of the people in the north of England during those times probably had the lowest living conditions in all of Europe. You know, it was really, really poverty stricken. And they they saw no enrichment to themselves through the slave trade. So why should their descendants, who themselves have never benefited from the slave trade, why should they pay one penny to Africans that never were slaves, whose ancestors already received payment from our ancestors to stop the practice? You know, it just smacks of ingratitude. But this is this is the third world mentality. You look at somebody that has something and you try and weasel your way into owning that thing. So you you look at the Western nation and you think, hey, you you're doing okay. I want some of that for myself and I'm gonna guilt you into giving it over. And we should simply say, once again, fuck off. Not gonna happen. This is why I don't think we should be opening the door to third worlders to come in, ungrateful third worlders that despise us for things that we personally never did and they personally never never suffered. Okay, but y you know the old idiom, don't argue with a stupid person because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Well, don't welcome in the third world because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. If they can scam that money out of you, they will. Okay? We've done our share. Stop asking, get to foot. Now, sorry for my language in this one, but these are two topics that do piss me off. So uh hopefully be a bit more cheerful on the next one. But uh, yep, keep well, keep listening, keep recommending to people you think might enjoy it, might get some kind of value from it, and I will catch you on the next one. Goodbye.