Mr Monopoly: Prejudice and Hate

A look at the monopoly the state has on prejudice and hate. 

Thank you all for listening, it's greatly appreciated. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:17

Good evening, welcome back to Flight Cap Natch List. It's a pleasure to be with you as always. And I will just say a quick apology for not getting my episode up on Thursday or on Sunday. Thursday, I was still incredibly angry about the subject matter. I don't want to speak in a way that I'm later gonna regret. I try to be Christian and charitable with the things that I say. Sometimes I hit the target, sometimes I fail spectacularly. But I was so enraged last week that I thought I'm in no fit state to do this. And then yesterday, yeah, I I was bloody hung over yesterday. So no episode there. So here we go today, Monday evening. Let's get into it. So this is episode 14, another continuation of the perversions of the state series. There's another one along the lines of Mr. Monopoly. And this one is addressing the monopoly that the state has on prejudice and hate. So we all know that the state, the establishment, it doesn't want us to notice patents. So you may have noticed, along with many others, that every time a minority attacks one of us, it's classified as an isolated incident and attributed to mental health. Anytime a minority is attacked, it's indicative of a wider systemic and societal issue that needs to be addressed, and we must radically change our perceptions of the world and be more accommodating to outsiders so that we don't get accused of racism, prejudice. In the interest of not noticing patterns, this is why they rarely give physical descriptions of perpetrators. You know what I mean? How many times have we seen a man stabs three in crowd or a man drives a car into a crowd at a Christmas market? It's always a man or sometimes British man, you know, which it really is. It's usually somebody that's been given British citizenship by the state, but is by no means a British man. You might remember there was a case last year, there was a horrific gang rape carried out in the uh the church grounds, and the media rushed out to say, well one of the perpetrators was white. Which to me that's a very funny way of saying that three of them weren't. But this is the kind of thing they do because they know nine times out of ten you get a headline like that, or you get a headline, you know, car driven into crowd at Christmas market. Nine times out of ten you know exactly who's to blame. You know exactly who's to blame. So they they dance around these issues and they give the bare minimum description. Yeah. How many how many times have we seen the police ask for help and identifying somebody but they refuse to give a physical description? They'll just say average height and they'll describe the clothes that the perpetrator was wearing, but they won't give us any actual physical descriptions because if they did, they'd probably be guilty of some kind of hate crime. And of course, it would provide us a way of recognising a pattern. All of this is done in the interests of stamping out prejudice, but I'd say to you that prejudice is actually a defence mechanism. And this attempt to stamp out prejudice just shows the hubris of the state in trying to rewrite human nature and psychology. Yeah, I mean, take for example, when you was at school, how many times did you hear about white van men? Yeah, or there's been a white van man driving around the school. And everybody knew that this means people in white vans hanging around schools are probably trying to entice kids into their vans. Now, at the time, my dad drove a white van. Now he was rarely there to pick me up from school. But if he did, there'd be questions. Yeah, why is this man in a white van? Why is he parked outside the school? And this isn't done because my dad's a bad person. But this is done because there is a pattern. There's a pattern of white van men hanging around schools trying to lure kids into the vans. Plain and simple. So I I'd like to see actually what's taught in a school now. You know, you can't pre-judge white van men. You can't assume that they're there for nefarious purposes, even though for the longest time that was the pattern. Yeah, it is again it's an attempt to rewire us, yeah, rewrite human nature. Prejudice is a defence mechanism, and it usually comes about through pattern recognition over time. In this way, our ancestors, they didn't have to analyse, you know, the uh the pros and cons of every situation. They could identify quickly, okay, you know what? Last time this situation happened, everything went south, so I'm going to do my best to avoid that situation again. Even if the the characters involved, the individuals, are different, the fact that we've been in a similar circumstance before, and we know the outcome, gives us reason to be cautioned. That is what prejudice does. Prejudice is innately a defence mechanism. No, I'm not saying there aren't times when prejudice is bad. But this blanket attempt to stamp out prejudice is essentially saying, no no no no, don't don't trust your learned experience, guys. Don't don't trust all the things, all the lessons we've learnt throughout our history. Don't trust those things. Yeah, because that is prejudice and prejudice is bad. And in this way they can condition us to accept things that we previously wouldn't accept. You might notice that members of a certain community are particularly likely to commit certain types of crime. But because we can no longer be prejudiced, we have to let that slide and just so happens that they keep doing those crimes. But there's no correlation, no no nah. Isolated incident friend, isolated incident every single time. Meanwhile, the state, the establishment, and all the apparatus of the state, they operate with prejudice, extreme prejudice at times. You might remember there was a stabber in Germany last year or the year before, and basically a man went to tackle the knife man, Islamist knife man. German guy went to go and tackle him, and a copper looked over and saw it, and he prejudged from that situation, bearing in mind all the indoctrination that we've undergone, thanks for our leftist establishment, here in Germany and across Europe as a whole. And he saw Islamist, you know, brown guy tackling being tackled by a white guy. Right now, somebody is screaming that there's a knifeman, and this copper assumed, oh well, it must be that evil German guy then, yeah, trying to knife up that poor minority bloke over there. So what does he do? He goes over and starts wrestling the German guy. The Islamist gets through, he pulls his knife out and stabs the copper in the neck. Now if that copper had acted with his innate prejudice, right, the one that we are born with, that mechanism of self-preservation, self-defence, he'd still be alive now. But he lost his life because he went with the state enforced version of prejudice instead, assuming that the white guy was the issue. Yeah, because that's the way that they're conditioned to think now. You know, you can't can't possibly, can't possibly prejudge that a minority might be the problem. Similarly, in the Emranovac case, the coppers turned up and they assumed this guy's the problem. Well there's no evidence of racism, and actually it's come to light that somebody had reported that there'd been a stabbing. Coppers didn't respond to that. As soon as Digwa phoned up the coppers and said somebody's been racist to me, they were around there like a shot. And they assumed that this guy on the floor, unable to stand, barely breathing, saying that I've been stabbed, they assumed he was the problem. Alright? And they immediately took the side of the brown people because that's what they're conditioned to do. So they get there, they see him leaning up, and they listen to what Digwood's family said, which was essentially along the lines of he's bleeding, he hurt himself falling off a fence. Listen to the audio footage on the body cam. Listen to the audio. Yeah, they try and insinuate he's hurt himself falling off a fence, he's not been stabbed, and the copper say, yeah, I know, but we have to check anyway. You know, they immediately side with a minority because that is what they're conditioned to do. You know, all the police forces, they all have these different policies about how they address policing among different communities. They're all instructed to police different communities differently. Yeah. And it this involves a level of prejudice that you or I would be imprisoned for. We are not allowed to make assumptions based on race or gender or any of the other protected characteristics. In fact, if we do so, we are considered to be hateful. And this is in the in the same line as, you know, if you you get in a fight in a nightclub, you you assault somebody in a nightclub, it's an assault. But if it's a gay lad or an son of it, it's probably a hate crime, and the punishment is going to be much more severe. And all these different policies came about, they've been in place for a long time, but they were sort of codified following George Floyd. Now I I don't say this one lightly, but George Floyd deserved to die. All I mean by this, yeah, because life is inherently valuable. George Floyd swallowed more than a lethal dose of drugs, right, in order to not get caught in possession of them. Lifelong felon, long history of charges, and he didn't want to get caught with drugs in his possession, so he swallowed them. Yeah. And he died. He overdosed. It's not murder. Yeah. Suicide, if anything. He willingly swallowed those drugs, but the whole world had to burn for that. We saw every prominent member of our establishment, and I'm talking police chiefs, you know, the Prime Minister and other MPs and party leaders like Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner, you know, David Lamy, all these people, they all took the knee in solidarity with George Floyd after he overdosed himself. Those same people, when they're asked, are you going to take a knee for Henry Novak? No, no, no, no. No, David Lamy, David Lamy, you can find interviews of him saying, you know, it's not always possible for the police to uh police different races equally. Okay, fair enough, no, it's it's not. But when it's perceived that a minority community is being treated unfairly, the world has to burn, systems have to get turned upside down, we have to pay the price, we have to listen to the lectures about how we're all so racist and it's so ingrained in us that we don't even realise it. Yeah, we we just have to put up with that. And if you call this out as a problem, they just use it as further evidence of what a despicable racist you are, and they disregard everything you have to say, which I think is a pretty perverse state of affairs. And this is absolutely used as a weapon against us. I mean take, once again, the Digwar family. Stabbed them in IVAC, and when they called the coppers, no ambulance, called the coppers and immediately went to racism. Because they thought that was going to defend them, they thought that was gonna get them off scot-free. And who knows, maybe it would have done if such a big deal hadn't been made out of this. Yeah, they they know that they can use it as a weapon against us, and they know that the establishment buys it, hook, line, and sinker, because they have a vested interest in promoting minority interests above ours. Yeah. There are many reasons for this. Mainly, you know, a lot of a lot of people on the left love minorities because they come in, cheap labour, crop up pension systems and other, you know, social programmes. On the other hand, minority communities allegedly are easier to control. Or they are more likely to be, you know, respectful of the government that allowed them into the country in the first place, making them more compliant and supportive of that government, which when you've you've got an entire system that's seeking to gain control over the entirety of the populace and all its finances, all its economic dealings. Compliance is key. And this is this is how they see these minority communities as the good foot soldiers of the establishment. Never mind the fact that they refuse to follow our laws, they refuse to be policed by consent, yeah, and they set up parallel societies. Now, I said in the last one that I quite like the Sikh community, and by and large, that is true, although my perception is slowly changing. And I've noticed this, right among the older Sikhs tend to be very nice people, very, very friendly, quite patriotic. A lot of them, they'll support England when we play football, but I'm sorry this is this is not the same as integration. Okay? And what we've seen since the Andre Novak thing is the Sikh community come out to say Sikhs are most affected by this because now you're trying to take away our specially privileged knives. We've got Sikh MPs coming out and saying, you know, Sikhs fought alongside the British in both world wars, we fought and died alongside you when we were wearing a turban and kirpan the entire time. Don't know what point you're trying to make there. Yeah, we had we had machine guns and uh British Army issued knives. Are we allowed to carry them around? No, we're not allowed under the Offensive Weapons Act any item specifically for self-defence, unless you're a Sikh. Right? This this Sikh MP come out and he says, Sikhs have been here for over a hundred years, and we've contributed greatly. Well, I beg to differ. You know, what what contributions has the Sikh community made? Not a lot. Okay, they tend to work, pay taxes, they don't tend to commit a lot of crime, they're pretty friendly people. Don't care. It's not the same as integration. You've been here for a hundred years, yet you still feel the need to wear your turbans, wear your kerpans, yeah, you still bear these signifiers that show I'm from a different place, a different culture. Yeah, I'm not part of the native population. And you know damn well that you're not, but you want to be treated as such. In fact, you want to be treated over and above as you want special exemptions for your religion, your culture, your customs. Now, if you were to knock off a Sikh man's turban, you'd have every Sikh within a five mile radius at your door getting aggressive and trying to fight you for disrespecting their custom and culture. Yet every single one of them wants to disrespect our customs and culture, yeah, by being permitted to carry knives that nobody else is allowed to carry. And they're getting in a in a bit of a twist about this issue, and they they don't seem to realise why people are so pissed off about them carrying these knives. And they they see it as an attack on their community. You know, uh a Sikh man stabbed a white lad, Sikhs most affected. It's the same shit the Muslims do every time. You know, one of them will go and blow up a pop concert or drive a car into a Christmas market, and the response from their community and the establishment will be, oh, I I dread to think the backlash this poor community is going to face now. I've seen quite a lot of Sikhs disowning the Digwa family and saying, you know, this is not what we're all like, we don't claim them. No, of course you don't, because they've just done something really fucked up. But you're still arguing, you still want this religious exemption for knives. And a lot of a lot of Sikhs have sort of talked about how they support strong knife laws, but only for everybody else, not for them. Yeah. Now the condemnation towards the Digwar family is only right and just, but I've also seen a lot of Sikhs, they tend to be on the younger side, coming out defending Digwar and searching for excuses as to why he was justified in what he did. Yeah, and that's not on. And this is similar to a lot of Muslims. The older ones tend to be a lot better. But the new the the younger ones, the newer generations, they don't feel connected to this country. And they don't feel quite so connected to India either. And that's to be expected, you know, in a in a society that teaches that minorities are so disadvantaged and that white people are all so racist, and that, you know, we went over to India and just absolutely brutalised them. No wonder they don't feel, you know, a sense of community with us, they don't feel like they belong. Yeah, because integration is a myth. Now they've been here for a hundred years, and they marry almost exclusively into their own community. They still wear the turban, still carry the kerpan. That is not integration. And because they haven't integrated, their children or grandchildren, you know, second, third generation Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, they they feel oppressed. They do not feel an affinity with this country, and they identify more strongly with their native culture. Yeah, and maybe this is just because they come from such a different background, right? The they they cannot seamlessly integrate with us. Yeah, so they they make special demands. And I've seen people lamenting, well, Sikhs, uh they're gonna lose their status as the model minority now. Model minority. I mean good people, they do tend to be quite good people, decent, peaceful, whatever. But I wouldn't say they're the model minority. Yeah. I would say that's the Japanese or the Australians or the Germans. Yeah, the Italians. All these people that have come here, they don't make any special demands, they don't make any requests for concessions so that they can keep living their culture, they do tend to integrate. You get a second generation Italian here, for example, I work with one, and uh aside from you know his name Mario, I won't say his last name out of respect, aside from his name, you'd never know the guy wasn't English. Yeah? But these Sikhs that have been here for a hundred years, you know damn well they're not English. And they don't feel it. They know they're not, they pretend to be when it suits them, but they know they're not English. And their children, their grandchildren, their great grandchildren are growing up to resent this place, which is why you can find lots of videos online of younger Sikhs standing around in big groups in public places or with their massive knives on show, as a show of cultural dominance, as a a a sign that we are here and we we are still hanging on to our old cultural identity. Great, round em up and lock 'em up. They can't carry a knife on our street. This needs to stop ASAP. I'd say it's not just a case of them being from a culture that is vastly different, because the Japanese that are here they don't commit crimes and they don't demand any special concessions to continue living their culture in our country. I would say they are the model minority. Yeah? No, maybe it's just because there's about 70,000 Japanese people in the UK and there's about half a million Sikhs. So what we say, is it just a numbers game? Okay, let's say it's a numbers game. How many is too many? Well, let's take a little trip back into history, shall we? Let's go back to India. Now, at the height of the British Raj, British involvement in India in the 1930s, there was about 150,000 Brits there. And India at the time was made up of what we now know as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma. And I will not call it Myanmar, this is another thing that our establishment does. They refer to things by their new names. Well, about half the people in Burma still have a pretty pro-British sentiment. You'd never know that, by the way that our establishment speaks, but a lot of them still want to be called Burma and they want to hold on to the identity that they had while they were under our control. But that was India. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma. And at the time there were about 300 million people living in India. Now, quick aside, how backwards and primitive do you have to be as a nation of 300 million people to get completely conquered, run and administered by 150,000 people at most. The number wasn't always that high. But at the height of the British Raj, that means that 0.05% of the population was British, and that includes civil servants, administrative staff, soldiers, the lot, 150,000. And this was obviously, you know, evil colonisation. Yeah. Never mind the fact that we brought civilisation to them. And the same with all of the colonies, the ones that hold the most resentment towards us now. We took order to chaotic places while they are bringing chaos to an ordered place. This is the difference between British imperialism and third world imperialism, because that's what it is. Okay? Now, the Sikh community is about half a million strong in Great Britain. Yeah, they make up about Not point seven percent of our population. Meaning that there are fourteen times more Sikhs per capita in the UK than there ever were Brits in India. How is this not colonisation? And if you take the entirety of the Indian subcontinent, there's about seven million of 'em here. Right, so there's about ten percent. Ten percent, but but that's that's not colonization, is it? No, no, no. But it is seen as natural and healthy for them to be prejudiced against us, resentful of us for things that our ancestors did. Yeah, but like I say, never mind the fact that we civilised their country and brought cohesion to it. Never mind any of that. It's perfectly natural for them to have prejudices against us, but we're not allowed to return the favour no matter how many times they turn around and show us their true colours. I don't want to lay this all on the Sikh, but I've I've seen some fairly disgusting comments from the Sikh community regarding this, and I find the response of, you know, oh well it it's sad what happened, but please don't take our specially protected knives away. I I just find that to be a disgusting response. Yeah. They they want special treatment, and that special treatment needs to come to an end. Yeah, and like I said before, if that means Sikhs don't come here anymore, Sikhs don't come here anymore, yeah. They they haven't contributed above their weight here. It's no great loss. Sorry, I might upset some people with that, but I'm past the point of believing that just being nice and saying, come on England, when the World Cup's on. Yeah, I I'm past the point of pretending that that is integration, that that is adequate for you to stay here. If you're going to demand to be treated differently to the rest of us and demand concessions and exemptions from our laws, nah, you have no place here. And I have no doubt that the establishment would classify everything that I've just said as hateful and bigoted and wrong. Yeah. The state itself has a monopoly on hatred. I'd just like to this is a bit of a diversion away from the Indian and the Sikh talk. I'd just like to bring your attention to a couple of clips from the Labour Conference last year, back end of last year. Two in particular. One by Comrade Kirstormer, and the other one by that eco-comedy Ted. Looks like Rocky from Chicken Run Ed Miller band. Let me just play these two, back to back.

SPEAKER_00 25:08

We have a message for Elon Musk. I'm a politics my country.

SPEAKER_01 25:18

So, in that first one, by Comrade Stormer, he's saying if you think people can't be British or English because of the colour of their skin, blah blah blah blah blah. Right, objective fact. If you're a Sikh and your grandparents are Sikhs, your parents are obviously Sikhs, and you've married a Sikh and your kids are going to be Sikhs, right, you're 100% Indian descent, and you've taken every possible opportunity to not integrate into the society, how can you even claim to be British? Likewise with the Muslims. And if the time comes where we want to deport you, because of your actions, and because of the actions of your community, and because of your attitudes towards us and your demand for special concessions, yeah, and your you actively despise us, you should be deported. But objective fact makes you the enemy of national renewal. Now listen, listen to the vitriol in Starmer's voice.

SPEAKER_00 26:14

Mark my words, we will fight you with everything we have, because you are the enemy of national renewal.

SPEAKER_01 26:20

Yeah, that's a that's a level of hatred you never hear in his voice regarding any other community. Even following terror attacks, you you won't hear him speak that way about the perpetrators of these attacks. You just won't hear it. But when it's directed at us, different story. Same with Miliband. You know, for the longest time, we haven't been allowed to say, get out of our country, get out of our politics. But you know, I suppose the floodgates have been unlocked now, haven't they? Yeah, when you've got chicken runhead saying to a foreign man, get the hell out of our country and our politics, well, I suppose we can all do the same now, can't we? Now it's very interesting that since Elon Musk and you know outside operators have taken an interest in British politics and discourse and have amplified our messages and made people aware of the situation in the UK, suddenly they want to clamp down on foreign interference. But bringing millions and millions of people into the country, giving them a vote and allowing them to subvert our democracy, that's just fine, is it? And this is the same government, by the way. Keir Starmer's Labour Party that sent a hundred operatives over to the US to campaign on behalf of Kamala Harris in 2024, right, to try and defeat Donald Trump. But suddenly foreign interference is an issue when it starts going against them. Yeah, when the British people find allies abroad, suddenly it's an issue. Listen to the hatred in their voice when they speak about their political opponents, and they will not speak about people that rape and murder children on our streets in the same way. This is despicable. Yeah, and okay, that's what eight months ago I think the conference was. So this has been out there for a long time. That hatred hasn't gone anywhere. Mate, beyond no illusions. The establishment despises us. Absolutely despises us, and you know what? It's mutual. Absolutely mutual. Keir Starmer wants to label me an enemy of national renewal. Well I say great, because when he says national renewal, I hear national replacement. So let's make no bones about it. Alright? To every single foreigner in the country that wants to try and vote in our elections and wants to advocate on behalf of their own community, get the hell out. Get out of our country, get out of our politics. Yeah? C2 can play that game. This is our country, and if you're not gonna live by our rules, fuck off, basically. Alright? Now, I'm gonna bring it back to the Indians once again. Because I've seen quite a lot of implications that because of British involvement in India and the fact that people died there, which I'm not gonna defend. Yeah? There were some atrocities committed, nobody's denying that. The overall balance we did good. Really good. But there were some atrocities, won't deny it. But because of those atrocities, I've seen a lot of Indians saying that Henry Novak's death doesn't mean anything, or that he even deserved it. It's some kind of retribution. And they do very much think in these terms, and I will say this, Indians are rapidly becoming my least favourite people on the planet. I mean they're as bad as the trans lobby in the fact that they want to be constantly at all hours of the day affirmed as being the greatest thing since sliced bread, despite their minimal contributions to the world. Even the Indian government doesn't like Indian people, which is why a prerequisite of any trade deal with India necessitates you accepting millions of Indian nationals into your country. And this is a form of imperialism. They send them over there to work our jobs, stifle our economy, and send remittances back on. So I'd be in favour of a 90% remittance tax on all Indian nationals, and the same goes for Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and the Burmese. We should be allowed to discriminate. Maybe, you know, the French here, if they want to send a bit of money back home or Polish, eh maybe we don't tax it quite so much. But as it currently stands, remittances are not taxed. And these are just little holes punctured into the boat that is our economy. Yeah, death by a thousand cuts, so to speak. And they're all incredibly ungrateful people. They want to be affirmed as the best thing that's ever happened to the world, and realistically, the entirety of the Indian subcontinent could vanish and nothing would change. That doesn't make me feel good to say. And neither does this. At the time we were there, 150,000 of us, 300 million of them. In the years since, the Indian subcontinent's population has exploded to nearly two billion. And that that is only sustainable because of the advanced farming techniques that we gave them and the infrastructure we gave them, meaning that if they did have a famine, which used to be pretty common, they could move resources from bountiful areas to areas of scarcity. And I'm beginning to think that might have been a mistake. Yeah. Because a lot of these people they're terrible people. And they absolutely see things in terms of conquest. This is why when Rishi Sunak was elected Prime Minister, the Indians celebrated as a victory over the British people. Now an Indian sun is rising over the Empire. This is the way that they see it. They see it very much as a chance of getting retribution on us. Yeah. And we in the West, we're not supposed to deal in vengeance politics. We're supposed to not look back in anger. Yeah, although we are supposed to prostrate ourselves and beg forgiveness for things that our ancestors' ancestors did, you know, two, three, four hundred years ago, while not feeling any anger at things that are happening present day. Yeah, and and because of British involvement in India, Henry Novak deserved to die, did he? No. No, no. Or or because of our involvement in India, the Pakistani rape gangs are entirely justified. Are they? No. No, not in the slightest. These countries very much look to take advantage of us. Drainers of our money, drainers of our well-being, threaten us in public. They demand exemptions to our laws just to benefit them. They move here. We never asked them to come here. They move here. Then because they've moved here they demand representation, which we graciously gave them. Yeah, I say no more of this. No more. They came here against our will, they can go back against theirs. That's my position. This is why I'm voting Restore Britain. Yeah, get the detritus of the third world out of this country. I'm getting so, so sick of these people coming in, subverting our laws, subverting our democracy, demanding special treatment, all the while crying victim. And the entire time our establishment enables and allows it. Our system, which is dedicated seemingly, to stamping out prejudice, is prejudiced against us, in favour of them, while all the time telling them that they are oppressed somehow. This rotten establishment is driving victim narratives and vengeance narratives and grievance narratives. Pumping these minority communities full of ideas that we hate them and we are the reason you know that they they don't feel that they belong here. The reason they feel they don't belong here is because they don't belong here. And with that being the case, they should leave. Maybe it's not particularly charitable, but this is the best that I've got at the moment. Still feeling pretty pissed off, I don't know if you can tell. Yeah, I would also like to say, I've noticed for some reason I've had a big, big uptick in listeners in Ohio and Virginia, uh, for some reason. And to the Americans, I would like to say thank you all so much for the support and good wishes you've been sending across the pond. You know, you guys have done quite a lot to raise awareness, you know, globally, about the position that we're in, because a lot of information here is stifled and the reach of what we can do here is very, very limited. With the Americans, y you guys have been amazing, not to say, not only in support, but in raising awareness as well, and and making these stories, you know, more global news. It really does mean a lot, and I'd I'm very grateful for it, and uh I would like to say God bless the West, God bless the United Kingdom, and God bless the United States of America. Goodbye.