Perversions of the State - Spreadsheet Smokescreen

Thoughts around the way the establishment treats governance of the UK as if it is merely a question of pushing numbers around on a spreadsheet. 

Thank you all for listening, please share with anybody you think might find value in it.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:17

Good afternoon, and welcome back to Flat Cap Nationalist Podcast. This is episode 15, spreadsheet smoke screen. So let's get into it. It's a pleasure to be here with you as always. And this week I wanted to speak a little bit about the way the establishment, the government, in general uses data, facts and figures, you know, easily manipulatable data points, in order to create narratives, change narratives, push them, you know, and also as a way of marking their own homework so that we do not notice so much what's going on. One of the ways they do this is using different metrics, you know, to change the way that different issues are portrayed and interpreted by us the public. So one of these is to do the NHS, the waiting times. Now anybody in the UK, you'll know that the waiting times for the NHS can be absolutely astronomical. The wait time can be years. And if you've got a pretty pressing medical issue that needs attention, being told you've got to wait two years because of a backlog of similar conditions, well it's not always good news, is it? It's not what you want to hear, considering you know a third of national expenditure is the NHS. So a third of every pound you pay in tax goes to the NHS, and then when you need it, you can't bloody well access it. So one of their genius initiatives they came up with fairly recently was essentially rationing NHS appointments that GPs could give out. So you go to your doctor, and even if you've got something that requires you to go to the hospital instead, if they've already hit their quota of NHS appointments, well you're out of luck, you're not going to get an appointment. And then what they did a few months after that was they came out and said, Look, we've got the NHS waiting times down. And they've done this effectively by creating a waiting list to go on the waiting list. And it it made me think about you know how on a spreadsheet you can hide certain columns, you can disguise facts and figures, and ultimately, as long as you make it balance at the end, yeah, it it doesn't matter. And this is what they do. They wanted to balance out the spreadsheet and get those waiting times down. So they created a second waiting list to go on the waiting list. By any normal, measurable metric, having this second waiting list would be a sign of a catastrophic failure of this particular public service, indicative of the fact that maybe it's understaffed or overused. And we know this to be the case. However, with the government, they have used this as a way of marking their own homework and saying, yep, look how well we're doing, we've got the waiting times down. Now, as a as a soundbite on the news, that sounds pretty good. Ah, the government's got the waiting times down for the NHS. Makes makes people think things are going pretty well. It gives the perception that the efficiency of the NHS is increasing. And we know that not to be the case. And I say you you try getting even trying to get a doctor's appointment is bad enough. You know, they've changed the system now. You used to be able to make an appointment days in advance. Whereas for me, for example, if I need to go to the doctor's, well, I have to take a day off of work because I I'm a lorry driver. Okay, so you have to be on the phone to the doctors at eight o'clock in the morning, dead on, to make an appointment for that morning. Well, by eight o'clock I might be a hundred miles away. Yeah, so if I if I want to get a doctor's appointment, I've got to take at least a morning off of work. Yeah, and most likely a full day, because your phone up at eight o'clock, and all the appointments have already gone. Yeah, there's a there's a massive queue of people already on the phone at 8 o'clock, so then you have to wait till the next round of appointments, which I think is about one o'clock. So I might have to take an entire day off of work and lose out on a day's wages to still not manage to get a doctor's appointment. Yeah, but uh no no no. They've they've they made this second waiting list to get onto the actual official waiting list, and they're calling that a success, they're calling that efficient. But it's not only in the NHS that we see them use this kind of strategy. We see it all the time with immigration numbers, for example. Now, previously under the Conservative government, they would do this year on year. They'd say they'd come out and say last year's net migration was six hundred thousand, which is bad enough. Then a couple of months later they'd quietly add, well actually, it was more like 800,000, 850. But people only really see the first number, the one they make a big deal about, you know, and uh because of this a lot of people just simply have no idea of the scale of immigration. Even with this Labor government, people are patting them on the back and they're patting themselves on the back for getting net migration down to around about 150, 160,000. Now what they're not telling you with that is that the raw migration numbers into the country are largely the same, up around the 800,000 to a million mark. The difference is being made up by the fact that more people are leaving. And a lot of these people are Brits, you know, the ones that are able to and have the resources to move away are doing so. But many of them are migrants that came here for a better life. Now I was talking to one at work last week. He's a Lithuanian chap. And he's been here twenty years, and he was saying this place is not what it used to be. It's not worth living here anymore. You know, at the end of the summer he's he's gone back to Lithuania. And I wish him the very best of luck, you know, he's a top bloke. But he was saying, you know, there's good ten years that he was here. It was a beautiful place to live. Lovely culture, yeah, he loved the people, everything like that. And then immigration really, really ramped up, and the area that he'd moved to got flooded with third worlders and aggressive Muslims and people that generally made life unpleasant to a point where now he is afraid for the safety of his children, he's afraid for the safety of his wife walking the streets at night. And he also said, you know, the cost of living is just prohibitive now. You cannot you cannot afford to raise your kids with a good standard of living. So he's going home, he's going back to Lithuania. You know, and say what you like about European immigration. It's far, far better than third world immigration. I actually felt bad for him because there's a bloke that's come here, you know, he's contributed, worked the entire time that he's here, and uh never had any intention of going back to Lithuania, but uh now he feels that he's forced to do so because the quality of life has dropped that far. Yeah, so a lot of the people that are leaving, you know we're still getting eight hundred thousand people coming in, but hundreds of thousands of people are leaving like this gentleman because they've effectively destroyed the quality of life in this country through their refusal to be selective with who they allow in. Now I voted for Brexit. I wasn't overly enamoured with mass immigration coming in from Europe, but another big factor of it was the fact that any country within the European Union could hand out citizenship or just the right to be there, the right to work, to any random third world that rocked up on the shores, and then they would have complete freedom of movement through the EU, enabling them to come here, and they would be classed as European migrants because they've come from a European country. Never mind the fact that they might have been born in the Congo Yeah, or some other third world chitl to parents that uh had no European ancestry whatsoever, but these these new Europeans could come here freely because of the Schengen zone, the EU rules around movement of people. So I don't regret voting for Brexit. I would vote for it again and again and again. If only it could be carried out properly. 'Ca we we never actually got Brexit, did we, people? Yeah, and it's almost like they used third world immigration to punish us for daring to say no we don't want this. We do not want this, and we could not have been clearer about that. But as I mentioned, you know, hundreds of thousands of the people that are leaving are British people. They are people that have the means, the resources and the desire to just get out of it and go to greener pastures. Yeah, and this creates a kind of brain drain. The ones with more qualifications, the ones with more resources, the ones more likely to start up a business and provide employment. All the people capable of doing these things are instead thinking either the quality of life here is not good enough, we're not safe enough, or the levels of taxation are too high. So we're going to go somewhere where we can work for a good wage and we get to keep a better percentage of it compared to the UK. And then this brain drain, predictably enough, is used again by the very same establishment that is causing the brain drain to justify further levels of mass immigration. So they do it with public services, they do it with immigration numbers, but also do it with things that further their sort of WEF inspired agenda. Okay, now there is a fantastic book written by a man called David Craig. It's called There Is No Climate Crisis, and I would I would urge everybody to go and read this book. Fascinating, eye-opening, very concerning also. Now one of the things I remember from this book is he was talking about a decade in the UK, uh maybe the 1910s, 1920s. But at the time, they were reporting that temperature was dangerously high, people were dying of heat stroke and and complications arising from the hot weather that they were experiencing. Fast forward a few decades, and they revised all the temperature data to show that actually it was it was a cold decade. Never mind the contemporary news reports, you know, from that actual decade showing the amount of people that were dying from complications from the temperature. They completely inverted it so that they could begin this climate change narrative, this global warming narrative, because it didn't fit their agenda to admit that actually there was a really really hot decade or a hot few years and then everything cooled right off. No no, instead what they wanted to do was say, no no, that decade, the 1910s and 1920s, was very, very cold. And since then it's just been continuously getting hotter and hotter and hotter. And once again it shows the hubris of the establishment that they want to push these lies while within living memory of the event actually happening, you know? And around about the time I read this book, they were trying to say that we had just experienced the hottest May ever. Hottest May ever recorded. And I remember laughing at that because it wasn't even the hottest May of the last two years, in fact, of the previous five years, I think all but one of them had been hotter than that, and people noticed it. And when they called them out on it and said, Well, actually I I don't think it was the hottest May ever, it turned around and said it's because it was hotter at night, so you didn't notice it. And to this I say bullshit because one of the benefits of living on a narrow boat is you get an idea for the actual temperature, you know, the the actual comparative temperature between different years based on the fact that my my primary heating source is a log burning stove. So I know when it's been a long winter, obviously we all do, but it's it's more okay, still anecdotal, but measurable, in that some years I stopped lighting my fire in early to mid April. The year in question that they were saying was the hottest May on record, I was still lighting my fire in early June that year. So it was just nonsense to believe we'd never had a hotter May than that. You know, and I'm not saying that living on the boat and and lighting the fire, it's it's open to other variables as well, you know, maybe maybe I had a better dressing gown one particular year. But by and large, you can tell the difference. And if it was the hottest May on record, I mean this year, for example, I stopped lighting the fire in April. I didn't light the fire the entirety of May. It was hotter than the previous May that they said was the hottest May we've ever had. Like I say, it just shows the absolute hubris of these people, the people giving us these facts and figures, that they think they can just speak something into existence and rewrite our memories of those actual times. You know, there was no mention that they've changed the way that they record temperatures. For example, in some places they now take the temperature by pointing it at the tarmac of uh an airport runway, or a lot of the temperature measuring stations are conveniently close to you know high-powered data sensors that give out a lot of heat and manipulate readings. And just to hammer the point home for us, you will have noticed every UK weather report, once the temperature reaches 23, 24 degrees, suddenly the entire the entire country is depicted in various shades of red. You know, like extreme heat. Make it look like the surface of Mars. You know, it's a dead planet because the heat is so high. It's like calm down, mate, it is June and it's 24 degrees. There's no need to be plastering the entire map. Red. You know, make it look like danger, mate. It's dangerously hot. Another thing that uh David Craig's book pointed out was the way that a lot of the graphs that they use, and I'm sure you will have seen them, graphs that correlate, you know, um increases in CO2 in the atmosphere with rising temperatures. And he demonstrated that uh a lot of the time these graphs, the scales, are manipulated quite heavily to ensure that it tracks, you know, to to basically pose that there is a direct correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature. And this is just not the case. And I'm not saying that human activity hasn't driven some kind of increase in temperature, I'm highly doubtful of it, but I would urge you to read this book and come to your own conclusions. It makes some very compelling arguments for why you should be very sceptical about the climate change narrative. And it does point out also, you know, how how it went from global warming to climate change, because it it's a nice way of hand waving away, you know, the discrepancy in temperatures because there are times when, yes, they've increased, but also times where the temperatures decreased. Almost as if, you know, climates change, and that's kind of what they do by nature. And I came away not only from reading that book, but from the lies that the establishment was peddling at the time, that yeah, there's not really a direct correlation between CO2 levels and climate change. Even in relation to pollution, you know, we see this kind of spreadsheet managerialism creeping into this also. I mean we here in the UK we've been closing down power plants, you know, coal-fired power plants in favour of windmills, you know, as wind turbines that uh China makes for us. Now, those windmills, bearing in mind a lot of the time it's not windy enough for them to function or it's too windy for them to function. Um in their lifetime, even if they were operating at full capacity for the entire duration of their lifespan, they would not produce as much energy as it takes to create them in the first place. So every time you see one of those windmills, I want you to think of it as representing a net loss in energy. Okay, but because they're manufactured in China, it's not our pollution, you see, so it doesn't count. It's not the same, you know, global warming, global pollution levels would indicate you know that it is everybody's problem. But effectively this approach to tackling quote unquote climate change is I find it very perverse. You know, th th this approach is the spreadsheet approach is saying it doesn't matter actually how much pollution is created in making these wind turbines, uh as long as it's not happening here. And the the idea being we want the UK to have net zero. So we do not cause any pollution to the planet. But I would say by making us more dependent on these windmills, these energy inefficient, energy negative windmills, is surely worse for the planet. Now if I'm to believe, you know, that uh the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, is what's pushing climate change, then we should stop the madness of using these windmills altogether. Because where do you think China gets the energy to manufacture them? Yeah, coal. And do you think they've got anywhere near the European standards on CO2 emissions coming from their coal factories? I don't think so. So we are enabling them to create more and more and more pollution, we would be better off burning the coal ourselves. Yeah, it would produce more energy than what we get for the same amount of CO2 by using windmills. But we can't expect our establishment to learn lessons about energy security and food security. We can't we can't expect them to do that because that would mean admitting that this entire net zero project is a fallacy. And I I see it as a WEF-inspired, commie-adjacent plot to make us energy dependent on other people. You know, we have ample natural resources here to power ourselves, but instead we insist on making ourselves dependent on renewables manufactured at great energy costs in other countries and at great expense. It makes us more dependent on them. And to make up the shortfall, because as we know, we don't get all that much sunlight here in the UK. Solar panels are not particularly efficient, windmills, they spend a good portion of their life switched off. So to make up the shortfall, we hand up we hand money over to other countries for them to give us energy, you know, France being one of them. Why don't we just build our own nuclear power? Yeah. I mean, that's got to be the most environmentally friendly way of producing energy, but we won't do that because that would give us our own security with it. And I don't know if you've noticed, people, but every policy pursued by successive governments in this country seems to be hell bent on making us more and more dependent. Yeah, this is why they're closing down power stations at a time when we need more and more power. You know, particularly with these data sensors that the government wants us to be reliant on. Yeah, that they're hoping will help us become a world leader in the AI industry. That's incredibly energy inefficient. It consumes ridiculous amounts of energy. Energy that we simply do not have. So we will be dependent on external partners to keep our own country running. And this seems to be where they're going with everything. You know, the Ukraine war disrupted food supplies massively. Now rather than trying to bolster food production in this country, our government has embarked on a path that will see food production crater. Because farms will no longer be farms, you know, they they're allocating huge sections of farmland that must be given over to wildflowers instead. Yeah, rewilding huge, huge swathes of farmland. Yeah, or bringing in these different taxes that will effectively mean a lot of farms have to close shop, and when they do, are they gonna sell them off to other farmers? Most likely no, what they're gonna do instead is develop houses on there to house the migrants that uh they insist we need because of the brain drain that they are causing because of the taxation and on and on it goes. This is the perverse cycle in which we are caught, and at every step of that cycle, every link in the chain, there is some kind of spreadsheet. Sheet smokescreen put up to deflect away from the truth and to push different narratives to shape the agenda. Yeah, so many many people don't even see it. Particularly if you get most of your news from the mainstream media, all you're gonna hear is, you know, how wonderful these windmills are, how it means that we're not actually creating any pollution because China's doing it for us. One of the other big brain ideas was to burn wood from North America. So it's not our wood, therefore it's not our pollution. They chop down woodland. They pack it onto diesel burning ships, which, well, you know, diesel ships are one of the most effective, fuel efficient ways of transporting huge amounts of goods. It's still producing pollution, is it not? So they they chop down the trees, they put them onto diesel burning ships, they ship them over here, we burn them, but they'll say because it's not our trees, it's not our carbon, and because it didn't come over on our ship, it's not our carbon. Therefore, we're getting closer to net zero. Well, they're still releasing vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, which if you accept their narrative of CO2 driving climate change, doesn't seem a particularly good way of going about reducing it. It also means there are fewer trees available to absorb the CO2, meaning a greater percentage of it will remain in the atmosphere, necessitating the Labor government, for example, spending billions, tens of billions on carbon capture to take carbon out of the atmosphere. That in turn necessitates higher levels of taxation, which drives people away, fuels the brain drain, driving the need for more immigration, and on and on it goes. You start to get the picture. So they take the spreadsheet approach to public services, to immigration numbers, to climate change, and all that that entails, to do it with crime stats too. So the spreadsheet cells have to add up. You ever had that thing on a spreadsheet? You put the formula in, you tap away, put all your data in, and all you get is a load of hashes in the end box where you're expecting to see the total means you've done something wrong and you need to balance up your spreadsheet. And in this way, you know, the establishment looks at it in a totally egalitarian manner. And by this I mean if one community commits a disproportionate amount of crime of a certain kind, they have to fudge the numbers in order to maintain the integrity of the spreadsheet. So what they'll do is they'll say, you know, four percent of the population are black, but uh, you know, twenty percent of this type of crime are committed by black people, therefore, what we even need what we need to do there is stop reporting on the ethnicity or stop responding to the crime so that when the spreadsheet is printed and you look at it, you get a quality of outcomes proportionate to the total population. So with white British people making up 65 to 70% of the population, that means if 65 to 70% of the population of a prison is not white British, then something has obviously gone wrong with the spreadsheet. It couldn't possibly be that other communities, minorities, commit more of different types of crimes than we do. No, no, no, no. Has to be, and this is why many data points are missing. You know, you try and look into crime stats in this country, you'll find a lot of the time race and ethnicity is not even recorded. And this is pretty much because, well, that 4% of the population, we've already reached the 4% quota for that community, so we're just not going to record this. And and by doing this, they think they're all maintaining cohesion in society, but all they're doing is leaving us partially informed or ill-informed, misinformed. And this is done very, very deliberately because a huge part of the foundation on which this rotten system is built is the immigration, the the disruption that it causes to the cohesion of the country. Okay, so if the truth were to come out about many of these different communities, it starts to tumble down like a house of cards. And this is why we see them go to great lengths to protect each and every disparate minority community at our expense. So they have to hide the debt column on the spreadsheet. Yeah, they have to completely hide away certain cells on the spreadsheet so that we are just simply not aware. Yeah, and I I think in any country they should be aiming to have the most informed electorate possible. But that's not in the establishment's interest because if we were well informed, the establishment would have been kicked out on its arse years ago. That's why, as we discussed last week, whenever somebody from one of these communities attacks us, it's an isolated incident, not part of a broader pattern, yeah, and it's always down to mental health. This this really goes a great length to cover up the debt that immigration has racked up in this country. Now we're we're not allowed to see the debt, it's it's sheltered away from us. You're not allowed to see every time somebody's come off a boat, you know, that shouldn't be here and stabs one of us in the street. It's why the establishment goes to great lengths to cover up atrocities like the Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs, because that would open people's eyes to what is actually happening. And this is why we're forever bashed over the head and told to recognise how great immigration has been. Now I'm I'm of the opinion that immigration has been the worst thing to ever happen to this country, yeah, with all the problems that come with it. But you ask many people, and they'll tell you it's great, actually. It's what makes this country great. The best things about this country are the foreign bits. It's almost laughably cliche at this point. You ask anybody, you know, that's in favour of immigration, okay, what's what's so great about it? Nine times out of ten the first thing they'll say is the food. Now, there are some foreign cuisines that I really like. But are they worth trading a country for? I don't think so. And plus, as a great comedian once said, now that we've got the recipes, hmm. Follow that where you will. They'll also say things like the music, uh you know, as if Spotify doesn't exist, and as if this country hasn't produced some of the greatest artists and bands that the world has ever seen. So we don't need immigration and you know disparate communities from all over the world to produce great music, doing just fine on our own, thank you very much. I remember last year on the run up to the Notting Hill Carnival, I remember Pakistani Muslim Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, speaking about how diversity is just so much more fun. You know, speaking in in relation to the Notting Hill Carnival, for anybody that doesn't know, it's basically an excuse for degenerate minority communities to get together in London, rape each other, take drugs, get in fights, all while some you know Caribbean beat plays in the background. And er yeah, you look at the photos of it, videos from it, it looks like my worst nightmare. But it's what they do. It's an excuse for them to get together and collectively break our laws, and there are hundreds of arrests every year, dozens of stabbings, yeah, countless sexual assaults, but it's it's held up as this kind of beacon of what multiculturalism can do for your country. It can bring this lively, energetic, colourful parade. I don't need lively, energetic, colourful parades, thank you. What I would like is my country back. I don't feel that the Notting Hill Carnival adds anything of value to this country. Uh it requires an inordinate amount of policing at vast expense to the taxpayer. There are businesses that shut her up for the entire duration for fear of vandalism, theft, or having their property become the scene of a crime like a rape or a stabbing. Yeah, it adds nothing of value, but we're supposed to celebrate this. And as Sadiq Khan said, diversity is more fun. Now, we all know when they say diversity, this is just a cover word for not white. And I mentioned this in a substack article last year. I didn't think we were supposed to attribute positive or negative traits entirely to one community, but the uh quote unquote diverse community, more fun. The white community, boring. Well, I see your Notting Hill carnival and I'll raise you one chasing a wheel of cheese down a hill. That to me looks a lot more fun, a lot safer, even though you know it comes with the inherent risk of falling down the hill and snapping your spine, which incidentally would be more fun than attending the Notting Hill Carnival. And a key part of hiding the debt of immigration is trying to rack up instead the debt in the native community, in terms of the spreadsheet of course. And they they do this by constantly, constantly putting down our own culture, our own history, our own people, demanding that we apologise for things that we personally never did, or celebrating people for things that they never did, yeah, and refusing to punish the new Europeans, the new British people, refusing to punish them for things that they have actually done. And this is all done, as I've said, in the interest of maintaining the spreadsheet so that they can turn around at the end of it and say, look what a great job we're doing. And I would say, look around you, look at the NHS waiting times, try and get a doctor's appointment, yeah, have a look at energy prices that we were told you know net zero is gonna really really help us cut down on energy bills. Well they seem to be going up all the time, yeah, and there's more price heights predicted there. Look at all of these things, crime. Is it going well? Well, I'll give you the rape statistics for England and Wales. Right, so in 1996, the year before the onset of mass immigration under Tony Blair, there were 5,595 substantive and attempted rapes recorded by the police. Okay, so that's 30 years ago, five and a half thousand. Fast forward to twenty twenty-five, and that number had gone all the way up to seventy-four thousand one hundred and seventy four. So you're looking about a twelve hundred percent increase in rapes. Now, I'm not saying this is all down to the people that have come here, although it certainly uh certainly wouldn't be an inaccurate statement to make, would it? But um what the establishment will do with this instead is they'll say, well this this is because we've created an environment in which more women feel comfortable to speak out and report these things. Hey, maybe that's the case. Maybe that is the case, maybe half of that is the case. So let's go with half. Okay. In the 30 years since the onset of mass immigration, there has been a 600% rise in rapes in this in England and Wales alone. Is it going well? Is uh society is it is it in a better place than it was? Have they done a good job? You know, coupled with waiting lists and energy bills and other types of crimes that have gone up exponentially. They've done a good job. But they'll try and hand wave this away and pat themselves on the back and say, actually, there were always this many rapes happening. It's just because of the good work that we, the establishment, have done that people now feel empowered to report it to us. So actually we are doing a very, very good job on that front. Yeah. Meanwhile, they'll manipulate graphs to make it look like there's a direct correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature increases across the globe. Pretty perverse, ain't it? And there are other examples of this kind of behaviour. Look for them. Look for the terminology that you they use. Look for the way that they manipulate data points, or they only give you certain metrics, or when it's convenient for them, they change the metrics that they're looking for. Keep an eye out for these things, and you will start to see them. You'll start to notice them everywhere. Yeah, because we are governed by spreadsheets, and and this approach, this spreadsheet managerialism approach to governance is leading us down a one-way path to hell as far as I'm concerned. Now that's all I've got on the meat of the episode. I just wanted to mention a couple of things, a couple of really, really stupid comments that I've seen this week. So the first one in relation to the Sikh community. So I saw this guy talking about the Kirkban and potentially banning it, and now his English was appalling. But he was saying effectively, I'm very, very sorry that Emmy Novak died, and it's a tragedy. Of course, you know the next word coming is but. And he goes, but you know, the dogs kill people all the time. Do we ban dogs? So well, actually mate, yes we do. We we do ban dogs. There are many, many breeds of dogs that we're not allowed to have because they have a history of killing people. And then he of course took the the leap into the absurd, which is you know what a lot of people like to do when they they don't really have a substantive point to make. And he says, You can kill somebody with hands, should we all chop our hands off now? Okay, you you've gone to the absurd, you're not making a very good point there, and uh also it it doesn't go in your favour because the difference is everybody has hands. Only Sikhs have knives on our streets. Yeah, so you're really not making the point that you thought you were making. I just thought this is typical from what I've been seeing from this community. It's we're very sorry, but we're not going to change anything. We're very sorry, but we still want to be treated with privilege. You can't reason with that, and there are more and more of them coming out now, I'm sure you will have seen them starting to threaten violence if people try and take the Kerpan away. I think you there's a community that needs clamping down on then, isn't it? Yeah? No, I'm not I'm not saying actually take their knives away from 'em. 'Cause I'd be equally happy. Let us have knives too. I'm a Christian, I'll sell my clock and buy a sword. As implored to do by Jesus. If that's the the route they want to go down, if they don't want to give up their knives, okay, let's change things. We'll have knives too. That might be a better solution because if you outlaw all knives, law abiding citizens are going to be the only ones that give up their knives, yeah, it's only good, decent, legal citizens, law abiding citizens, that are going to be unarmed. Criminals, you know, the ones that disregard the law anyway, well they'll be the only ones with knives, which gives them a ridiculous amount of power, does it not? And then the other one, the other stupid comment of the week, came from a reform supporter. So I I was seeing I was seeing posts about, you know, different restore policies, all of which I'm a big fan of, by the way, go and check 'em out. And I got in the comments saying I've not voted for 20 years. I've only ever voted once, and when I saw the way that our vote was treated, I realised it doesn't make a difference, and I felt disenfranchised and never voted again. This is the first time, speaking about Restore, that there has been a viable party that I actually want to vote for, that is working hard for my vote, and that inspires me to go out and gives me the belief that we can change things for the better. And these reform supporters come out underneath it and said, Don't vote for Restore, you're gonna split the vote. Mate, are you are you reading what these guys said? He's already had the option of voting for reform and he didn't believe in them. He didn't support them because he he had no faith that they would actually do what he wanted them to do. For the first time there's a party that really resonates with him, aligns with his values, and more importantly, has the integrity to make him believe they will carry out what they say they will do. And your immediate response is don't vote for them. How stupid can you be? This idea that Restore are gonna split the vote. Many of these people are disengaged from politics, completely disenfranchised, with no intention of voting until Restore came along. Yeah, no reform. For a couple of years, they had the stage to themselves, didn't they? Yeah, and these people were not inspired to come out and vote for them. They didn't care, they were apathetic. They finally got something to hope for, something to vote for and believe in. And the reform supporter came out and said, Don't vote for them. Just have a word with yourself, mate. Read the guy's comments, read what he's actually saying. Yeah? And I'm not I'm not convinced that it'll be a massive vote split anyway, because a lot of the people that Restore are engaging with would not vote for anybody else. And reform needs to get that into their head. And they also need to understand they're not entitled to anybody's votes, especially not the votes of the people that they threw away. You've probably seen the video of a reform campaigner going around, canvassing, Indian bloke, thick accent, so you know, I won't blame you if you couldn't understand the word he was saying. But he's basically saying, no, no, no, we're we're not racist, restore their racists, vote for us. And then this this is the same party that's turning around to us and saying, by the way, vote for reform. Offs a chance, mate, they're doing the exact same thing the establishment has been doing for ages. Yeah, I I don't believe in Nigel Farage, I don't believe in Zia Yusuf, Lee Anderson, Richard Tys, Robert G. Enrich, or Alla Bradham. I don't believe in any of these people. Alright. These these people are never gonna get my vote. It doesn't matter how much a reform supporter tries to shame me into voting for them, yeah, I'd never vote for them again. This is not a vote split. Yeah, I've got I've got somebody that I want to vote for, and it ain't reform. Deal with it. You know, I I wear that on my sleeve, I'm pretty open, I'm a restore supporter. I think you should be too. If you're serious about making a difference in this country, vote for Restore. Once again, guys, thank you for listening. Pleasure as always, and we'll catch you on the next one. Goodbye.