TRIGGERnometry - Woke is Back and It's Worse Than Before

Episode Date: August 21, 2026

Triggernometry is proudly independent. Winston Marshall - https://www.youtube.com/@winston_marshall Winston Marshall X - https://x.com/MrWinMarshall Tom Slater - Spiked - https://www.youtube.com/@spiked Tom Slater X - https://x.com/Tom_Slater_ Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Substack! https://triggernometry.substack.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Shop Merch here - https://shop.triggerpod.co.uk/ Advertise on Triggernometry: https://trigger-brands.com | or enquire at [e-mail] Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello everybody and welcome to a very special new show that we are doing, rounding up the news of the week. Joining me, of course, is Francis Foster, but also a very good friend of the show, Winston Marshall of the Winston Marshall Show and editor of Spike Tom Slater. Great to have you guys. Looking forward to having this chat with everybody. We've got three stories that we're going to focus on this week. We've got Jason Ardy and the fallout from his tragic taking of his own life. We'll talk about the debate about illegal immigration, particularly there's the conversation.

The home office is very helpfully put out a leaflet saying it's wrong to, it's illegal, in fact, to rape. I don't know if you guys were aware of that. Also benefits for foreign nationals, we'll talk about that. And finally, has the right, particularly in the US gone full retard, we'll talk about the Candace Owens, the great debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson. All of that coming up very shortly. But first of all, let's start with Jason Ardy. This was a Cambridge academic, clearly a fantasist, made all sorts of claims.

He was a top-level marathon runner. He didn't speak until it was 11, didn't read until he was 18, but went to Cambridge, became a PhD. And when all of this stuff was revealed, he got a lot of media attention. Let's put it that way. In fact, he'd had a lot of media attention before this, but now the media attention turned negative. And he tragically took his media attention. Indeed. And he tragically took his own life.

And now apparently the media killed them, Tom. You've obviously covered this story as self. Are you responsible? Well, apparently so. I mean, I woke up on the day after to find out that I was actually guilty of murder. There's been lists doing the rounds on social media. Has anyone seen this? Because there's nothing sinister is there about throwing up lists of journalists you dislike.

And they're actually openly calling for embarrassing professional or personal information about us in order to give us a taste of our own medicine. Yeah, I found the meltdown after Jason Arde's tragic death to be almost much more revealing and disturbing than the whole Jason Ardee scandal in general. Like people would be aware of the amount of lies that he told, the plagiarism accusations. A lot of questions were asked about how the hell

did someone like this end up at Cambridge University? Why did no one notice that all of these wild claims about kind of Hercules and athletic achievements as well as, you know, a remarkably, a remarkable kind of string of personal crises which wouldn't really have passed the sniff test. But what's happened since is, first of all, the idea that just reporting on or criticizing public figures is like tantamount to driving them up to the bridge and pushing them off, which I think is really, really disgusting.

And also just a complete rewriting of history. I went to that vigil in Trafalgar Square on Monday night. And it's as if these people either haven't been paying attention or just doubling down on this kind of myth of St. Jason in order to bash the press. So we like to think that we'd escaped like Peek BLM a few years ago, peak woke a few years ago, but it's back with an absolute vengeance now, and they've chosen as their champion.

Again, a man whose story ended in very tragic fashion, but isn't hardly the sort of unimpeachable victim of a racist press that he's been made out to me. Winston, what about you think? Oh, how many people? I mean, these claims with 30,000 are, to be frank, complete rubbish. I mean, everyone knows that there is a kind of inflation of numbers at every demonstration. Every organiser does it, regrettably.

I think someone pointed out that you couldn't even fit 30,000 in the entirety of Trafalgar Square, and we were just up on the area just outside the steps of the National Gallery. I, in my very unscientific kind of method, thought maybe we're in the low thousands there. I'm not 100% sure, but it wasn't 30,000. That much I can tell you for something. I think the official capacity for Trafalgar Square is 10,000. You can't fit more than 10,000 people in that. Is it for you?

In that space. Yeah. Yeah. So the stand up for racism, all these people on the Ardi side of the argument, claiming that's 30,000 is absolutely ludicrous and kind of fitting in this whole story. I covered the show. I had Nathan Kofnas, who was the former Cambridge fellow who revealed the story on Substack. Actually, there's people who've revealed this story about Ardei as early as when he started at Cambridge.

And I point to Simon Webb here, who's a... a YouTuber who goes under the name History Debunk. So this has been covered for some time and there have been journalists like at the Times Jack Grove and there's a professor at Plymouth University who is also covering this for called Dr. David Harris. And before we sort of, you know, this story is crazy because it's sort of it's pulled down a whole infrastructure, not just Cambridge, but individuals like Simon Baron Cohen, like Navarra Media and we're going to get into that, but I think it's just worth pointing exactly what the tragedy is, because you mentioned tragedy constant. This is a man who spent his entire life lying and his lies caught up with him.

He was a career con man. He was a fraudster. Now, I don't take any joy in saying that. We all fought short of the glory of God. I don't purport to be without sin. The real villainous thing, though, the thing which I think is actually an evil thing was what happened at the end. It's not just that he committed suicide, is that rather than face the consequences of a lifetime of lying and fraud, fraud, which, by the way, he might have had legal pushback against, you know, I don't know, and we can't tell now, but I think technically some of the stuff he's done is illegal and he could have faced consequences there. But instead of doing that, he decided to abandon his children.

And so now there are two children who are going to be fatherless. And that for me is a terrible thing. And that's the real tragedy for these two children. And that's where my personal sympathies and empathy lies. And that's the core of this story, which has now become a saga. A saga so much that even yesterday, Nathan Kofnas, who has moved from Cambridge to Ghent University, was then suspended at Ghent University. not just by anyone though, by a trans gynecologist, professor and rector, who was formerly called Dave de Sutter and is now Petra de Sutter, and was also a member of the Green Party in Belgium.

So it's just the most absurd story at saga that never seems to end. I mean, by the time this episode goes out, I'm sure there'll be new developments. Francis? So I think one of the things that's really actually interesting about this case, and one of the things that people, don't discuss about enough is that a lot of people on the left of people who are pro Jason Arde will make the claim that it was exposed by a racist professor Nathan Kofnas or a racist academic and we can talk about that whether Nathan is or isn't later on but what's really interesting is well the mainstream media wanted to expose this yet they had a pervert well a

literal knock on the door from the police effectively silencing them. And by the way, this isn't, not that it would matter in the slightest, this isn't the Daily Express that we're talking about. This isn't even the Daily Mail. This isn't really the Times. This is the Times educational supplement. And everyone can drink now. As somebody who used to be a teacher and actually used to read the Times educational, constantly smiling. Yeah, you know, you've got to lead into the brand Tom. But, you know, as somebody used to read the Times educational supple, week in, week out, pretty much cover to cover, is not exactly the most right wing of publications.

And this is a very, very powerful example that if you silence the press, what you ultimately cannot do is silence the truth. Because eventually the truth will get out. And if it's not going to be legitimate sources, quote on quote, then it's going to be somebody speaking about these sources that you do not like. ultimately the truth about Jason Arde who also he wasn't just a professor he had a professorial chair possibly the highest achievement in academia that is the role and that is the position that that man had and when you are on at that level and you do not deserve to be at that level and you are a fabulous it will come out and unfortunately it came out in the manner that it did But it wouldn't have happened in this way if we hadn't have silenced the press last year and in the years before that.

I think the real reason it wouldn't have happened is if this guy, you know, people say he's a vulnerable guy. And there's no way for us externally to judge that. Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't. If he wasn't promoted way beyond his remit, way beyond his station, and if we didn't live in the world in which people are given things by virtue of, of the skin color they have the various abilities of disabilities and so on. And putting him in that position seems to me set him up for this, not least because as Stephen Edgington, who we've had on the show,

who everybody will be aware of, he wrote a great article detailing her for six years. The mainstream media pushed Jason Arde into this position, into the position of being this media style. Like if he'd just been an obscure Cambridge academic who, thanks to DEI, got pushed into a position where he taught apparently very badly and people didn't feel that they were getting their money's worth. Okay, no one would really give a shit, right?

But the problem is once you elevate this person into question time appearances, into appearance on all sorts of media platforms, into being held up as this great bastard. I mean, there's this great clip. We're not going to play it today, but of Jason Arde talking to James O'Brien, which he absolutely does O'Brien like a Kippe and just tells him how amazing O'Brien is and how brilliant he is and how wonderful. wonderful he is and O'Brien is sitting there. And I think he says, oh, it's great that it's the end of the episode because otherwise I'd be crying.

So he went around getting all these opportunities. And then people go, why has he got so much media scrutiny? Look, to be honest with you, I think Winston, myself and actually all of us have been on the end of media scrutiny. You know, and it's not necessarily super pleasant when people are saying things about you invariably. When you are in the limelight in this way, a lot of the things people say about you are not accurate. and not entirely fair. That just tends to be what happens. But if there's substantial basis for the claims that people are making, that's sort of the thing that really matters. And the one other thing I wanted to add is, as well, it seems to me like one thing that has happened since he's taking of his own life is we've actually built an incentive structure which encourages people in that situation to do what he did. That's what I see here because if you're someone who is caught out doing something in public that you shouldn't be doing and you get a lot of negative media attention, then you have this now apparently this one Trump

card where people who've been covering your story fairly, accurately and fairly, will then come out and so, oh my God, I was so wrong. And we actually have a clip of Aaron Bostani, who, you know, we respect and he's been on our show many times from Navarra Media. And there was someone else from Navarra media as well, who did this Mayor Culper struggle session, and it's just worth seeing what this incentive structure creates in the reaction of the media. I wish I could ask Jason for his forgiveness, for what I said, but I can't. What I can do is ask for the forgiveness of his friends, colleagues and family. Now, they might not want to forgive me.

That's their right. That's the point. Forgiveness is theirs to give, not mine to take. It's about them. Not me. Professionally, I erred, but ethically, and that's what I really care about. I really screwed up. I can't make amends, obviously. But I'm going to reflect on my behaviour in all of this and how I can use my energies more productively. More productively to cover those issues, our audience really care about, those stories that really matter, and on how I can make a difference for the better, not the worse. It's interesting. I do wonder if say a story about a right-wing academic, say Nathan Koffner's, for example, if Nathan Koffner's was involved in plagiarism and fabrication of claims, etc. Would that be a story of interest to Navar viewers and would Aaron have that same reaction? Do you think, Tom? No, not at all. I mean, also,

it's worth pointing out that despite the fact that we've seen these kind of hostage video style apologies, I mean, all Aaron Blessing was missing there was a copy of today's newspaper and a reassurance that he was being treated properly by his captains. And I like Aaron. He's a smart guy. And there's also someone who's kind of reliably interesting on the left, which is quite a rare thing, if we're being honest, these days. But not only is that kind of spectacle so pathetic. It's also so out of whack with what it is they supposedly actually did. Navarra didn't cover that story particularly extensively.

I mean, Aaron there, if I'm right in saying, is apologising for one tweet. that he posted in which he referred to our day as a con man, which to be honest, is more or less an accurate description. That's one of the things about all of this which is really concerning to me is that there's often kind of spasms of anger with the press, there's some kind of scandal, there's some kind of horrific tragedy, press intrusion might be brought up, the occasions on which the press will just not tell the truth. This is, you know, hardly new. What's happening now is that the press are being accused of murder, of murder, demonised smid for telling the truth, for doing their jobs, for doing what Cambridge

and Simon and Schuster and all the other kind of elite institutions that Arde had any contact with should have done, which is to do a basic sniff test to look into the claims about his life and his academic record that he had been making. And that's what makes it so, so sinister, I think. I mean, you've got activists saying that there was misinformation posted about Jason Arde. There wasn't. It was just information which has put out there. And it's often being presented as if this was kind of scandal mongering, like there were just rumours about Jason Ardeh and the press with no thought to his state of mind, were just circulating it.

If you look at just the reporting that went into Jack Groves' Times Higher Education piece, he put together a 97-page dossier. He had academic experts pour over it. He had people run it through software, all the kind of different steps. This was a really overwhelming case. And I think, bless them, but at Navarra, media, I don't know what's going on there other than is this audience capture or is this just being caught up in the middle of one of these sort of moral panics, basically, that we find ourselves

in. But as you say, this would not be the same. Some of the details are different. To maybe to steal man their position, you know, if you, if you feel that you've contributed to someone taking their own life and you genuinely feel responsibility, I mean, there is this kind of slightly moronic, in my opinion, view online, which is like, never apologize. Well, No, like if you've done something wrong, definitely apologize because it's a decent thing to do. But the problem that I see is like you say, I don't think Aaron or Navarmi did anything wrong. Aaron did talk about this story, but he was right to talk about the story. So to then apologize, this is what I mean by saying you're giving people a Trump card by encouraging them to effectively take their own life in a situation where they're facing fair scrutiny.

Because I think that's a really important point because we are presenting. the taking of one's own life almost as a rational response to public criticism. That's a really dangerous road to go down. Really dangerous. It's naturally going to chill the press as well. Are we saying that you can't go after a politician or a prominent person in public life,

public intellectual, because of what might happen? I mean, that's a really like chilling precedent to say. I don't know why more people recognise. Listen, you've had your fare of shit from media and online and all the rest of it. What do you think about this? And I've issued public apologies and I've definitely got opinions I might I can speculate about what's happening

behind the scenes in Navarra media I I'd add to just on what Aaron Bustani seems to be apologising for which is as Tom rightly says it's not necessarily even an opinion but let's take for the sake of a of argument it's an opinion that he had that Ardei was a con man does that mean that Aaron Bustani is no longer going to publish opets Is that it? Are Navarra Media now only going to publish facts? No more opinion. I mean, fantastic. I'm thrilled if that's the case. But... I thought you were pro-free speech, mate. I'm pro-free speech, but even Navarra media test my patience a little bit there. But it's put himself in a situation. I'm not sure how he can get out of it professionally. At what point can he and can't he report on things? He's kind of created a trap for himself. It's going to be very curious to see how that plays out. And as for the apology, now, I did issue an apology. And I, this is five years ago now.

It's about, I tweeted about Andy No's book when I was still in Mumford and Sons. And I upset everyone around me because they were of the mindset that this was sort of evil. And I was contrite because I was like, maybe I don't know everything here. And I, and I was, was sorry that the people around me had been hurt. Now, I'm of course speculating here about Bastani, but it might be the case that a lot of people at Navarra Media are very hurt and upset. And it might not be reasonable that they're hurt and upset. They might be hurt and upset, but for completely the wrong reasons. And he probably is their friend. And not only that, it'd be a component that the core fan base of Navarra Media won't be happy with the position that he took

because it seems to be that they are from that. It's coming from the kind of far left. You know, these are openly socialist, communist, woke people. There's another curious thing about Navarra media, which is that they spent the last six months repositioning themselves as against identity politics and against woke. But now they're doubling down. Now they're going like full woke.

And because it's not just Bastani, the editor as well, was literally crying, giving an apology. So Navarra Media, what they're going. they do next is extremely curious. Well, I think the thing that's really interesting about this as well is that whenever somebody dies in these types of circumstances, they get elevated and they no longer become a person anymore, they become a political symbol. Not only they become a political symbol, but they sort of achieve sainthood, which is how you talk about how people talk about Jason

Arde. Like he was this decent honorable man who was hounded to his death. He did nothing wrong. and then this is ultimately tragic and all responsibility no responsibility is at the hands of Jason Arde because he is the saint he did nothing wrong and all of the responsibility is at the hands of the press and the thing that's also really interesting about this is you see these apologies coming from Navarra media and the reason is is because this shows that there is still a civil war happening at the left in the left where you have the more rational actors like Aaron and you have the hyper progressives the more radical and I thought that they look the more sane members of the left in the UK like people like Aaron were starting to gain some traction

were maybe even starting to win that particular war but what we've seen with that abject capitulation at Navarra is that the lunatic unfortunately are still very much running the asylum. Indeed. I think Tom made a really interesting point about, well, what about mine? Yours was a bit shit, mate. But what, but what they? Tell us about Venezuela. Go on.

Tom's point about the example and Frankie's point about the example of what Ardei, whose responsibility this is here. As a counter example, I was thinking of Jonathan Aiken, who was a member of John Major's cabinet who was convicted of perjury and he was sentenced to 18 months. I think I'm not sure exactly how much of that he served, but he certainly went to prison and came out of the, I think he then became a vicar, a prison, a rector or something like that. Anyway, that's the sort of redemption. I believe in redemption.

And I also believe there was possibility for redemption for Ardei. And to do that, he should have apologized because he was the one who did the wrong thing. And sorry, wrong thing, countless wrong things. I mean, I've counted well in 60 plus occasions of unverifiable or verifiable lies that he said. So, I mean, they're absolutely outrageous. There was a way out for him. Who was it who was around him saying, you know, stick in there. You did nothing wrong.

The press are evil. No, they should have said, sorry, you've actually screwed. I love you, mate. You've screwed up here. You shouldn't have lied. There's a way out, though. You can apologize. And actually, that would have been a great story.

And unfortunately what's going to happen instead is he's going to be held as some sort of martyr for the left. You can say them at the vigil, what were they saying? They were saying rest in power and they've lynched him. I mean, the people on stage, D.E.I, grandma, Diane Abbott was saying stuff like, you know, he's been, it's a racial murder or whatever. No, they're making him to a victim. And there was another redemption, an actual Christian redemption way out of this that could have been the example for society. It would have been so healing. It would have been great. Yeah, I think that's a really important point perhaps to wrap the segment up on, which is suicide is a temporary, permanent solution to a temporary problem. And the answer in a situation where you find yourself under fair scrutiny for something you've done or a series of things you've done, there's always another way. And that way is to admit fault, apologize.

And by the way, Francis and I were joking about it, you know, before this tragic end to the story. His book, if he'd wrote a book after all of this, whatever the book was, about would have sold millions of copies. You know, like your life isn't over just because you're being criticized in the media. And I think that's a really important thing to say. It's like there is always a better way and taking your own life is just never the right answer.

And you know, if you aren't in that situation, for whatever reason, ask for help, talk to people. Don't just sit there, bottle it up and then do the thing that he did. In summary though, I think it's interesting because as we discussed it, it feels like the woke movement really petered out and like Francis was saying he did make a good point as grudgingly I will admit which was about the fact that actually it felt like the Bastani's of the left were winning of and I read Aaron Bastani tweets most of the time a solid point you know it's a very reasonable

logical point he's made there but we are now back to where we were in the summer of 2020 not scale wise but in terms of the framework which is you've basically got a black person who's done wrong who is a saint and now we talked about Nathan Kofnes, the person who was one of the people who exposed this, who is now being fired and hounded by the very same people that say hounding somebody is wrong. And that seems to me like we've actually gone full circle and we're back where we started. But anyway, let's move on. By the way, if you work, no, let's not move on. Winston would like to say something else. So I think we should actually just focus on Nathan Koffner because what's happening to him now

is actually a big deal. So he's been suspended and there's significant questions about him. And the thing that was most curious to me was J.K. Rowling coming out and saying, no, he's a racist. Now, I had Nathan on the show. I really drilled into this. He calls himself a race realist, which would be interesting to ask you guys whether you think race realism is racist. And JK Rowling certainly thinks it is, but she hasn't explained why she thinks it is. What did it, And that's curious from J.K. Rowling because she's a gender realist, right? So gender and race are not the same thing. You can't change gender.

You can't change your chromosomes. Race, obviously can't change race, but over several generations, you would, races are diluted, whereas you can't dilute out of your sex, right? So they're not the same thing, but it's fair to say that there are differences in different races. most famous of all proponents of this is Charles Murray and his famous book The Bell Curve. And it's also the case that politicians, most famously Li Kuan Yu, have referred to this in making policy. And with the case of Singapore, it was relevant to treating Malays differently because they had different results compared to other ethnic groups like the Chinese. And so he was like, right, we need to invest more in education for the Malays.

And so that's basically what Kofner's point of view is. Now, having interviewed him and you can watch my interview of him, you can tell me if you think he's racist. I didn't think he was. Going into the interview, I had generally been of opinion that race realism isn't probably technically racist, but most of the people who engage in it seem to be a bit icky to me. So my sort of feeling was, it's just a topic I'm not really interested in.

I don't see the point in why. Curiously, Kofness was actually arguing where he thinks affirmative action or you might call it sort of positive discrimination or as the woke call it DEI might actually be preferable because there are different outcomes for different groups because of differences in IQ differences in various things and whether it's genetic, whether it's cultural, there's multi-varied. Anyway, I wanted to ask you whether you think race realism is racist and that's a question here. Over to you, Tom.

I will make it free because I know we do want to move on. I like you, Winston, whenever you see someone particularly preoccupied with this topic, the red flags go up to a certain degree. It's not something that I've put loads of thoughts or reading into. I've been pretty kind of persuaded by a lot of the criticisms of that perspective. People like Wilfred Riley, I know you've had him on the show guys, as well as he writes for Spikes, has talked about how much much of this is actually just sort of cultural, which is then transposed onto this idea of

race. And people make this like neat comparison between those of us who are kind of trans-skeptical, why aren't you interested in this race and IQ stuff? I think they are quite fundamentally different things for the reason that you say. I mean, gender isn't a spectrum. Race is one example. But there's so sometimes at the very least I'll say that I remain to be convinced by those kinds of people. I do sometimes wonder about their motives, although I wouldn't speak to Nathan Coughness, particularly I've not sat down within, well, not read his work in any detail. One thing I will say is that having been at that vigil, he was the only one who's being named from the platform over and over again. So I'm not surprised at all that he's faced these professional ramifications.

I think they could easily also be kind of personal security ramifications as well. He has become the kind of central villain of this story, even though it's also the press in general being dragged into it. So if I were him, I would be pretty concerned at this moment. Yeah, I've, so Nathan engaged with me over my fandom of Thomas Sol. disputes a lot of the claim that Thomas Sol makes about the importance of IQ and the hereditary nature of IQ. I've read a lot of the stuff that he's written. My understanding is it's a fairly contested area of scientific research. So Nathan represents a worldview within that.

And you're right to say, I think that people who like to talk about this stuff are invariably dodgy. But there are exceptions. I actually suspect Nathan is he strikes me as a sort of Aspergy, you know, just obsessed. about the black and white truth of the matter type of thing and somebody can be interested in the truth to the point where it's kind of that autistic people tend to get very often into this position but this is actually one of the ironies of the case because he's actually more autistic than our day yeah but i have to say it's while it's an interesting conversation and we can talk about it it's not my impression that nathan is racist and i think the answer to is race realism

racist is not necessarily but often is adopted by racist people and there are you know measurable differences in IQ but we don't necessarily fully understand what they're down to Nathan would argue it's overwhelmingly hereditary other people would point to you know Jews arriving in in America having very low IQs and within a generation or two having pretty above average IQs again Nathan will have his own explanation for that but to me I actually think we're playing the woke game here which is we're saying, well, if you're criticizing Jason Arde, it's, it really matters what your views are. No, what matters is, was Jason Ardea a fantasist or was he not? Was he lying or was he not?

That's what matters here. And if it turns out that Nathan Koffner told the racist joke in a pub 33 years ago or whatever, then that doesn't really matter and it's not relevant to this discussion, is my view. I disagree. It's absolutely the case that when it comes to the story of Ardei, that standards on it on its own two feet and should be deliberated and thought out and understood in its own two feet. But there are many offshoots to this story which are themselves important stories. And the treatment of Nathan is an important one.

And I don't particularly want to do episodes on race realism, but it's a side story that's now being talked about because of this. And it's important to understand why the left are villainizing him. There's other sides of this story. For example, Simon Baron Cohen. You've had him on this show, Cambridge University, friend of Jason Ardei. He's also the director of the Autism Institute, whoever it is, called at Cambridge. He was defending Ardei fiercely.

Now, it seems to me that that itself is a story, right? Because Simon Baron Cohen should know that Ardei was not to tell. telling the truth. He's indefensible. And not only that, it seems almost certainly the case that Arde didn't have autism. At no point, as Simon Baron Cohen said and his various BBC interviews I've heard, that he himself diagnosed Arde. It seemed that it was on his CV or self-di but he's laying down his reputation at the feet of Jason Arde. It's done unbelievable damage to... We've gone away from your point of disagreement with me here though.

My point was they're going to attack Nathan Kofness no matter what because they can attack him to blame him and others for covering the story instead of blaming themselves for elevating Jason Adi to his position. That's all I'm saying. Let's move on though, because I don't think this is super important to carry on. More importantly, lads, we're all men here. And I don't know if you know, but rape in Britain is illegal. This is a leaf. Yeah, it is. Francis looks very surprised, man.

Your teacher is coming into a whole new light here with that revelation. Not guilty on all charges, thank you. Not guilty is not the same as innocent, but anyway. So I don't know if you know this, but it's illegal in the UK. Also mutilating the genitals of children, apparently, is as well. This is a leaflet. We can probably throw it up on the screen that's been issued to asylum seekers in the UK, which has understanding behaviors and expectations.

for asylum seekers and some of the guidance is stuff like you probably shouldn't rape people and this is absolutely fascinating because we have for a very long time of course been told that there is absolutely no reason to suggest that people coming here from other countries which basically I think this fair to say treat women sort of as you know a second-class cattle they may have a slightly different attitude to sexual behavior and in fact some of the crime statistics of course do bear that out but what this leaflet is showing is while they are telling us the diversities are greater strength and you know no human is illegal and all the rest of it they actually know that there's a problem

and they always did i think that's so clear for why it's probably tempting to think that they were just blind to this that when they rebuffed the suggestion that if you imported thousands upon thousands upon thousands of men from a country like Afghanistan entrenched culture and misogyny, rampant sexual violence, that all those issues were just like melt away as soon as they stepped foot on the white cliffs of Dover. It was tempting to think they were just like really naive. This proves that they knew all along and they just let it happen anyway. And it's a grim kind of progress that we've witnessed over the course of the past 24 hours, because after years and years of whenever you would raise these concerns, whenever victims would raise these concerns, you would have like an

establishment, which would just say, shut up, that's not true. This is misinformation. You're being racist. Now, I think because we've had this steady drumbeat of stories in the press, there was one just this week of two Afghans who raped a woman at knife point in a park when she was on a first date with someone absolutely horrific story. Now they can't really get away with that. So the answer is, okay, okay, I hear what you're saying. Let me have a word with them. That seems to be the kind of plan here. Like the idea that you can just, even producing this leaflet doing the graphics for it coming up with these nifty little one lineers did no one in the room think we could just not let them in we could just send them back when they come it's it i don't

want to sound simplistic but surely that thought passed their mind at some point so yeah it's confirmed a lot of what we knew already but bloody hell in what fashion i think also i mean look kemie bedinock has spoken many times about talking right and governing left which is effectively gaslighting. The Conservative government, over the period of 14 years, gaslighting the nation on many things, but particularly when it comes to immigration,

promising the immigration would be lowered. It wasn't lowered. Not only was it not lowered, it increased. Illegal immigration increased. Kirstama, talking about smashing the gangs. The gangs weren't smashed. Not only were the gangs not smashed,

it looks like they're even more profitable than they have ever been. And this is just another example, of government lying to us. And my concern is number one, these horrendous crimes that are happening up and down the country and the fact that this type of late leaf that would need to be produced. But there's just something far deeper going on here, which is this is damaging our institutions and our trust in government. What is going to happen to our democracy when people go, you know what? What's the point in even voting? You're not going to do anything that you say you're going to do.

you're going to do is not do the thing and even worse going to lie to us and as a result of your lies and your actions innocent people are going to be hurt and have had the most heinous crimes inflicted upon them so why should i vote for you and then once with that happens which we're pretty much really close to we're in a very very very dangerous place society and it's terrifying You know, when we decided to do the show, Francis said, I'm going to be the comedic voice. I'm just going to keep a light-hearted and do the banter. Thanks for that, mate. Winston, what will your thoughts?

I was just looking up some facts before about the propensity for crime amongst foreign nationals. Now, foreign nationals is about one in five in Britain of foreign nationals. They are – sorry, I make – sorry, that's – 10, sorry, they're about 10 to 15, sorry, 10 to 14% of the adult population. What's actually, this is a side point, but amazingly difficult to get accurate numbers on foreign nationals in Britain. Like, we actually don't know who's in our country. That's deliberate. They deliberately don't collect that data. Yeah. Well, we don't know how many illegals there are. There's as little as a million,

as many as two million. But if we take the rough projections, foreign nationals account for 14 to 15% of known convictions of sexual offenses. They account for 26 to 28% of convictions when it comes to sexual assault on a female and 21 to 22% of rape on a female age 16 or over. So way higher proportion convicted, let alone perpetrating and those who are not being convicted, than the actual proportion of the population that they represent. But also it's more specific to some nations. I don't hear much about sort of German rapists, but we do hear a lot about Afghans, you know. Was it Wayne Broadhurst, the guy in Uxbridge who was murdered by an Afghan? There was the Rianan White, the woman who was murdered by a migrant, and it's very specific

countries they're coming from. The UK specific evidence on Afghan crime, and this is from the MOJ, it's that they're 20 times higher than a British, likely to commit. commit sexual offense than a British national, 20 times higher. And in Germany, the rates are not as high as that, but eight to ten times higher. But the data is better in Germany. So of Afghans recorded suspect rates of roughly 1,500 to 2,500 per 100,000 compared with 160 to 270 per 100,000 for German nationals. So 8 to 10 times. Basically, certain countries, there is a higher propensity for this kind of crime. And of course, they don't talk about that.

The Labour left or they can't talk about that. Instead, they say, all men. It's a problem with all men. But actually, though, specifically, it's much worse for these people from these certain specific cultures because not all cultures are equal, believe it or not. And we actually have a clip of Jess Phillips,

the Labour politician, talking about this, in exactly the way you described. I understand that it's interesting because it's two asylum seekers. We also ran an enormous enough campaign teaching men in the country about how their behaviours could be perceived, whether that's stalking behaviours, harassment behaviours, harassment in public. That was to everybody in the country. We also have started a process of ensuring that boys and girls in schools undertake education around the expectations of happy, healthy relationships and actually. the dangers of a lack of consent, for example.

So this is just one example of a preventative measure. I understand people are interested because it's asylum seekers. At the exact same time, the Home Office ran a multi-million pound scheme for men across the entirety of the country. What is this? Yeah. I don't get it. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, go ahead.

Was that Jess Phillips is a repeat offender where this is concerned. Does that clip there? Back in 2015, 2016, in the wake of those horrific sex attacks in Cologne committed by very recently arrived North African and Arab migrants, you know, thousands upon thousands of cases. And she likened it to women getting cat called in Birmingham of a Friday or a Saturday night. So this kind of pivot that always takes place. It's like the left's version of all lives matter to a certain extent. You're trying to talk about something very specific. And they have to generalise.

They have to kind of shift the goalpost. They have to pretend that there aren't specific problems with specific groups and specific cultures. You know, when you see those signs up on the tube saying that if you press your genitals against a woman at rush hour, that's not okay. Who do we think that is for? It's not for British citizens. It's not for people who might have been a migratory background that have been here for a couple of generations. It's for people who are coming in from cultures, which again, in any other context, people would willingly admit have backward reactionary attitudes towards women. the treatment of women in Afghanistan, for instance, is something that a few years ago

you would be accustomed to reading a kind of panicked amnesty international press release about it because of the ingrained culture of misogyny, child marriage, forced marriage, the likelihood that if a woman is raped, she's more likely to be punished than the perpetrator, all of those kinds of things. It comes like dead last, Georgetown University did a kind of table for women's equality of a hundred and something countries they looked at. It comes last for every conceivable measure of women's well-being. And yet, again, the idea is that that will just disappear upon contact with TerraFirma in the UK. And it's particularly strange because everyone will remember about 10 years ago,

there was this really, frankly, dumb conversation that was going on about rape culture in the UK. So there was this idea that lads mags, page three, dapper laughs, were essentially creating a permissive attitude amongst British people, but white, working class, Brits in particular, towards sexual violence. And yet when you're confronted with something like Afghanistan, which I think it's fair to say has a rape culture or a permissive attitude or certainly very backwards attitudes towards this particular issue, suddenly you get crickets.

So in some case, I think it just shows the hypocrisy, but also shows the desperation that even when this stuff is staring them in the face, they have to pivot. You just think if they could just let this go, particularly the Labour Party would have so much more credibility. They wouldn't be hanging on to power in the way that they have been, but they can't let it go. And the psychology of why is really interesting.

Well, yeah, it violates their sacred dogma, doesn't it? Because what they will always want to do is a pretend that all cultures are the same, but even more importantly, when they invariably forced to admit that some cultures are different, they can't quite make the connection between a culture being different and the people who come from that culture being different. So we can admit that Afghanistan is a patriarchy because we hate patriarchy, but we can't admit that young men who come from a patriarchical society will tend to have sex as misogynistic and frankly rapy attitudes to women.

Some of them. That's not to say that all of them are like that, but in terms of the prevalence of those types of views and that type of behavior, it's incredibly more incredibly obvious. And Winston was talking about the crime statistics of foreign nationals. I actually think it's really important to make the distinction that he then went on to make because you will have lots and lots of places around the world from which people have come here. But I don't imagine the New Zealanders or like he said, Germans or, you know, people from other societies that have similar attitudes to women's rights and so on are likely to massively ramp up sex offensives in the UK.

But you do see that for people from certain regions of the world. And it's not by accident. It's because the places from which they come have a different attitude to women. And if you are a woman who's ever traveled alone to those parts of the world, you will know this. from your direct experience. And it opens people's eyes and then they do that in a very obvious way. There's another contradiction in the context.

I was just going to say, do this little thought experiment. Imagine those stats applied to white men. What do you think the Guardian headlines would be? I would guarantee they would run that story all day, every day, three times at breakfast time. But they simply can't do it. And do you know why? is because anybody who talks,

let's imagine Aaron Bastani decided to talk about that story openly and honestly on Navarra Media. Aaron would have to release a video every day, apologizing. Because that's what happens in the left when you go against your own team or one of their supposed mantras. You can't do it. Even when you tweet something as innocuous

as saying Jason Arde was a con man, you can't do it. And if you do do it, you've got two options. You either apologize or you get kicked out by your own side. What's it going to be? And that's the dilemma everybody on the left faces. Will last word on this before we run? There's another logic fallacy or contradiction, which is that if all men, it's a problem for all men in Britain already, not just foreign nationals, then that implies that it is our culture to sexually abuse women. And so actually these people don't need a because they are just the same as all the other men.

So it's like not necessarily, not necessary in the first place. Well, the other issue, of course, with immigration has been a big debate this week is finally, after many years, and I've been advocating for this obvious policy for years now, there is apparently a debate in the UK. I don't know why it's a debate. It's a much self-evident thing that needs to be done about the fact that foreign nationals in Britain should not have access to the benefit system. And the Reform Party and also, I think, Restore have both been talking about this. I believe the Tories have now adopted it as well. So effectively, the entire centre-center right is now come to around to this position, which, as I say, I think is eminently sensible. But there's now a debate.

We're having a debate about whether people from other countries should get taxpayers' money in the UK. And I'm just, I don't really, we seem to just, this is the thing that seems to happen in our country now. every week where we just have some sort of moronic debate about something that is incredibly obvious and i say this i'm going to use my privilege you know immigrant privilege here as someone who lived in this country as a foreign national for many years it would never have occurred to me to even attempt to claim benefits not least because the visa you get in your passport when you come here says no recourse to public funds but apparently once you get on indefinitely to remain or once you get onto other forms of visas that you can have in this country. You now have access to the benefit

system. You can live in social housing. If you're an asylum seeker, we just pay for you to do whatever it is you need to do, dental appointments and so on. How is this even a debate? No, it is changed, isn't it? Because when you talk to people, if you said kind of thought experiment, you moved to another country, could be somewhere in Europe, could be somewhere more far-flung, would you expect in relatively short order to be able to just go on the doll? they would be like, of course not. The assumption would be if you couldn't support yourself, you might go back to the country that you came from,

you might find some other way of supporting yourself. It's particularly kind of British mania we have in this particular area. And it does speak to the fact that just the idea of citizenship has just been so diluted and degraded. It should mean something. Of course, it should also mean that people are able to join it, provided that they've contributed, provided that they've integrated, all of those things that basically everyone agrees with.

But the fact that just by being here, or just by being here for a certain amount of time, that this kind of automatically kicks in is such a casual way to think about joining a country or being part of a country. And it's also just completely destroying any sort of faith or support in the welfare system. People need to feel like when state funds or when taxpayers funds really are being doled out, that they're being doled out for the right reasons into people who you can kind of think of as part of the we of a country. As soon as that breaks down, and this is why I think Labor should recognize this, being they are the kind of premier welfareist party,

the whole basis on which that kind of system has public support just corroes. I think that the one wrinkle in all of this is because people got so used to indefinite leave to remain. There probably will be a lot of people who, for all intents and purposes, are integrated, are part of the national community, have got kids with a British partner, just never bothered to make that extra step towards citizenship, who might get kind of caught up in the mix of all of that. But broadly speaking, I completely agree. Citizenship has to mean something.

Yeah, and I have friends like that, Tom. Sorry to interrupt, but I have friends like that. And there is an obvious solution there, which is, okay, look, we understand you maybe wasn't, weren't that keen for whatever reason. It takes a bit of money. It takes a bit of time, et cetera. In the situation our country finds itself in, we're going to have to be a little bit more strict about how this is done.

So please apply for a British nationality. You would be happy if you've lived here for 20 years. isn't fully integrated go for it that's fine uh Winston Francis thoughts well I so just on some details because this is this is worth just to highlighting so there's about 1.26 to 1.3 million people in Britain and in the UK uh on universal credit they are claiming over 10 billion pounds a year and uh so that those are non-Uv6 UK or Irish nationals, right? So of the 7.5 to 9 million foreign nationals in the UK, 1.26, 1.3 on Universal Credit, another 620,000 are on other benefits, which means that there's something

like one in four foreign nationals in the UK are on some sort of benefits. And I mean, it's extraordinarily high. And they're claiming over £10 billion a year in a country with three million three trillion pounds worth of debt and we're spending a hundred billion on debt interest each year right so just for some context there as for how this came about i'm trying to understand this like did we become more laxed like why is it that this has become the case and actually we've actually always been quite strict on who can claim such benefits and this goes all the way back to the poor laws where you had to have legal settlement in a parish if you wanted to to claim benefits. It goes through the Old Age Pension Act in 1908 and it continues. What's changed

is not the law on who can claim it. It's changed as how many more people have become within the defined, defined as settled. And so as you say, whether it's a sarm seeker indefinitely for a main or various different settlement where they can apply. This has jumped, that's what's actually changed and it's jumped massively. In 2022, in 2022, There were only 900, I mean, I say only 900,000, it's an extraordinarily high number, but there are 900,000. So 400,000 more people on Universal Credit since 2022. So it's because of how they can claim to be settled, and so they pass through the hoops that way. So that's the big change as far as I've understood it. Now, where there's, I think, maybe a debate

is if they're playing national insurance, rather than if they're paying just their taxes, income tax, national insurance, is there an argument there that they should have some sort of claim on the pension that would come from that? I think that there is an argument. I would take the same position was that if you're a foreign national, you don't, you still have to pay for the privilege of being in our country, but you don't get to enjoy the benefits unless you become a citizen. So there's an incentive to become a citizen actually buy into the system and probably be a part of it. But there's also, I guess, the argument is that maybe employers would, should be given

a relief where they don't have to pay for the pension of employees if they are foreign nationals and that might ease these things for employers. I don't know. So that seems like a small detail to like get bogged down in. The big headline though is that we just let anyone in and become settled and, and, and, well, this is really the problem with mass immigration, right? is you can have a very relaxed posture towards many, many, many things until you bring in millions of people in a very short space of time, in which case the entire system completely breaks down,

not because the rules were actually bad necessarily in and of themselves, but because they're incompatible with a fraying society, with plummeting levels of social trust and all of the other consequences that ensue when you have millions and millions of people. And by the way, Tom made the point about the Labor government. Let's be honest, this all happened under the conservative government. This is not a left versus right thing. It's a stupid versus not stupid thing. And I'm glad finally that there are some non-stupid people in the British politics

are waking up to this reality. What do you think, Francis? Well, I think what this is is, look, let's put it in real world terms. We're broke. This country is absolutely broke. In real terms, since 2020, our currency has lost 40% of its value. We've got 100% debt to GDP ratio. We can't afford to do this anymore.

It really is that simple. So we either deal with the fact that a few people are going to start kicking and screaming, calling everyone racist, or we're going to do essentially things that are bringing in policies that are needed to prevent us from going back. as a country. That is where we are. And the reason we are bankrupt as a country and we spoke about it with Peter Hitchens on our interview in Trigonometry is because we have been delusional for far too long. We've been delusional about immigration. We've been delusional about public finances and public spending. We've been delusional about the issue of men and women. And there's a whole host of subjects that we have been delusional about. And you know what? You can be delusional for. a bit. You can, you know, have the occasional period of your life where, you know what, you go, reality doesn't matter. I'm going to keep back and relax, you know, and just live a life where reality doesn't apply to me. But the problem is, is when you're doing that, eventually, you're going to be like that bloke who's in his mid-forties, goes, you know what, don't need the wife, mate,

don't need the kids, it's going to go to the strip cup. I'm going to live life. I'm going to be who I am. It's going to be great. Well, eventually, you're going to wait. You're going to wait. wake up one day, realize you lost your house, the wife and the kids, and all of a sudden realities come home to Roost. And unfortunately, the UK at the moment is in danger of living in a bed sit with a bottle of whiskey for company. It's not based on my own life, by the way. You have an intimate knowledge of this situation, mate. I'm just glad you're okay, man. Exactly. Well, guys, we're going to overrun a little bit because I do want to cover this final story. Before we do, though, I just wanted to say,

you're watching this and you've enjoyed it there's two things we needed to do number one we haven't got a name for this show so give us your funniest most outrageous ideas and we'll play around with them and see if we want to run with them number two if you've enjoyed it tell us in the comments tell us what you thought what you like what you didn't like what you'd like us to improve obviously smash the like button obviously subscribe anyway gentlemen speaking of delusions one of the things that i've been covering for a long time is the ongoing derangement on what i think is mostly the American center, center right. Basically, you have in America sort of normal, rational right wing people and conservatives. And then you have the sort of Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes,

Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens wing, which are increasingly becoming these rabid conspiratorial lunatics. And you saw this, I don't know if you watched the great debate. It was very popular between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson in which they discussed who really did. murder Charlie Kirk now obviously the trial hasn't happened so we can't make any factual claims and one thing i will say about our beautiful country is one of the things i have really appreciated during this time is more to think that we have laws which prevent people from commenting on ongoing trials and thinking fuck me what a great idea this has turned out to be because if you look at what's happening with the charlie Kirk case over there good oh my god but anyway

setting aside the factual stuff there is just this now thing in america on the right well it's like Israel is the new Russia now. So if anyone's done anything, if you know, someone's got elected that you don't like it to Israel, if something, which used to be Russia, of course, you know, 10 years ago. And so, and you saw Andrew Wilson asking Candace Owens in this debate, you know, what is your evidence

for these things that you're saying that Erica Kirk is complicit in the murder of your husband? And her evidence was basically, well, my audience likes it. That is, you know, in the summary of what she said. She said, I'm entitled to think this, and clearly my audience is engaging with this. What do we think is going on? That's incredible, isn't it?

I think you more than anyone else, Constantine, have been instrumental in not just pointing out, but mocking the brain rot that is Candace Owens at this point. So you're doing God's work without its concern. But it has been grimly fascinating, hasn't it? Watching a sort of spiral into conspiratorialism, naturally, what's at the end of every conspiracy theory, the Jews loosely dressed up as Israel these days,

but we know what it is that they're talking about. I just found it. It was like watching that debate, it was like kind of staring into a parallel universe, where up is down, left is right, what is the basis of evidence for any particular claim? It doesn't really matter. She would talk about intuition, gut feeling, anonymous sources that you just have to take as read. I mean, she was claiming what not only did, was Israel and potentially Erica Kirk complicit or involved in the murder of Charlie Kirk, but also that the French Foreign Legion were trying to kill her,

presumably because of a campaign against that bloat that Emmanuel Macron married. All of this stuff is just totally unmoored in the way in which we usually think about things. And it's kind of, it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic because it does seem to have a constituency now. And one thing that I think is really interesting about the kind of conspiratorial mind, as you see summed up in someone like Candidotones, is that it presents itself as very questioning. I'm just asking questions. It's the cliche. I'm entitled to my opinions.

I'm entitled to dissent. But it's also, it's based on a level. of kind of certainty that you don't get in normal life. I mean, most times when a court case makes its way through and someone is convicted, it's beyond reasonable doubt. Broadly speaking, people think, even though there is some doubt there, we've come to the conclusion that the evidence weighs in a particular, in a particular direction. At the beginning of that debate, she said that she was zero percent convinced that Tyler Robinson was the killer. And that's its own form of blind faith in a strange way. So, yeah, I think we are going to get more of it. We're probably

going to get more of it over here in the UK. It just hasn't quite filtered over just yet, it seems like. Do you know what? When I was watching it, number one, my primary thought was, I want every minute that I've spent watching this and I want it reimbursed to me. Number one, number two, you look through the comments. The comments are fascinating because you're going, oh, right, literally doesn't matter what Candace would have said. Her audience would have backed her to the hills. They were utterly delusional. And number three, I kept thinking, this this would not have been anywhere near as popular before COVID I think COVID basically gave an entire generation of people brain rot where nobody

trust institutions nobody trust government nobody trusts the law or the police and as a result everyone's like well the obvious thing can't be the obvious thing I mean it's the French foreign legion I mean that's mental I mean Who knows any... Where was the last time you heard about the French Foreign Legion? It's insane! I mean, Israel, I'd be like, all right, that's a bit hacked. I mean, give her credit, mate.

At least she's come up with some new theories. Some new material, exactly. Yeah, she's gone up a level. But it's just an interesting thing. You say, you know, post-COVID people have lost faith in institutions. That's understandable. And look, there's good and bad and there's some institutions that are good and bad, etc. But how do you go from having no faith in institutions to now having faith in the intuitions and dreams of Candace Owens?

Because you don't have to go there, right? You could just say, well, clearly, you know, we will lie to about the origins of the virus. Clearly, in their attempt to prioritize public health, they downrank the importance of truth and therefore misled us about, you know, the side effects of the back, or whatever it is. But you don't then have to go into the derangement on the other side, but a lot of people seem to to be making that leap, Winston? I just want to start by saying, actually, my resentment on this issue is that you, Constantine, for choosing this topic, this four-hour-long video that I suffered through two hours of, generally a horrible experience. It reminded me of all the negative experiences with women I've had in relationships, but without any of the positives, bundled into one, and sort of a woman who doesn't, in any point

engage with the logic of the argument, but does everything to sort of run circles and just, so you have this Wilson lad who's shaking in frustration. I was shaking in frustration. It's so insufferable listening to her in that particular conversation. And I'd also note that this is a woman who has been doing medieval blood libel for the last, as early as summer 2024. So this is a woman is a bit nuts. But if I can push back against all of you. Tom, you're saying there's a sort of increased constituency for this kind of thought. Actually, at the political level, these kind of people don't seem to be that popular. People who are adjacent in their thinking.

I think of fish back in Florida who is not done well. I think of Thomas Massey. I think of Marjorie Taylor Green. They might not actually think the same as Candace on these specific issues, but there's a bundle of people who have a sort of similar type of view. And actually at the polls, it's not working. And so then we come to thinking, who is actually engaging with this stuff? Is it actually Americans? I mean, I'm sure there's a considerable amount of people in America,

but is it people around the world? Is it when it comes to the anti-Israel stuff? Is it actually people in the Middle East? Is it, you know, there's no doubt that there's worse anti-Semitism in Britain in my lifetime. I'm not denying for a second that it's terrible here. But how popular it really is, it's not. Have you guys actually got a sense of that? Like, can we actually say legitimately,

this is a mainstream thought, or this is a really popular thought in America right now? I think it's hard to deny that there are a lot of people in America who are interested. I mean, when Joe Rogan says he's interested in Candace's perspective on this, you kind of go, Joe loves conspiracies, he always has done, et cetera. And this was the other point I was going to make.

Well, I think you're right. You know, a lot of Tucker's audience has been demonstrated to be from Muslim countries, not in America, and a lot of Candace's own audience as well. But a lot of it is in America. You're right that it hasn't had the impact politically. But I've forgotten what I was going to say about the, yeah, I forgot what I was going to say. It happened.

Good. But no, it is. Especially. Especially because of the fact that we've got conspiratorial thinking everywhere now, though. I mean, if you made the point. Oh, Tom, I'm sorry to Joe. This is what I was going to say. This is what I was going to say to Winston's Challenge.

Sorry, mate. It's not new, though, is it? Because look how big Alex Jones was at one point talking about stuff like this and Sandy Hook and whatever. There's something in the American psyche. And you guys know how much Francis and I love going to America. But I think I've said this before. I think it's the flip side of the American dream,

which is if you live in the society, we're like, anything is possible. And it's amazing. well, like anything is possible. You know, maybe the French Foreign Legion did kill Charlie Kirk together with Erica Kirk for the benefit of Benjamin Netanyard. Do you know what I mean? And maybe the one thing we probably don't appreciate enough is how exciting and enjoyable

it is to engage in this sort of thinking because it makes life special. It makes you special. You have this unique insight. Francis has made this point very often that this is often what drives a lot of these conversations. Sorry to interrupt Tom. No, not too. And off the back of that, I think that's one part of the appeal, certainly of Alex Jones when he was really at the height of his pomp and before he got kicked off of various platforms, was that there's an element of this which is enjoyed as a form of performance as well. I mean, he's a particularly kind of pyrotechnic, spectacular example of this, you know, the turning the frogs gay, etc. But even with Candace Owens, when you see her actually on her own show, it's a kind of, there's an element of drama to it, there's an element of performance. And as you say, there is also it maps. on to something which has always existed in American society, certainly in the 20th century, which is this appetite for conspiracy theory. To a certain extent, it's almost recreational

for some people, you notice, like they kind of get into it, get into a particular theory, move on to another one. So sometimes it's not taken literally, but it is by many people taken quite seriously. Maybe it's because of that hostility to the state that they have on a much higher level than certainly a lot of European countries have. It's hard to work out where it sort of comes from. But also it goes across the political spectrum now, which is the point I was going to make, which is that you make the point, constant, about how we've gone from everything that goes wrong, every assassination, every murder, it suddenly becomes Russia's fault. We've now flipped to Israel. But, you know, the Russia gate scandal showed that that was just

liberal left conspiracy theorising. And yet, and the thing was much more dangerous about it was that it passed like the Martha's Vineyard dinner table test. Whereas what Candace Oans is talking about, certainly what Alex Jones is talking about, is going to get you laughed out of the room if you're at a newspaper or on Capitol Hill. So I think there is still the extent to which you've got conspiracy theories and you've got the kind of acceptable conspiracy theories.

And in a way, it's the latter can, which can be more dangerous because it is taken with a lot more credence, it looks like. Well, also America is the country of cults. If you think about a lot of the most famous cults, though a lot of them were in America. And what does every cult have? It has a charismatic leader

who basically talks. talks bollocks and but does it in a charismatic fashion and everybody goes along with them whatever the cult is and whatever the message is and basically candace is an online version of that she sits there she talks about bollocks but because she does it in a way that is engaging and people find it entertaining they go along with it i think it's a really good point that's a really good point what's interesting to me though is the embrace of the stuff i mean hunter biden to me is an incredible conundrum not he himself There's nothing super interesting about him, but he's now sort of being embraced as like this voice of and I just don't you take for some reason there's this thing about where you take some of the most personally reprehensible human beings on the planet and then they go on these conservative massive shows and are presented as being like a valid person to talk to. I mean Hunter Biden is famous for slapping around hookers while snorting cocaine off the rise. It's like.

What is that? Why is that, why are we listening to him? Maybe we should interview him here on trigonometry is what I'm saying. Oh, right. You should definitely do, yeah. Yeah. I look, I think charisma is, is a, we don't talk about it enough. Charisma is so important. It's so important for spreading a message.

It's so important if you are a public person in any sphere. And if you are very charismatic, you can basically sell what's the famous adage? He's so, you know, he's so good at selling. He's so charismatic. He can sell ice to the Eskimos. I mean, that's what Candice is doing. Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the correct one. Well, and also cult leaders like making money.

Candace was paid something like 300 grand for this interview. I don't know how much Andrew Wilson was being paid. They were certainly doing ads throughout it. I have my money, I think. I think it was like he kind of threw the gorgas. He paid her 300 grand, yeah. Yeah. And by the way, the stream like he said,

sorry to interrupt, just to add to your point, the stream has now got 5.5 million views and there's YouTube ads all the way through it. Yeah. Excellent. Well, next week, Wambi Winston and Tom, it will be Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson joining us on this show, because clearly that is what the people,

people want and it is our job to deliver it. Gentlemen, it's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you for a time. We have overrun massively, which is a great strong star. Thanks all for being here. Make sure you subscribe to the Winston Marshall Show. Make sure you subscribe to Spike and of course, subscribe to Trigonometry.

And we will see you next week while we will all try to be slightly more cult-like and charismatic.