Archive.fm

UK Column Radio

UK Column News Podcast 9th September 2024

Brian Gerrish, Alex Thomson and Ben Rubin with today's UK Column News. If you would like to support our independent journalism, please join the community: https://community.ukcolumn.org/ Sources: www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-9th-september-2024

Duration:
1h 4m
Broadcast on:
09 Sep 2024
Audio Format:
mp3
Every day we rise, challenging ourselves to work for what we believe in. At US Border Patrol, protecting our borders is more than a job. It's a calling. Agents answer the call, working together to keep our country and community safe. If you are ready for a new mission, join US Border Patrol and go beyond. Learn more at cbp.gov/careers. (upbeat music) - Good afternoon. Today is Monday, the 9th of September, 2024. Just after one o'clock, welcome to UK Column News. I'm your host, Brian Gerish. Delighted to be joined by Alex Thompson from the Netherlands and Ben Rubin, speaking to us from London. Well, we're gonna kick off the news today with following a little bit of discussion in the team. One of the things our audience is saying to us constantly is what is happening. And perhaps one of the big things to say to our audience today is that it is certain that we are no longer in what was the normal historical political environment. We are seeing something very, very different. It's unfolding very quickly. And understanding that new environment is key to understanding all of the troubles happening in UK and indeed in other Western countries and the USA. So let's just kick off with where there's always money and that's for war. And I just want to remind people that Keir Stormer, of course, is happy that we're still giving money away for Ukraine, three billion a year, has been committed until 2030-31. So we're worried about winter fuel payments, no problem with money for Ukraine, but people in difficult circumstances elderly people in UK can whistle Dixie as far as our new prime minister is concerned. But when we go looking at Ukraine, of course, I pay attention to the propaganda ministry. This is X for the UK Ministry of Defence. I'm actually not gonna comment on what they're saying about the war in Ukraine at the moment, except there's a general summary, the Kursk pocket is now clearly under control by the Russians and is ultimately a killing field for the Ukrainians. Meanwhile, the Russian advances consider on the can continue on the battlefield unreported largely by the BBC and Western media. But one thing that I did pick up on when I was looking at that X page and we can just pop that one back on the screen was, this recommendation here that I might like to be looking at Anton Gereoshenko. And I was intrigued by this particular gentleman. I went to have a look and here is his X account. It says, "Ukrainian Patriot, "advisor to internal affairs minister 2021-2023, "institute of the future founder support volunteers." Now, I was interested with the Institute of the future because I was well aware. Sorry, I would just highlight that a little bit. There it is there on screen. I was already aware of Institute for the future. But this is just a little bit more from the Kiev Post on Anton himself. Pretty aggressive stuff. Putin's death will end of the war. But I was fascinated as to how he could be the founder of Institute of the future. It seemed remarkably close to this organization, Institute for the future, which is an offshoot of the Rand Corporation. What it says about itself is that it's bringing people together to learn the tools of foresight in order to make the future today. And then it talks about everything from community leaders, strategic leaders in large organizations. And of course, it's also going through political tool sets in order to achieve transformative possibilities. Now, the interesting thing about this organization is you can say to yourself, "What is it doing? Is it forecasting the future? "Or is it helping to create the future?" Let's have a listen to this lady, one of the key psychologist. Thank you so much. Thank you, Rich Stuff. And thank you for inviting me. I'm honored to speak with you. As Rich Stuff said, the Institute for the future has been around since 1968. So we're actually 55 years old. And I've been at the Institute for 25 years. So most, a lot of my professional life, I spent learning techniques for thinking about the future. So what I wanted to today is not so much tell you what the world is going to look like or what trends are out there, but mostly about how do you think as a future? What are some of the tools? What are some of the methodologies that we have learned in the last 55 years? And it's particularly, I think, appropriate. We see a lot of interest in future thinking and the future's work right now because it seems like every day to day almost we wake up and something unthinkable is happening or has happened. You know, we've had a pandemic that the like of which we have not seen in 100 years. We have a war in the middle of Europe, which from too many people was really unthinkable. I'm sure that people in Ukraine and other places foresaw the possibility of hostilities with Russia probably, especially since the occupation of Crimea. Again, this kind of event that seems like a Black Swan event, but very likely. So apologies there. The lady's name is Marina Gorbus. And well, she says some interesting things. Nobody could really have understood what was going to happen in Ukraine. I'm going to challenge that. When she mentions Black Swan events, she's talking about events that come out of nowhere that nobody knows are coming, nobody predicted. And she's saying she disagrees with that. So let's listen to what she says in this second little clip. We have a candidate for president in the United States right now who has almost 80 indictments against him and who spends a lot of time in court as yours probably are seeing, which also seems to be unthinkable. And some people, if you read Naseem Talib, and his book, he calls it Black Swan events. So Black Swan events in his interpretation are these unthinkable, unforeseen events that have huge consequences. And I kind of don't see these as Black Swan events. I'm not a big believer in those because in many ways, you could not predict. You could not see the exact timing or the exact form that these events would take. But you could certainly see things moving in that direction. You could see that these things are very likely. And you could probably see them decades ago. There are events that are decades in the making. So in 2008, the Institute actually published a scenario of a large-scale respiratory pandemic called arts. Arts, a huge respiratory distress syndrome. And it wasn't that, and we really looked at what is the reactions of people, how do people cope, what strategy will they use, what will be the impact, who will be mostly impacted. And we saw a lot of these possibilities that we saw in real life almost 10 decades later. And it isn't that we were so prescient, right? It wasn't that we had some crystal ball or we were so great about predictions that we saw this. But actually, if you talk to experts and if you look at the data, it was kind of inevitable. If you talk to epidemiologists and if you talk to development people and economists, we could see that people are increasingly moving into areas where they're intersecting and interacting with wildlife. And transmission of these kind of various viruses and diseases is more and more likely. So actually, you could really foresee that the possibility of a major pandemic is much more likely. We just didn't know exactly when or how or where it's going to originate. But that possibility, so I don't think of it as a Black Swan event. So it seems to me pretty confused lady. They're a good organization. They're looking into the future, but they can't really predict it. But a lot of people are predicting it and they managed to predict a major pandemic event. But the war in Ukraine was, well, we just don't know where it came from. But let's put up on screen the Rand document. I think it's 2018 or maybe wrong on that. But what is about overextending and unbalancing Russia? This whole scenario from the Rand Corporation is about attacking Russia and putting Russia in a stress position. So is it any wonder that the war took place? Let's have a look at this little video clip with Senator Lindsey Graham talking about Ukraine. I'm here with President Zelensky. I am such an admirer of what you and your country have done. You're trying to stop the Russians so if we don't have to fight them, they don't want any American troops. They just need the weapons to free their country of a terrible invasion. They're sitting on trillion dollars worth of minerals that could be good to our economy. So I want to keep helping our friends in Ukraine. We can win this. They need our help. Yes, we need and we have already. The biggest help is the support of American people. That's the support of our friends, thanks to Lindsey and his colleagues to congressmen and centers from the United States. Thanks for the support. Thank you so much. Peace is coming. Yes. Soon. So trillions of dollars of assets that the Americans need, but don't worry, peace is coming. Well, maybe it's not. Let's just remind ourselves of David Cameron in front of Congress a little while ago. To me, I argue that it is extremely good value for money for the United States and for others. Perhaps for about five or ten percent of your defense budget, almost half of Russia's pre-war military equipment has been destroyed without the loss of a single American life. This is an investment in United States security. So that's what I would say. The issue of legal advice. I think it is an important principle that legal advice is not published, that ministers consider it and act in a way that is consistent with it. We answer questions about it as I am now, as I will be in the House of Lords. I'm sure next week and I've got a question. Yep, so there we are in the House saying good value. The war is good value for money because your troops not being hurt. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are dying to the last man. So if that's the case with Cameron, where's Storma? Well, I'm just going to remind our audience today that in the background, one individual is digging very deeply into matters of child abuse to find that the home office is labeling them as vexatious because the home office doesn't want to release information about what went wrong in some of the child abuse cases and the grooming gangs. And the particular individual sent me this letter which he's obtained. It's Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner talking about Cyril Smith, but asking why despite 80 pages of information on far by the police, Cyril Smith took no action. So can we trust in my view as we can't, will the wars continue? Yes, because these other agencies are fermenting them. Ben, let's bring you in. What part of the picture have you got on this? Hi, everybody. Great to be here as ever. So last week, we talked about the rise of the Khmer Rouge and I made some comparisons, drew some parallels between what happened in Cambodia in the mid-70s and some of the things that we're seeing happening in our own society today. Now, the Khmer Rouge was a radical Marxist movement who seized power and killed over a third of the Cambodian population. This resonated with a lot of people, but also a few people, a smaller number, and I felt that this was an inappropriate comparison to draw. Now, I want to build on this because I think it's important and it really underpins everything that we talk about here on a weekly basis, because I'm not suggesting for a second that the exact same thing is happening here. What I'm saying is that there are parallels. We know that history doesn't repeat itself according to Mark Twain, and rhymes, and I can hear rhymes happening around me on a constant basis. I'm not saying that this is the exact same ideological position that Stalin was taking, although we do know that he is a communist. It's something else. It's something new. It is an emergent phenomenon, and we're developing the language to describe it. And two words that I've arrived at that I think are useful, and I'm not saying that this is a definitive definition, but I like this idea of woke fascism. Woke intersectional Marxism and fascism, the integration of the market and the state. And I see these two things coming together. I believe they have come together, and this is the ideological platform that is driving everything around us. And I subtitle this as an unholy alliance between money and power. Now you can think of it a little bit like this, and we can reach back to antiquity, and Alex will no doubt enjoy this, and probably laugh at my terrible attempt to talk about the chimera, the fire-breathing beast of Greek mythology with the body and head of a lion, the head of a goat attached to its torso, and a snake as a tail. It's not easily explained. It's rarely seen in nature, but it is extremely dangerous, and for me, that's what woke fascism is. So let's dig into these little bit. First of all, let's look at woke, and let's hear from James Lindsay from New Discourse, talking at the European Parliament sometime early last year. Woke is Marxism, and it's a very provocative statement. It's something you will certainly hear, it is not, that it is different, and the professors and the philosophers will spend a large amount of time explaining to you why, no, no. It's about economics when it's Marxism. This is social, this is cultural, this is different. It's not different. I need you to think biologically for one moment, and I don't mean about your bodies, we could do that, that's a different topic. I want you to think how we organize plants and animals when we study them. There's species, but above species there are the genus of the animals. So you think like the cats, all the cats, what you have tigers, you have lions, you have house cats, you have whatever, leopards, many different kinds of cats. If we think of Marxism as a genus of ideological thought, then classical economic Marxism is a species. Radical feminism is a species, in this same genus. Critical race theory is a genus, sorry, a species in this genus. Queer theory is a species in this genus. Post-colonial theory that's plaguing Europe is a species in this genus. And they have something that binds them together called intersectionality. That makes them treated as if they are all one thing, but the logic is Marxist. So the dominant cultural narrative surrounding us certainly is being put forward by the left is fundamentally Marxist. And so we're constantly being talked to about race, gender, sexual orientation. All of these are subcategories of Marxist thought. And I strongly recommend going to watch that video, you can find it on YouTube. James Lindsey talking at the European Parliament, it's about half an hour long. He does an exceptional job of defining woke and defining the danger that it potentially presents. And he also within that piece goes on to talk about the way that the Marxists have essentially abandoned the proletariat in order to go into partnership with international capital. Which is a really important development that again explains a lot of what we're seeing around us. Now let's, we talked about woke intersectional Marxism. Let's talk about fascism, the integration of the market and the state. And as Mussolini, the man who invented fascism, described it, it should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. And this is the global policy platform of choice. Let's have a look at the World Economic Forum, Kia Starmer's favourite place to hang out. How to harness the transformative potential of public-private partnerships. Where else have we seen this? It's not new. Blair talked about it in the 90s, Clinton talked about it in the 90s. The idea of third-way politics, a strong state with dynamic markets working together in an integrated fashion. Daddy's fascism. Right, this pamphlet here written by Blair from 1998. You can see in the bottom left hand corner there just slightly obscured that this was published by the Fabian Society. The Fabian Society, the global socialist or the organization that's been pursuing a global socialist super-state since 1884. So I think that you can also think of woke fascism as Fabianism. I believe that those terms are interchangeable and where do we see Fabianism? Everywhere. Half of the cabinet are Fabians. Kia Starmer is a Fabian. Tony Blair is a Fabian. I could go on. Where do we see these philosophies, these ideologies, these positions appearing in public policy? Well, we can already see it in the Demos report that I talked about a couple of weeks ago. Only we can save the state where Demos, which is our Marxist think tank, is talking about standing up to the big forces of development capital and working with them as equals. We are now equals with development capital. The state is working hand in glove with capital business. The markets, how are they doing it through forums such as this? This is EY, the global consulting firm who are a strategic partner of the World Economic Forum, hosting Kia Starmer and Rachel Reeves and other shadow cabinet members at the start of this year to introduce them to 40 CEOs of major European businesses that they are going to be working with when they assume power later in the year, which is where we are today. Where else do we see it happening? Well, Starmer, on his grand tour of European powers over the past few weeks, met with Simon Harris, the Irish T-Shock over the weekend. They're talking about delivering growth and prosperity for both of our countries. And let's hear very quickly what Simon Harris is all about. There's a lot of talk at the moment about going back to normal. And we all want to go back to normal in terms of the things we miss in life. But from a public policy point of view, we're never going back to normal. We need to get to a new normal. We do need to truly build back better. Build back better, Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum. This is what Starmer is up to. This is what he's doing and he's imbued every single part of the state, every single part of the market. He was in Germany over, this was about two weeks ago, I think. I think apologies, I forget the exact date meeting with Olaf Schulz, meeting also with Siemens. So you can see there, excuse me, I've jumped ahead slightly. So he's doing the state bit, then he's doing the market bit. Siemens is a world economic forum partner. They're delivering all the technology and also a bunch of the leadership for Great British Energy, which Ed Miliband is extremely excited about. He says it's going to be the envy of the world, just like our NHS, which basically means that we give loads of money to the government who then keep a chunk of it, spend some of it to deliver services to us, and then tell us that we're getting a good deal. This is a scam, but that is what the public/private marketplace actually looks like. And if you complain about it, you can expect to be slandered, demonised, locked up, and subjected to increasingly serious acts of violence. And that is the situation that I see in front of me here in the UK, and further afield. Ben, thank you very much for that. Well, I think the picture is coming to the surface pretty quickly. Alex, let's welcome you to today's news. And of course, if the state is going to have absolute power, it must have control of the legal system. Indeed, it must. As I was listening to Ben there, I was reminded of the first instance of the third way being ad-ombrated in politics. Well, before the '90s with Anthony Giddens telling Blair and Clinton's advisers telling him to put it into practice, it was a post-war Nazi continuation strategy best written about by Joseph Farrell. The third way in their conception was keeping the Americans and the Soviets out of the picture while a corporatofascist system was redeveloped in Europe. And as regards what Ben just closed with on the National Health Service, I think Thomas Sowell, the famous American commentator, said it best. He said it's amazed at me that people don't think it's talking about America. People don't think they can afford healthcare, but they do think that they can afford healthcare plus a massive inefficient government bureaucracy to run it. And that's just what that mean, as Ben shared was about. Now, the legal society, particularly the jurisdiction of England and Wales, as we have several jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, the in-house journal for English and Welsh solicitors, The Law Society Gazette, reports that there is now, it's in consultation period until the end of November, but it is likely to go through. There is now going to be an imposition, a requirement on the barristers, that is the trial lawyers, the attorneys in this jurisdiction, to go beyond not treating anyone unfairly, which is currently what they have to sign up to in article eight of their code of practice. But they have positively to go for woke fascism, as Ben has just put it, particularly the wokeism. They have to go for DEI, diversity and inclusion, not further defined, of course. The same journal is rather gleeful in reporting this apparent victory, I would suggest a periodic victory for the legal system of England and Wales, against the Yorkshire lawyer, Lois Yvonne Bayless. Lois Bayless, who runs a practice called Broad Yorkshire Law, was brought to a solicitors disciplinary tribunal because she wrote, not acting under instructions from a client, but out of concern for children and using her legal knowledge, she wrote to a number of schools, pointing out to them, this is the keyboard that you will not read in the law society, because what she pointed out to them was that there was no possible way during the inoculation campaign for COVID-19 in schools that informed consent, the legal requirement going all the way back to Newenburg, informed consent could not possibly be required. That was not proven at her disciplinary tribunal to be a misleading statement, no matter what is claimed about it. Last week, Charles Mallet brought out an excellent interview with Claire Wilson, who is leaving the legal profession in England and Wales, an interview called the Wonky Scales of Justice, and there the same point was made that the SRA, an unfortunate acronym for those of us who know it's other meaning, but the solicitors regulation authority have become welded at the hit with power. It's the legal reflex of what we've just heard about in the corporate world, knowing which side your bread's butted and imposing the will of power upon your own profession, which are supposed to be there to represent or regulate, as they now call it, it's supposed to be representation, ultimately. So do listen to that in order to understand what's going on here with the SRA. What's going on here in detail then? Well, it'll all be in the show notes. As usual, this is the letter from the beginning of 2022, which Lois Bayless wrote from her practice to schools with regard to the COVID immunization service visits, pointing out simply that they owe a legal obligation to each child in their care. Again, this wasn't overturned. In a very questionable couple of points of nicety, it was upheld at this disciplinary tribunal that Lois Bayless had breached some requirements of her profession, which leaves her with the possibility of being stumped for a very large legal bill. But the point that she's keen to emphasize is that it was not found to be wrong in science, in fact, or in law that the informed consent could not be obtained by the schools in this jab drive. That is really the victory, the hill that she was prepared to die on. She has put out a statement, I won't read it in full, people can freeze it to find out what's going on here. But she's keen to emphasize that for the sake of the children, and this was cynically quoted in the headline of the law society, because I did it for the children in scare quotes, but good on her for going that far and saying that, she put this on record. She was being threatened, but it was not proven that what she'd written was misleading or anything else. She was accused of damaging public trust and confidence in her profession, which is often how dissident doctors are stung by their regulators in various Western jurisdictions. And at the end of it, you can see that the date is the 5th of September, so just at the end of last week, she says she still has to find 32,500 pounds to pay, and she has to pay her own costs around 60,000 pounds. But it's all worth it if even one child was not jabbed with a harmful substance because of it. So with no reservation whatsoever, I share it, it will be in the show notes. Her fundraiser, as you can see, she's at the halfway point in raising the 100,000 that she needs to cover the likely or confirmed legal expenses. She now faces as a result of this. Now, Mike Eden in sharing this was keen to point out that this shows that you can't put any incriminating evidence on record against the system, and I take his points. She was stymied at every turn, but I don't think it was ill-advised of her to face up to this disciplinary tribunal and to flush out the admission that there was nothing misleading about the points she made about informed consent, because that's the bedrock of the legal profession, of course, is to ensure that fundamental human rights, as they're now called, are honoured. What's going on then with different parts of the United Kingdom? Well, Fox News in the USA has picked up that in a continuation of what Charles Mallett has been reporting on from Birmingham and Britain and Brighton in England, we now have a spread even to Northern Ireland of people being arrested for silent about outside abortion clinics. In this case, the Causeway Hospital in Corinne, County Antrim, a lady called Claire Brennan there. I haven't seen much domestic coverage of this. While we stay in Northern Ireland in County Fermana, Southwest College there, I think, based in Eneschillin, has announced to its sixth-formers, as we used to call them in Old Speak, the school leaving two years, that they're invited to participate in a carbon literacy program. I won't read this out either, but it looks like you get brownie points with your future employers if you have joined the carbon hugent while you are still at school. That's how I read it. Where is this all leading? Well, a popular account called Druckpack Kunle, or Kunle Druckpack, has been pointing out some old 1980s clips by the singer Perrion, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yu, the strongman of that city state, as it catapulted itself to first-world status in the latter half of the 20th century after independence from Britain. And it's popular in a certain sphere of the dissident circles to say, well, he was quite right. He needed to intervene and interfere with people's private lives in the way that Ben has just been outlining. If we hadn't fiddled with people's private lives, he says we wouldn't be here today. And Chris Conch has been pointing out in a sub-stack note that, and he's very sympathetic to Lee Kuan Yu, that this is absolutely what we need to do. We've got to clamp down, but he says that when British politicians said they wanted to build Singapore on Thames after Brexit, they weren't joking. What does this entail? Well, if you just take the freedom of religion aspect of it, but one among many of the important aspects that need to be considered, you will see in a speech in, I think, 1987 that Lee Kuan Yu, after pouring cold water on freedom of religion by saying that not even Christian, and not even Europeans are excited about Christianity, there's nothing to get excited about. He arrogantly says, as I put it in my post, which will be in the show notes to my telegram channel, he says firm government will ride through this patch. That means a rough patch. Soft government trying to accommodate everybody will lead to big mischief. He snarls as he ends his speech. So the Lee Kuan Yu, you know, going through Singapore Way is not a helpful path to take. It's already being taken, particularly by the Blairies does. We see here just in passing that the Speaker of the House of Commons has been telling BBC Radio 5 Live that there must be nobody saying anything nasty on social media. The Speaker of the House of Commons, for goodness' sake. And on the question of whether, you know, that the Prime Minister is driving all this, we see the BBC telling us that he's concerned about the increase in support for what he calls the far right across the channel over here on the continent, but he says in Britain, the answer to it is delivery in government. Ben has already pointed out a couple of Irish connections. I'll just mention this one as well, but the border security command, which involves, of course, the Irish angle as well, he's there posing with them, having their backs to the camera like FBI strong men, saying we will smash the vile people smuggling gangs. That's really East Asian communist language, isn't it? And, you know, just a week or two ago, if you said this, you were going to be on the wrong end of his prosecutors for saying the same thing. Here's one example, I think, from Liverpool, a lady called Ava, who says that she's just been visited by counterterrorism police, no probable cause, no statement of wrong thing. She was just told, you are naughty, we won't give you details, we're going to steal your father's samurai sword because we genuinely believe it's a weapon, Ho Ho, and they found the Roman helmets in the house, which they said, this is Anglo-Saxon, an evidence of you being a far right ethno-nationalist. So that's what going Singaporean means on people. Hansard, the parliamentary record, points out here that even Sir John Hayes, a fairly right-wing opposition MP, has to pull his punches when he asks the Speaker of the House who controls government business, why is it that the higher education bill of the last government, free speech in universities, is now going to be repealed? And just sipping through these because of time, just you can freeze these if you want. The well-known legal firm, Taylor Wesson, has pointed out in these four slides as I'll zip through, that the law has changed from the previous situation just this year because of the online safety act that we have covered this in the past, but I find this a good summary for people to freeze the frame. Of course, the Taylor Wesson goes along with the government narrative here, but it points out there are now obligations on online service providers to do effectively the government's bidding and that courts have teeth. Look at this last bit, courts now have jurisdiction to grant civil injunctions if they think that it would be just and convenient to do so. And we just got a silent video to go with that from Germany, which I'll play out now, which is here we see that people in Germany are being warned not to post anything that might be incendiary, and in this childish way there being shown examples of must-share images and footage, and every time somebody shares this for people watching an audio, a little fire is ignited along the way. And while this plays out, it gives me time to say that in the show notes, but not on the slides, there is very detailed description now by two of the best bloggers from the German-speaking world of a constitutional case that's now going to Germany's Supreme Court, because a nurse in northwestern Germany has taken through her own court of first instance an objection that it was unconstitutional for her to have to prove COVID vaccination status in order to continue working as a nurse during the COVID panic. And the judges have referred this up to Karlsruhe, the Supreme Court there, saying that actually we think that there was no constitutionality in this matter, because the Robert Koch Institute, the Public Health Guidance People, have admitted now in court that they are political people, they took orders from the Ministry of Health, and all that they did was behavior change, there was no science behind it, or reporting on this as an outcome, which is the very point we're trying to highlight here, that the state is going to go for you if you even voice any kind of dissidents now. Alex, thank you very much for that comprehensive segment, a lot to think about, and of course it's been holding on all of us to speak out and challenge what's happening to our audience. If you like what UK column is doing, then please support us. Five pounds a month is keeping the UK column going, we want to increase our production and grow. We are very keen for new members, so if you can bring other people on board, please do. All of our material is to share, and of course he's going out on these, and indeed other platforms, Facebook at the moment is still censoring us, but that's the nature of UK in 2024. You can help us by making a purchase from the UK column shop, that's available for everybody, so have a look and see whether something takes your interest, and of course we still have a gender 21 year life in their hands editions, so if you haven't got one of these excellent booklets, please consider getting one for the information and also to help the column. Now just a little advert for walking the dog, which, excuse me, went out at 11 o'clock on Sunday. This was actually censored by YouTube, which I'll speak about a little bit later in the news, but if you haven't walked the dog with me, please consider giving it a go. We'd also like to remind people, excuse me, of the UK column event in Bristol, 19th of October, details on the website, tickets still available, but they are going quickly, so if you haven't yet got your tickets, please consider making that purchase. Now also Mike and myself are going to be speaking at the Heritage Party Conference, Saturday 28th of September, that is a ticketed event, and we're doing it to support this particular party on this occasion. I would also like to say that tomorrow at one o'clock the interview with Dr. Sabine Hazan will be going out. That's Debbie Evans and Cheryl Granger talking to Dr. Hazan, and the topic is gut feelings, the abdominal brain. This should be very interesting. Well, Ben, let's bring you back on, and you're talking about the enemy within. Indeed, yes, well, there's two emergent narratives, both of them coming from the same place. One of them is about the enemy within, and one of them is about the enemy without, and I'll talk about both of them now. I'm going to start off by referencing Ricky Jones, former Labour Councillor Ricky Jones, who at the Wolfenstein protest that I reported on about a month ago now, essentially encouraged murder. I believe that that's what I heard. It's been reduced down to encouraging violent disorder. That's what he's been charged with. He was in court on Friday in Snaresbrook in East London, and it's been reported on by the BBC. He's entered a not guilty plea. You can see here, he's denied encouraging violent disorder in connection with comments of the counter protest. Videos had emerged online, reportedly showing Ricky Jones telling the crowd in Wolfenstein that far-right demonstrators needed to have their throats cut. Apparently, he's denied it, and there is a trial that's going to take place in January, but let's just have a little quick look at the video and let viewers make up their own mind about what was said. They are disgusting nothing back then. We need to hold it both and give it a move. I'll let you make up your own mind on that one. So Paul Mason, if you remember at the time, was very active on the ground at the protest. And actually, for my money, it appeared to be coordinating a lot of the action. And he has been working with military intelligence with MI6. That has been confirmed. But also, he is a journalist and a very well-established one, former BBC, former Channel 4 News, and he's actually taken to Prospect magazine last week with an article called "The New Fascism" that I'm going to talk about. And this is the enemy within narrative that we're currently hearing on a constant base from people like Mason. And also, people like Adam Rusperager, who is the editor of Prospect magazine. He's the former editor-in-chief of the Guardian, and he's actually currently chair of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, and also a member of the Facebook Oversight Board, who I spoke about last week, which makes him one of the most senior censors in the world, actually. An incredibly powerful man. And let's go and have a look at this article, "New Fascism". Absolutely fascinating, because one of the main things that struck me about this is that they're really struggling to define what this new fascism actually means. So, he says here in the articles is Paul Mason, "We are no longer dealing with fascism as a fewer-led hierarchy, as it was in Nazi Germany, but as a rhizomic structure." Which means that the rhizomic refers to the root system that grows underneath trees that spread out horizontally. So, there's actually no hierarchy here in this new fascism. Apparently, the roots communicate with each other independently of the tree trunk, and the modern equivalent of mine camp is created by its readers in real time. It leaves the local institutions of democracy, police forces and councils facing a globally organized force that they barely understand. Now, that doesn't make any sense to me at all. There's no hierarchy. It's all been developed in real time, organically, but also it's globally organized in some way, and no one really understands it. Very indistinct what this new fascism actually is. Let's have another look here. So, today's fascism is internationalist by design, and overtly structured around a theory of victory. So, this is all related to what he calls the Great Replacement Theory, and that was developed in 2011 by the French writer Renault Camus, and that asserts that the non-white immigration to Europe and the United States is not an accident, but a design, and it's a plan to replace white Christians by importing non-white communities with higher birth rates, which is something that we hear a lot, and actually is born out by what's been going on demographically in the UK over the past several decades. So, let's look at demographic change in London. One example you can see here that since 1961, the proportion of the population coming from the white natives has gone down from 97.7% to 36.8%, with a whole range of different people coming in. Now, we can argue the talks about whether that's intentional or not, but it would appear that there is some purpose behind this. There is a design behind this. So, actually, he's pointing to something and saying that it doesn't exist when actually I think in reality and examination of the fact suggests that it does. And just finally drawing on this article, and I suggest going to read it. It's a really interesting insight into the narrative that the elites and the political establishment are trying to push. He says here, "Behind the lawyers, the liberals and the feminists stand the ultimate enemy. The cultural Marxists who have plotted the takeover." So, these are the cultural Marxists I was talking about earlier. This allegation, it's an allegation not born out by fact, of course, a straight lift from US paleo conservatism, which alleges that the Marxists left having abandoned the proletariat, as I said earlier, it's exactly what we're seeing play out in this new vote-fascist environment that we live in, seeks in league with a shadowy global Jewish elite to undermine Western society by promoting multiculturalism, reproductive rights, trans rights, and homosexuality. So, within there you have a lot of conjecture, a lot of misdirection, but also a few little pieces of truth, all of which are being directed towards terrorizing British people about the nature and the motivations and the methods of their fellow citizens, right? These aren't just fascists, they're also people that live in this country, and in many cases have valid concerns, a lot of which formation is just articulated and described as being some kind of conspiracy theory. So, that's the enemy within, that's the enemy within narrative that we're hearing. Now, let's have a little look at the enemy without, and I'm going to refer to Anne Applebaum, who is a journalist. She writes for the Atlantic magazine. She is a regular attendee at the Bilderberg meetings, and she has just released a new book called Autocracy Inc, The Dictators Who Want to Run the World. And last week, she spoke to Tortoise Media. She's had a bunch of other interviews, and she was also up at Chatham House, where I've taken a clip from the talk that she gave. So, what I describe in my book is not, you're right, it's not an alliance or an axis in the traditional sense. It's a group of countries who do not share an ideology. So, we're talking about communist China, nationalist Russia, theocratic Iran, Bolivarian socialist Venezuela, and a handful of others. And it's a group of countries whose leaders have absolute power more or less inside their countries. They have often captured the judiciary, they control the media, or most of the information system, or they try to. They don't necessarily meet in a secret room and plan things together, but they have begun to collaborate and cooperate opportunistically when they can, when it's necessary, and particularly when it's in the interests of the group. They're very interested in the survival of one another. So, there is a group, an indistinct poorly defined group with no ideology, with no shared characteristics, who don't conspire with each other, but that we must be extremely concerned about because they are autocratic. And the way that we know that is that they've taken control of the judiciary and they've also taken control of the media and information ecosystem, which actually sounds like the current regime here in the UK and in the US. So, the enemy within and the enemy without. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck bend. I think we are absolutely on the case here. Let's bring Alex back because surely, Alex, we should be able to sit and relax, knowing that our security services are protecting us from any form of attack on the country and the constitution, particularly in a communist or a Marxist form. You might think so, Brian, but the CIA and the British Foreign Intelligence Service, SIS, popularly known as MI6, in the form of their two directors have different thoughts. This is not behind the Financial Times's usual hard paywall. I think it's because it's meant to be read by people outside the usual ambit. Sir, Richard Moore and Bill Burns are headlined here by the FT is saying that Britain and America stay ahead in an uncertain world through the Intelligence Partnership. It's scant on detail. It does talk about generative AI being in use of the agencies. Notoriously and notably in this final paragraph describes the world order as the international world order, not the rules base. That would be too close to power, but there you go. It also seeks to rewrite history because although it grudgingly admits that the CIA wasn't founded until a couple of years after the Second World War, whereas SIS was founded by Admiral Cummings back in 1909, they do say we were joined at the hit throughout both World Wars and the Cold War. Well, I haven't got a slide for it, but what gives the light of that is a book by Thomas Marl, a thorough academic called Desperate Deception, outlining how British Intelligence in New York, before even the CIA's predecessor, the OSS, was up and running at the time of the Second World War, was all about trying to get Nazi narratives opposed to the Germans into the USA, so a sub-awling American national interest to British. The other thing that's not mentioned again brought out best by Joseph Farrell and other conspiracy researchers shall we say is that after the Second World War, the Nazi survival element really triumphed in large parts of the CIA, and that's been well documented that there was a pro-German angle to the CIA after the Second World War. So, convenient rewriting of history. But this leads us to a nuclear arms race situation, and apologies to those in audio only, you'll hear about 40 seconds of Russian here, but this, subtitled by a man you've just mentioned, Brian, Anton Gerashenko, the Ukrainian patriot, but accurately subtitled from the Russian to English, is a discussion on Russian primetime TV by the usual big talking heads in Russia on why Russia, the navy, who needs to move from nuclear deterrent towards a nuclear intermodation strategy. [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] [SPEAKING SPANISH] Well, that was only a little clip. He did speak for a few minutes on the subject of vaccine, but you're not allowed to give a personal opinion anymore. You're not able to use your own acumen, your own brain to decide what is right and what isn't. No, this was censored by YouTube, and I had to cut that passage out in order to get the video up. But I then got the opportunity to be trained or reframed, as I prefer to call it, by YouTube, so that I understood what their policy was. So this is what pops up on screen. Get started. Look at your content. Take action. Take a policy training. Well, when you do that, it quickly tells you about medical misinformation and says that YouTube is trying to prevent misinformation, but the misinformation can be about treatment or denial. So it's quite comprehensive. I ran through a little training program. They ask you questions. Ms. Walker and her friends film themselves having a conversation in the car. Let's have a look at this in more detail. In the video, Ms. Walker says she doesn't want to get the COVID-19 vaccine, because the shot won't actually prevent her from getting COVID-19. Is this a violation? Yes or no? I said yes, it is a violation, but it actually said it doesn't violate our policy because she does not spread medical misinformation. According to information from health authorities, there is not a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19. This one, sorry, that's a little bit clear on screen. I've got another one here. Tammy posts a video after getting influenza vaccine. She shares that she became permanently paralyzed after she received her seasonal influenza shot in the video. She warns others not to get it, and you're given the opportunity of a yes or no. It goes on here that is it a violation? Yes, it is a violation of the policy. Sorry, bring that up on screen. We do not allow claims that vaccines cause chronic side effects. Now, this went on. If Mike will just kindly bring me back on screen, I'm just going to move through some of these slides, because eventually when you get to the end, it tells you that if you've done well enough, you've actually been retrained to understand what YouTube needs. So this is one of the last screen that comes up. It said nice work. I made some mistakes, but eventually I was able to understand what I needed to say in order to get the result that I wanted. But the irony of all this is, of course, that we were banned from YouTube originally by putting out the testimony of Nicola, who said what happened to her husband paralyzed from the neck down as a result of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. That was true. It was later reported by the Daily Mail, but this resulted in the UK column being completely suspended from YouTube. And although we can post some material, it's clear that we dare not speak on this subject. Now, are we surprised not really because if we have a look at what Neil Mohan, the chief executive had to say, this is as reported in the Hollywood Reporter, he says that they're going to continue to engage with policymakers to share our perspective on policies that impact our creators. We're aligned with government officials in wanting to create a safe environment that also allows for plurality of voices to be heard. It goes on to talk about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, which gives us the ability to remove harmful content. It's talking about European limits on political speech, and it's talking about Canada forcing us to show content. Based on, quote, government requirements. So it's pretty clear that YouTube is fully in bed with the government, big corporation in bed with government, as Ben was talking about earlier in the news. But maybe if we really want to understand it, we should think in terms of money. So this is the same magazine talking about YouTube ad revenue, dropping to $6.7 billion during the first quarter. So my question for the audience is, do you fight government when you're making so much money? And I suspect the answer to that is, no, you don't. So we can expect more clampdown by YouTube and, of course, Google itself. Alex, we're a little bit out of time. So I'm just going to try and move us just onto your last two memes that you kindly had for us. And we should be able to cover overseas legal matters during extra time. Take us through the memes. Indeed, join us in extra time for more. So the meme that I'm starting with here is a good one pointing out that the outliers in world corruption are North America, the United Kingdom and the European Union. Somebody has highlighted those jurisdictions in red here and has captioned it, when you have zero corruption because you call it lobbying and the globe is beaming a smile and giving us a thumbs up because, of course, no corruption problem in those northerly parts of the world. No, we just call it lobbying. My second one is the results of a Limerick competition. I try to hold them on Fridays on my Eastern approaches telegram channel and I gave them last week the theme of Circmaire. I deliberately went for that because the Prime Minister, of course, doesn't like people to be reminded of his knighthood, which he got for serving the state as a civil servant. So the media are complicit with that. They just call him Keir instead of Sir Keir. And having tried alternatives for the surname, like Smama or Sturmer, I think we're going for Circmaire as the epithet of choice as described by Ben here today. So here's the winning entry for my Limerick competition. There once was a man named Circmaire who took all his orders from Blair, his boots polished bright to brace for the fight, but no kepi to mess up his hair. OK, Alex, thank you very much for that. People in the chat box saying that Storm is looking older already after a couple of months in office, whatever that means. All right, we should end it there. Ben, Alex, thank you very much for joining us. Huge thank you to the UK column audience and a very, very big thank you to all of you sponsoring us by monthly membership. So if you're not on board with that, please consider it. Help keep the UK column going. We'll be back in a few moments for extra time, and we'll have a look at that YouTube censorship in more detail. Join us then and UK column news back on Wednesday at one o'clock. See you then. Bye-bye. ♪♪ Everyone has their own idea of wealth, and it all starts with the right partner to help with all your wealth management and financial planning needs, BOK Financial. BOK Financial is a trademark of BOK FNA. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.