‘Tommy Robinson’ has been the canary in the coal mine for a long time, but as he raised politically unwelcome truths about Northern grooming gangs, Asian drug gangs in his home town of Luton, and MSM spin on supposed attacks on refugee migrants, he has to be demonised as a ‘Far Right’ (TM) extremist and destroyed.
I recently watched an interview with Jordan Peterson on UTube in which Robinson sets out his stall and explains why the ‘Establishment’ wants to him obliterated. Obviously he puts his own favourable spin on the facts, but nevertheless I came away with a somewhat changed opinion of the man, having previously swallowed the State’s version wholesale.
The problem with dividing immigration into legal and illegal, with the assumption that the former is ok, is that the British population has voted consistently for lowered total immigration for more than 20 years and have been given the opposite.
Assuming that legal immigration is all well and good ignores this democratic deficit.
I much appreciate your thought and write this as a migrant (born in NZ), the son of an illegal immigrant (my father was a German Jew who lied to get a visitor visa to NZ in 1937 but was allowed to stay) and an immigration lawyer.
The bulk of my clients are partners of UK citizens or permanent residents and their children. People live overseas and fall in love or meet people visiting studying or working here. I doubt that the anti-immigrant rhetoric extends to these people, but it is still difficult and expensive and, as part of pretending to do something about immigration the last government made it more difficult.
The next category are workers. The last government pretended to take an interest in this when introducing its points based system. But for people in my profession the defects were obvious and were exploited. I cannot see why they were not also obvious to the professionals in the Home Office, but that applies to a lot of what they do. Again as part of trying to appear to be tougher on immigration the last government belatedly did something about this. Labour has said it is going to do what the Australians do, which is develop a long-term labour market policy, which predicts future skill shortages and tries to train local people to fill them. Sounds a pretty basic idea to me, but its a ten year programme. Why the last lot didn't do the same probably just comes down to their general incompetence.
My third category is students. A huge export industry - i.e.. we sell education to foreigners who come here for 3 or 4 years and pay a lot. For an unfathomable reason student visas are counted as immigration. Since virtually all of them go home afterwards this is nonsense. The frighteningly high figures would look much lower if the students were not counted.
Money.
Like every other service under the last government immigration enforcement was starved of cash. The precipitate drop in deportations is largely down to that. They let the hospitals crumble (killing babies and sending Lucy Letby to jail in the process), slashed police (meaning criminals are given a free hand), failed to add housing stock even to meet the current population needs let alone immigrants, cut the army .... , cur enforcement of tax fraud etc. This is just plain bad government. None of these were top range expenses but they were so dumb that they just slashed randomly and look at the results.
Refugees
I don't have many asylum seeking clients but the ones I do have a genuine need for protection from the wicked places they were forced to run away from. In a system where the hostility to asylum seekers is in the blood of the Home Office, about 70% are still found to be genuine. Every one I have come across needs that protection. Would those who are against granting asylum still think the same if they actually met the people fleeing here? I doubt it. They look at the big picture, but the big picture is made up of a huge number of little ones and those add up to the figures we have.
Deportation
Some clever Minister some time back reduced the minimum sentence for which deportation is compulsory from 2 years to 1 year. Got good headlines. But it did not make the slightest bit of difference to the numbers deported.
The rules on deportation are clear - serious criminal for those who have immigration status and everyone who does not. But to send them somewhere you need co-operaation at the other end. The UK and its allies have been out making enemies and destroying governments all over. Because of the internal chaos in Iraq, its practically impossible to deport there. Who caused that? Ditto Syria, Libya. But even in other places. I have a client who 10 years ago was cooperating in his deportation but the country he comes from refused to accept that he comes from there. He's been sitting in limbo for 10 years. There are a lot like that. Did you notice how deportations to Albania picked up when the UK government pulled finger and reached an agreement with Albania. By and large its all too difficult.
And of course enforcement takes systems and manpower. The former are finally getting a little better but until 3 or so years ago you could often find the Home Office losing your client's file. Manpower - austerity. It requires lots of people paid well for a very unpleasant job. Ask the union for border force officers how manpower retention is going in the age of unbalanced austerity.
Numbers
I put this in to attract your attention! I've noted above the stupidity of counting students. But the other point is that there really is no way government can control the numbers. The immigration figures are net. If a British person leaves, immigration goes down, if they come back it goes up. Maybe people are not leaving right now. But this may change. The government is not going to drive a UK citizen out to bring the net figure down. I have a few clients in South Africa. Anyone with British nationality there wants to get out. There's nothing that can be done to control that and there are a lot of them. Next it will be somewhere else. I've noted an uptick in people arriving from the US! (Both Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton would be entitled to UK citizenship - in other words, after the age of Empire there is a vast reservoir of people who can just walk in and then of course bring their families. How popular would it be to stop that?).
Crime
Yes, there are a considerable number of migrants, legal and illegal who commit crimes, some of them very nasty. But the overwhelming bulk of prisoners here are British. Immigrants do not punch above their weight in crime figures.
Although your X correspondents are able to produce some nasty examples, and I agree that they should normally be deported, there is no way to predict whether a migrant, legal or illegal is going to be a criminal and the vast majority are not. It's an easy way to explain opposition to immigration, but a lazy one. If what these people mean is that they only want white immigrants, or only Christians or want none at all (i.e. even excluding Brits returning) they should be honest and say so.
Having slagged off the last government which definitely deserved it, I should say this. It's a very very difficult policy area. We have an aging population and a reducing work force. People are not having as many children as they used to. There are elements of migration that cannot be controlled. There always are going to be a number of people who manage to arrive legally or illegally and claim refugee status and this will be higher sometimes and lower other times - the factors are push, much more than pull. Many of the electorate are thinking in slogans not detail, so its not possible to explain to them easily what you are doing when you try to address these problems.
But just counting the number of criminals who also happen to be migrants is not the answer.
Good, sober take. The notion of sovereign borders, defined and protected by laws is, in some ways, a stand alone and evergreen issue, beneath which many other issues live in systemic chains/webs. Obviously, the issue also connects and interacts with myriad high level policy issues too; it is not a completely self-contained issue that exists in isolation.
There is zero logic, rationale or shame in evaluating the issue at a given point in time and on an ongoing basis. This applies to literally ANY policy. It is a required function of a state's operation, no matter the system of governance in place. Dictators need to control their borders as well, otherwise the end of their dictatorship may be hastened exogenously, for example.
Politicization of immigration can and does occur in many, many ways, from across the ballot box to its (perhaps false) conflation with provably unrelated events (or policies). We have seen this thrown into sharp relief in the UK's recent tensions, where it is now clearly demonstrated that false assumptions have been made by some and amplified to some degrees by others through various means, leading to unjustifiable acts of criminality against communities, none of which actually bear any responsibility for the Southport crime etc.
This conflation and amplification seems both "accidental" in some cases and potentially opportunistic and maybe even knowingly, intentionally opportunistic (for specific negative effect) on the part of others. In all cases it now appears that there's no basis whatsoever to attach the Southport crime and the subsequent appearance of a guy with a knife with primary, large scale immigration policies (whether illegal or inadequately policed, controlled or limited), unless and until actual proof is unearthed. No such proof yet exists AFAIK.
One corollary of this faux conflation is to muddy both the rational and emotional waters of just the immigration issue alone, both aspects of which are valid and must be addressed and discussed, even if one questions whether "democracy" technically exists i.e. whether sober policy discussion that genuinely seeks to represent the incumbent population of the UK exists and takes place on a good faith basis. At this point, it would appear many citizens feel and actually have serious basis to question whether it does, as you clearly illustrate here very constructively and with disciplined respect to simply defined legal constructs, definition and circumstances.
There's a simple factual end point: if immigration policy is not "effective" and "appropriate" (I deliberately don't define these terms for reasons one can easily infer) it will eventually lead to two things: resource limitations being hit somewhere (which can include population decline as well as over population because population is itself a resource); tension and stand off whether organic & genuine or aggravated/artificial. I feel we've seen a glimpse of the latter. The trouble is that this glimpse is itself potentially politically opportunistically used to further other policy agendas, begging the question of how and why e.g. "problem, reaction, solution" etc.
A key tell to a potentially darker or highly questionable approach to the the issue of immigration policy is how, from this point on, the UK government deals with it without conflation and politicization. It simply needs to address it directly, clearly and transparently. Inaction or opacity creates vacuums that will be filled (likely erroneously) by other actors that can affect or filter through the mob (again). Some aspects of policy could be relatively straightforward e.g. some core maths and legal reference leads to x, y, z quotas/levels/targets/limits and existing laws are enforced and then perhaps modified via the legislative/policy/enforcement process. Levels could actually be simply arbitrarily set of the law allowed, for example, which could be as low as zero in a given period. That's not necessarily complicated. One should not be afraid to question why this issue isn't confined to the UK (see USA, CAN and Eurozone). Immigration policy ISN'T de facto "institutional/systemic racism" and no one should accept it being labelled as such unless they can show receipts. Windrush, while a specific problem set, is in some respects an active concern (conceptually) when it comes to mass deportations where analogous or potentially similar situations must be avoided through sober policy design and implementation/enforcement. "Lessons learned" is a vacuous political escape slogan but on this matter those "lessons" actually count. There's a massive difference between Windrush and the turning away at border or origin of identifiably illegal entrants, and the deportation of recently arrived illegals. Windrush wasn't that problem set in itself.
On the immigration matter (human) nature abhors a vacuum and one obviously exists. The post-Brexit sovereignty of the UK means there's now no one else to blame for this state of affairs, even taking into account any systemic impact of Brexit on UK asylum application levels.
"...as you clearly illustrate here very constructively and with disciplined respect to simply defined legal constructs, definition and circumstances."
If only others agreed with you. Prof fenton just alerted me to this attack on me - calling me racist for even writing this considered and, I believe, reasonable article:
Correct me if I’m wrong: but the vast majority of people on public transport, jabbering in a babel of languages and accents and from continents far away are LEGAL immigrants! For me, legal immigration is a bigger problem than illegal immigration since it is by far the largest proportion of immigration according to ONS. What was Brexit all about if not largely about legal European immigration? I doubt illegals will be sending their children to school, using NHS resources and buying houses, which are expensive and in short supply. Sorry if that offends the writer, it’s not meant to be taken personally.
Is this article what brought on the poisonous tweets, emails, etc. ?
No country wants (more) immigrants. Even countries that historically accepted large numbers of newcomers have closed their doors. The immigrants they now allow in, come mainly based on family relations. Which means it is the citizens of those countries that have the immigration rights.
But some 120 Million people are currently looking for a better place to live, fleeing war, violence, hunger, lack of opportunities. Lack of legal immigration options makes that they come illegally.
Quickly scanning the account leads me to suggest judicious use of block/report. The account is seemingly puerile, has a vindictive agenda, brings zero value and engages in malicious trolling.
X as a platform isn't what it's marketed as. I'm sure you understand this from a tech perspective as well as a sociological one. Below this, individual and aggregate (to some extent) "user" behaviour still incorporates clear bots that are perfectly possible to eliminate algorithmically (where "AI" as a tool should make this even easier even though the term "AI" is IMO misused often as a marketing term applied to complex algorithmic black boxes including LLMs in some cases, rather than some more sophisticated definitions of the term, of which there are several, separate from "AGI"). Yet, these bots aren't eliminated e.g. Porn bots are systematically used to limit/shut down reach. Suppression of reach is synonymous with suppression of speech. It's my belief that porn boots and other bots are actually used by the platform, possibly under "third party" direction with platform tolerance/agreement/collusion. The Twitter Files also aren't what they were marketed to be, but that's another rabbit hole.
That particular accounts looks "human" in comms style but, let's face it, if you untethered or loosened the straps on a LLM, my bet is you could get that kind of output from one. If you train a LLM on the whole of socmed data (toxic as most of it is and profane as much if it is), it would be fully capable of attacking in the profane style that account employs IMO.
We are well into the world of LLM capability that exceeds a lot of humans' reading, writing and comprehension skill. We've also created these black boxes that are capable of and willing to lie to users ("hallucinating") and seemingly unwilling to just say "I don't know" instead of lying; something that Prof Neil's recent article throws up re perplexity.ai on Covid.
There's nothing racist in your article. Nonetheless, the (weaponised/malicious) use of that label is always irksome. Block/report is a valid, rational option, human/bot notwithstanding. There's no reason to suffer in your experience/use of SocMed. It's already a by design toxic system used in proven totally nefarious ways by the highest level actors.
‘Tommy Robinson’ has been the canary in the coal mine for a long time, but as he raised politically unwelcome truths about Northern grooming gangs, Asian drug gangs in his home town of Luton, and MSM spin on supposed attacks on refugee migrants, he has to be demonised as a ‘Far Right’ (TM) extremist and destroyed.
I recently watched an interview with Jordan Peterson on UTube in which Robinson sets out his stall and explains why the ‘Establishment’ wants to him obliterated. Obviously he puts his own favourable spin on the facts, but nevertheless I came away with a somewhat changed opinion of the man, having previously swallowed the State’s version wholesale.
I encourage you to do the same.
The problem with dividing immigration into legal and illegal, with the assumption that the former is ok, is that the British population has voted consistently for lowered total immigration for more than 20 years and have been given the opposite.
Assuming that legal immigration is all well and good ignores this democratic deficit.
I much appreciate your thought and write this as a migrant (born in NZ), the son of an illegal immigrant (my father was a German Jew who lied to get a visitor visa to NZ in 1937 but was allowed to stay) and an immigration lawyer.
The bulk of my clients are partners of UK citizens or permanent residents and their children. People live overseas and fall in love or meet people visiting studying or working here. I doubt that the anti-immigrant rhetoric extends to these people, but it is still difficult and expensive and, as part of pretending to do something about immigration the last government made it more difficult.
The next category are workers. The last government pretended to take an interest in this when introducing its points based system. But for people in my profession the defects were obvious and were exploited. I cannot see why they were not also obvious to the professionals in the Home Office, but that applies to a lot of what they do. Again as part of trying to appear to be tougher on immigration the last government belatedly did something about this. Labour has said it is going to do what the Australians do, which is develop a long-term labour market policy, which predicts future skill shortages and tries to train local people to fill them. Sounds a pretty basic idea to me, but its a ten year programme. Why the last lot didn't do the same probably just comes down to their general incompetence.
My third category is students. A huge export industry - i.e.. we sell education to foreigners who come here for 3 or 4 years and pay a lot. For an unfathomable reason student visas are counted as immigration. Since virtually all of them go home afterwards this is nonsense. The frighteningly high figures would look much lower if the students were not counted.
Money.
Like every other service under the last government immigration enforcement was starved of cash. The precipitate drop in deportations is largely down to that. They let the hospitals crumble (killing babies and sending Lucy Letby to jail in the process), slashed police (meaning criminals are given a free hand), failed to add housing stock even to meet the current population needs let alone immigrants, cut the army .... , cur enforcement of tax fraud etc. This is just plain bad government. None of these were top range expenses but they were so dumb that they just slashed randomly and look at the results.
Refugees
I don't have many asylum seeking clients but the ones I do have a genuine need for protection from the wicked places they were forced to run away from. In a system where the hostility to asylum seekers is in the blood of the Home Office, about 70% are still found to be genuine. Every one I have come across needs that protection. Would those who are against granting asylum still think the same if they actually met the people fleeing here? I doubt it. They look at the big picture, but the big picture is made up of a huge number of little ones and those add up to the figures we have.
Deportation
Some clever Minister some time back reduced the minimum sentence for which deportation is compulsory from 2 years to 1 year. Got good headlines. But it did not make the slightest bit of difference to the numbers deported.
The rules on deportation are clear - serious criminal for those who have immigration status and everyone who does not. But to send them somewhere you need co-operaation at the other end. The UK and its allies have been out making enemies and destroying governments all over. Because of the internal chaos in Iraq, its practically impossible to deport there. Who caused that? Ditto Syria, Libya. But even in other places. I have a client who 10 years ago was cooperating in his deportation but the country he comes from refused to accept that he comes from there. He's been sitting in limbo for 10 years. There are a lot like that. Did you notice how deportations to Albania picked up when the UK government pulled finger and reached an agreement with Albania. By and large its all too difficult.
And of course enforcement takes systems and manpower. The former are finally getting a little better but until 3 or so years ago you could often find the Home Office losing your client's file. Manpower - austerity. It requires lots of people paid well for a very unpleasant job. Ask the union for border force officers how manpower retention is going in the age of unbalanced austerity.
Numbers
I put this in to attract your attention! I've noted above the stupidity of counting students. But the other point is that there really is no way government can control the numbers. The immigration figures are net. If a British person leaves, immigration goes down, if they come back it goes up. Maybe people are not leaving right now. But this may change. The government is not going to drive a UK citizen out to bring the net figure down. I have a few clients in South Africa. Anyone with British nationality there wants to get out. There's nothing that can be done to control that and there are a lot of them. Next it will be somewhere else. I've noted an uptick in people arriving from the US! (Both Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton would be entitled to UK citizenship - in other words, after the age of Empire there is a vast reservoir of people who can just walk in and then of course bring their families. How popular would it be to stop that?).
Crime
Yes, there are a considerable number of migrants, legal and illegal who commit crimes, some of them very nasty. But the overwhelming bulk of prisoners here are British. Immigrants do not punch above their weight in crime figures.
Although your X correspondents are able to produce some nasty examples, and I agree that they should normally be deported, there is no way to predict whether a migrant, legal or illegal is going to be a criminal and the vast majority are not. It's an easy way to explain opposition to immigration, but a lazy one. If what these people mean is that they only want white immigrants, or only Christians or want none at all (i.e. even excluding Brits returning) they should be honest and say so.
Having slagged off the last government which definitely deserved it, I should say this. It's a very very difficult policy area. We have an aging population and a reducing work force. People are not having as many children as they used to. There are elements of migration that cannot be controlled. There always are going to be a number of people who manage to arrive legally or illegally and claim refugee status and this will be higher sometimes and lower other times - the factors are push, much more than pull. Many of the electorate are thinking in slogans not detail, so its not possible to explain to them easily what you are doing when you try to address these problems.
But just counting the number of criminals who also happen to be migrants is not the answer.
Good, sober take. The notion of sovereign borders, defined and protected by laws is, in some ways, a stand alone and evergreen issue, beneath which many other issues live in systemic chains/webs. Obviously, the issue also connects and interacts with myriad high level policy issues too; it is not a completely self-contained issue that exists in isolation.
There is zero logic, rationale or shame in evaluating the issue at a given point in time and on an ongoing basis. This applies to literally ANY policy. It is a required function of a state's operation, no matter the system of governance in place. Dictators need to control their borders as well, otherwise the end of their dictatorship may be hastened exogenously, for example.
Politicization of immigration can and does occur in many, many ways, from across the ballot box to its (perhaps false) conflation with provably unrelated events (or policies). We have seen this thrown into sharp relief in the UK's recent tensions, where it is now clearly demonstrated that false assumptions have been made by some and amplified to some degrees by others through various means, leading to unjustifiable acts of criminality against communities, none of which actually bear any responsibility for the Southport crime etc.
This conflation and amplification seems both "accidental" in some cases and potentially opportunistic and maybe even knowingly, intentionally opportunistic (for specific negative effect) on the part of others. In all cases it now appears that there's no basis whatsoever to attach the Southport crime and the subsequent appearance of a guy with a knife with primary, large scale immigration policies (whether illegal or inadequately policed, controlled or limited), unless and until actual proof is unearthed. No such proof yet exists AFAIK.
One corollary of this faux conflation is to muddy both the rational and emotional waters of just the immigration issue alone, both aspects of which are valid and must be addressed and discussed, even if one questions whether "democracy" technically exists i.e. whether sober policy discussion that genuinely seeks to represent the incumbent population of the UK exists and takes place on a good faith basis. At this point, it would appear many citizens feel and actually have serious basis to question whether it does, as you clearly illustrate here very constructively and with disciplined respect to simply defined legal constructs, definition and circumstances.
There's a simple factual end point: if immigration policy is not "effective" and "appropriate" (I deliberately don't define these terms for reasons one can easily infer) it will eventually lead to two things: resource limitations being hit somewhere (which can include population decline as well as over population because population is itself a resource); tension and stand off whether organic & genuine or aggravated/artificial. I feel we've seen a glimpse of the latter. The trouble is that this glimpse is itself potentially politically opportunistically used to further other policy agendas, begging the question of how and why e.g. "problem, reaction, solution" etc.
A key tell to a potentially darker or highly questionable approach to the the issue of immigration policy is how, from this point on, the UK government deals with it without conflation and politicization. It simply needs to address it directly, clearly and transparently. Inaction or opacity creates vacuums that will be filled (likely erroneously) by other actors that can affect or filter through the mob (again). Some aspects of policy could be relatively straightforward e.g. some core maths and legal reference leads to x, y, z quotas/levels/targets/limits and existing laws are enforced and then perhaps modified via the legislative/policy/enforcement process. Levels could actually be simply arbitrarily set of the law allowed, for example, which could be as low as zero in a given period. That's not necessarily complicated. One should not be afraid to question why this issue isn't confined to the UK (see USA, CAN and Eurozone). Immigration policy ISN'T de facto "institutional/systemic racism" and no one should accept it being labelled as such unless they can show receipts. Windrush, while a specific problem set, is in some respects an active concern (conceptually) when it comes to mass deportations where analogous or potentially similar situations must be avoided through sober policy design and implementation/enforcement. "Lessons learned" is a vacuous political escape slogan but on this matter those "lessons" actually count. There's a massive difference between Windrush and the turning away at border or origin of identifiably illegal entrants, and the deportation of recently arrived illegals. Windrush wasn't that problem set in itself.
On the immigration matter (human) nature abhors a vacuum and one obviously exists. The post-Brexit sovereignty of the UK means there's now no one else to blame for this state of affairs, even taking into account any systemic impact of Brexit on UK asylum application levels.
"...as you clearly illustrate here very constructively and with disciplined respect to simply defined legal constructs, definition and circumstances."
If only others agreed with you. Prof fenton just alerted me to this attack on me - calling me racist for even writing this considered and, I believe, reasonable article:
https://x.com/Jessrose19811/status/1822198265082724529
It turns out this anonymous account that is pretending to be @JessLovesMJK has been stalking and attacking me online for months
Correct me if I’m wrong: but the vast majority of people on public transport, jabbering in a babel of languages and accents and from continents far away are LEGAL immigrants! For me, legal immigration is a bigger problem than illegal immigration since it is by far the largest proportion of immigration according to ONS. What was Brexit all about if not largely about legal European immigration? I doubt illegals will be sending their children to school, using NHS resources and buying houses, which are expensive and in short supply. Sorry if that offends the writer, it’s not meant to be taken personally.
Is this article what brought on the poisonous tweets, emails, etc. ?
No country wants (more) immigrants. Even countries that historically accepted large numbers of newcomers have closed their doors. The immigrants they now allow in, come mainly based on family relations. Which means it is the citizens of those countries that have the immigration rights.
But some 120 Million people are currently looking for a better place to live, fleeing war, violence, hunger, lack of opportunities. Lack of legal immigration options makes that they come illegally.
Quickly scanning the account leads me to suggest judicious use of block/report. The account is seemingly puerile, has a vindictive agenda, brings zero value and engages in malicious trolling.
X as a platform isn't what it's marketed as. I'm sure you understand this from a tech perspective as well as a sociological one. Below this, individual and aggregate (to some extent) "user" behaviour still incorporates clear bots that are perfectly possible to eliminate algorithmically (where "AI" as a tool should make this even easier even though the term "AI" is IMO misused often as a marketing term applied to complex algorithmic black boxes including LLMs in some cases, rather than some more sophisticated definitions of the term, of which there are several, separate from "AGI"). Yet, these bots aren't eliminated e.g. Porn bots are systematically used to limit/shut down reach. Suppression of reach is synonymous with suppression of speech. It's my belief that porn boots and other bots are actually used by the platform, possibly under "third party" direction with platform tolerance/agreement/collusion. The Twitter Files also aren't what they were marketed to be, but that's another rabbit hole.
That particular accounts looks "human" in comms style but, let's face it, if you untethered or loosened the straps on a LLM, my bet is you could get that kind of output from one. If you train a LLM on the whole of socmed data (toxic as most of it is and profane as much if it is), it would be fully capable of attacking in the profane style that account employs IMO.
We are well into the world of LLM capability that exceeds a lot of humans' reading, writing and comprehension skill. We've also created these black boxes that are capable of and willing to lie to users ("hallucinating") and seemingly unwilling to just say "I don't know" instead of lying; something that Prof Neil's recent article throws up re perplexity.ai on Covid.
There's nothing racist in your article. Nonetheless, the (weaponised/malicious) use of that label is always irksome. Block/report is a valid, rational option, human/bot notwithstanding. There's no reason to suffer in your experience/use of SocMed. It's already a by design toxic system used in proven totally nefarious ways by the highest level actors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXUbvJsJuZA
What???