Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain outpaces Reform UK by merging grassroots right-wing factions, polling at a 60%+ ceiling on net-negative migration, and rejecting Farage’s "grifter" compromises—like halting deportations for rape gangs or ignoring his base’s demands. The speaker slams Farage’s inconsistent leadership, comparing him to Blairite establishment figures, while praising Lowe’s stability, family values, and unyielding stance. Demographic power over ideological purity is key, they argue, as Britain’s cultural identity—rooted in Anglo-Saxon myths like Lord of the Rings—fades under liberal policies, leaving a void only pragmatic, heritage-focused movements can fill. [Automatically generated summary]
When this road started with Nigel Farage, and I remember a couple of years ago hearing you on your Lotus Eaters podcast saying, I want Nigel Farage to take over the Tories.
I want him to be Prime Minister.
We all went through that phase, I think many of us.
Yeah.
What was the moment for you where you got that weird hairs on the back of your neck feeling?
And you went, this is not what I signed up for.
What is going on here?
To be honest with you, I've always been a bit skeptical of Farage, but I tried to keep it on the down low because I didn't want to be someone who was pouring water on what might have been a good thing.
So I, and you can go back and you can find videos where I'm mildly critical of Farage in the last couple of years because he seems to always basically have been the last man of the Blairite era and not really willing to accept that this is a project and paradigm that has come run to its logical conclusion and run out of road.
Did you ever watch Men Behaving Badly?
I did.
I watched the first season was rubbish, but when Neil Morrissey joined, I watched it after that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And then you've seen Love Actually, right?
I have.
Well, these are sort of like the two Janus faces of the Blair era, I would say.
That's so true.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Keir Starmer is the love actually male feminist type, and Nigel Farage is the man behaving badly.
Yeah, he's a lad, but it's all safe and contained within the same paradigm.
So Keir Starmer can shame Nigel Farage, but Nigel Farage can't really shame Keir Starmer because Keir Starmer is the most authentic version of that kind of morality.
And it tolerates the men behaving badly, but it keeps them at the bottom of the pile.
It keeps them at an inferior status.
Because these guys, though they are quote-unquote masculine, it's a very lad masculine, very domesticated masculine.
You're going to do your 95 office job, you'll read loaded magazine, and then you'll go out on the piss on a Saturday night, a Friday and Saturday night, but come Monday morning, you're back on the plantation and you're back in your cubicle and your female boss is still hempecking you and that's your life forever, right?
And Nigel Farage, Keir Starmer represents the love actually paradigm, the male feminist who's a progressive, who has transcended the evil, patriarchal ways of the past and is kind of insufferable, just a bit of an insufferable prick.
And everyone hates that character.
But there's a moral consensus that, yes, that's better than the man behaving badly.
Well, Keir Starmer represents the failure of the love actually types.
They've toastly bricked it.
David Cameron was one of them.
Tony Blair was one of them, obviously.
And so the front moral face of the paradigm has crashed and burned.
No, it's not good.
You're not producing good things.
You're producing a world that men hate.
You're producing a world that women hate.
You're dispossessing us of our country.
You've ruined the economy.
You've created a weird sort of quasi-dictatorial managerial bureaucratic government that is out of control and is doing whatever the hell it likes with no oversight whatsoever.
And there's no way back for you.
You're love actually, play by the rules, be the most upstanding progressive man you can be.
Well, I mean, that's getting loads of women raped.
There are loads and loads of rape victims to that.
Now, the man behaving badly, in principle, agrees with everything the Love Actually Man thinks.
In principle, he agrees.
He knows he should be this, he should be that, he should be the other.
But there's a kind of underlying reality where it's like, yeah, but, you know, actually, people do like the kind of Jack the Lad who goes out in the town, goes out in the piss, has a couple of cigars, and tells it like it is.
Because there's always this fiction in the entire paradigm that isn't really true.
And so Farage, what he's doing with Restore is coming to save the Blairite paradigm.
He is coming to fix the errors of the Love Actually men.
The men behaving badly are now stepping up to solve all these problems.
Now, and you can see this in every way that Restore operate.
I mean, he literally called it Reform Operate.
He literally called it.
Sorry, yeah.
Well, it's the same.
Reform UK.
I mean, one, he's committed to the UKification of Britain.
And why does he want to reform it?
Because it's broken.
It's not that it's bad.
It's not that it's not working as intended.
It's just not working properly.
And so it's his job to come in and fix it.
And so what do we get from Robert Jemrick today?
Oh, I'm keeping the Office of Budget Responsibility and the quote-unquote independence of the Bank of England.
There was something else that he announced as well that was just commitment to Blairism.
And it's like, oh, okay.
The triple lock, wasn't it?
That was right.
The triple lock.
And he had Swallow Braveman saying, yeah, I'm going to abolish the Equalities Office, the Equalities Minister, and the Equalities Act.
And then Zia Youssef went on Talk TV and said, well, yeah, but we're going to keep everything.
And it wasn't Talk TV.
It was Victoria Derbyshire.
We're going to keep everything.
She was like, so it's just going to be the same thing with a different name then.
And it's like, yeah.
They're not going to get rid of Ofcom.
They're not going to get rid of the Kwangocracy.
They're not going to make the government ministers the sovereigns of their departments.
I mean, Keir Starmer, you remember a couple of months ago where Keir Starmer says, yeah, I pull a lever and nothing happens.
It's like, yeah, welcome to governance, Mr. Prime Minister.
This is the world your party created.
This is what you have been advocating for the whole time.
I mean, they say they, did they, in fact, do they say they're going to leave the ECHR?
I'm sure they do.
Reform do, yeah.
Reform do, yeah.
I'm sure they do.
But again, I don't know.
I'm starting to think that this is just Blairism 3.0 now after Cameron's Blairism 2.0.
Because what they're trying to do is save what was created.
Like, a genuinely insurgent party would be literally like David Starkey recommends, drawing up the Great Repeal Act and being like, well, everything that you've ever done is going on the list.
And day one, we're passing this bill.
It's going to be top line of our manifesto, so the Lords can do nothing about it.
Day one, that's going through, and there will be fucking hell to pay.
All of this is going, because unluckily for you, Parliament is still technically sovereign.
But Farage, of course, is not doing any of that.
He is dithering around the edges.
He's trying to save a dying paradigm.
And honestly, I think he's just come out and really revealed his hand.
I mean, another thing that the Blairites introduced to British politics that nobody's really very thankful for is calling people racists.
Oh my God.
It didn't take reform long to show their true colours there.
I was one of them.
Dan Tubb did a bit on their lotus features the other day.
I think it was yesterday.
Yeah.
I mean, look, I've said this.
I said this on Nick Dixon's show the other day.
I don't know why Matt Goodwin, a parliamentary candidate, is going after basically a shit poster online like me.
But the point is, I think they want to try and make it like we are the restore establishment.
And it's like, no, we're just fans.
You know what I mean?
We're not the people running this thing.
And all I did was laugh at the optics of this because they forget they signed up as like reformers, this British nationalist party.
They've forgotten that.
And it's a bunch of people from migrant communities who are not a single British person in sight on these shots that they're putting out.
This wasn't taken by an amateur.
He's promoting this stuff.
I just laughed and said reform UK.
And I thought Dan's analogy to that was perfect, where he said, you know, the N-word has been used to keep down.
Obviously, it's a clip from Tropic Thunder where he says the N-word's been used to keep down black people for 400 years.
He said, well, to be fair, for the last 40 years, the R word, i.e. racist, has been used to keep down our people.
And that is true.
You can't deny that.
People for so long have said racist, and it means you have to shut up and you're not worth listening to, and we're going to ignore you and all the rest of it.
And now finally, it means your concerns aren't valid.
Exactly.
And now there's someone Rupert Lowe's finally turned around and said, I don't care.
And it's like, wow.
Wow.
We feel relieved.
I was going to ask you about that, but you brought it up anyway.
Yeah, well, I mean, this is the sort of capstone of the proof of the Blairism of reform.
The fact that there are so many examples of Svella Braverman, Robert Jemrick, and then their sort of surrogates in the media like Alex Phillips saying ethnicity is obviously real.
Matt Goodwin as well, sorry, ethnicity is real.
There is an English ethnicity, Welsh ethnicity, Scottish ethnicity, and this is separate to the British civic identity.
And they recognize the difference.
And so them walking this back, because this is them, Restore's just the restore activists.
This has just been their point.
Like, well, this is our country for us.
And we, the people, are the native inhabitants of these islands.
And that's a really tepid, moderate thing to say.
There's nothing controversial about that.
And yet, as if you were talking to Ash Sarkar or bloody Zach Polanski, every single one of them has called us racists.
It's like, right, okay, well, we can see that you're not on the right side of the question, are you?
And I mean, the right wing side of the question, as well as the correct side, you're on the left-wing side.
Calling people racist is what a left-winger does.
So I'm sorry, I'm not very impressed.
I have to say.
I agree.
Obviously, there was two things.
There was Matt Goodwin saying that, and obviously the responses to it, where people were just kind of like, is this all you have?
Is this what it is now?
It wasn't just Matt Goodwin again.
Lalia Cunningham went on that she said, I'm not ethnically English.
Swella Braveman wrote an article.
I haven't seen Swella actually calling anyone racist, to be honest.
No, but she hasn't.
No, but the rest of them, basically, to a man, have.
And it's like, right, okay.
I was going to ask, did you see the Alex Phillips interview last night with Young Bob?
I did.
Yeah.
What happened to her, right?
Because Alex Phillips, I mean, I put the post up and she responded to it and got piled on for it.
She literally, she wrote an article just a few months ago saying there are ethnic and genetic differences between us as peoples.
I mean, she was talking about black people and white people, essentially.
But if you can recognize that, Alex, surely you can recognize that there is an ethnic people of the British Isles who are a connected family that are different from, say, the continent of Europe or Africa or, you know, and so on.
So again, now she's saying, now she's basically saying, oh, well, you just don't know who's actually British.
And as if it's horrific what young Bob said.
She lost her mind.
And I'm sitting there going, is this, do you have to do this to be in reform?
Do you have to swear allegiance and say whatever the, for lack of a better term, Furah commands you to?
Is that how this works?
And don't forget that Nigel Farage came out and said, being English is just determined by how you feel about being English.
If you feel like you're English, then you're English.
It's like, okay, but if I feel like a woman, I'm also a woman, Nigel.
Right?
This is the transgender argument being applied to nationality.
Now, the thing, the problem they have is that what's happened here is that they've collapsed a load of different layers into one word.
And they said, right, okay, well, like Alex said, you know, are you saying my stepsister isn't British?
Okay, Alex, why did you bring her up?
I don't know anything about your stepsister, but I'm going to guess that your father married a foreign woman and therefore another woman became your stepsister.
And therefore, you know that she's not British, which is why you brought her up.
And when we say British, we mean ethnically from England, Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland, right?
That's why you brought them up.
And they all showed it when Jim Ratcliffe was like, oh, we've been colonized.
And they're like, oh, without immigrants, you wouldn't have a football team.
It's like, right, so you know who the immigrants are then, right?
You've identified the immigrants.
So, you know, we're not playing this game.
We know that you know.
And we know that before this issue came up, you were happy to be the right-wing outrider and say, yeah, well, there is an ethnicity here.
And Swella Braveman isn't part of it.
Lalia Cullingham isn't part of it.
And Alex Phillips is.
And they all knew it until it came to someone slightly to their right saying precisely the same thing.
And what they're worried about is the collapsing of the sort of the civic layer of life, the sort of tribal layer of life, and then the ethnic layer of life all collapsing into the same thing.
Now, I don't think this is going to happen, right?
Basically, they're afraid of everyone adopting the Steve Laws position.
And I just don't think that's going to happen because I just don't think, I mean, I think Steve Laws thinks that's not going to happen.
Because Steve Laws, I think, understands he's just being the most extreme interpretation of British patriotism and nationalism in order to drag the conversation in a single direction.
I mean, he said it as much himself.
So it's not even that I think Steve Laws thinks this is actionable policy, but the point that underlies it is that ethnically, the British people are feeling insecure in their own country.
As in, we are now probably below 70% English in England.
That's not acceptable.
And I said this on Andrew Gold's podcast and on the David Starkey podcast they did.
We are entitled to demographic and ethnic security as much as anyone else.
Every people in their own countries are entitled to demographic security to know that they're not being ethnically cleansed in their own country by a mass influx of foreigners.
Continuity Of Liberal Values00:02:49
And no other country would do this unless they are committed to something else other than the nation.
I mean, our leaders, Blairite Project, is committed to upholding a series of values and institutions.
Because of their extreme liberal values, they are insistent that everyone has healthcare, everyone has pension, everyone has Social Security, everyone has a house, everyone has the ability to get a job.
And if they don't get a job, they have enough money to live a fucking comfortable life is genuinely the Blairite set of values.
And to uphold this, they know that they need a pension system, a welfare state, the NHS, all these institutions to uphold these values.
And that's all they care about.
Literally all.
So, as far as they're concerned, if the entire population was exchanged with the entire population of Papua New Guinea and the New Guineans were just taught how to run the NHS and run the pension system, run the civil service, they'd be like, well, I mean, everything's working as intended, and yet this country would be over.
Like, and I mean, obviously, getting past the practical, obviously, millions of foreign people are not going to run British institutions in the way that British people run them.
Getting past that immediately, there's something else that we carry in this country that isn't just the institutions.
And it is the metaphysical weight of a thousand years of continuity in the fact that in every other generation, the generation then acted as the stewards in trust of the spiritual and not just material, but genuinely the spiritual continuity of this country.
They fought for it, they died for it, they passed it on to us, and we're just going to give it away.
And once it's gone, it can never come back.
We have a thousand years of unbroken continuity here, more than, and we're on the cusp of just giving it away.
And that will be, I mean, people in the future, in like 10,000 years, will look back and go, oh my God, look at this English-speaking people, whoever these were.
They wrote in this language, and we've got a few scraps from it.
But this is everywhere.
Like, these people conquered the world.
These people had colonies of Americas and in Australia and New Zealand and in Africa.
And why don't we know more about these people?
And when the archaeologists of the future eventually find enough information, they'll be like, oh, these people just gave up on themselves.
They committed national suicide and willingly allowed the sort of torporous promises of the modern welfare state to just carry them off into oblivion forever.
Culturally British Welfare Challenges00:08:49
And I'm sorry, I just don't want that.
I just don't want it.
You know, I want to know that my children, my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren, in the next thousand years, will live in England.
We'll at least be able to live in England.
We'll have an England to live in.
And the same with the rest of it.
I just don't want us to do the most ridiculous and harmful thing we could possibly do to our national patrimony.
I just don't want that.
And if that makes me a racist, then I don't care.
I just don't care.
It's non-negotiable.
I asked Harrison Pitt about this the other day, and I'd be interested to hear your take because I think reform's reactions to restore Britain are really opening them up to some easy kind of ghouls against them.
One, obviously, now that apparently they don't know who are British, but basically if someone's born here, they're British.
So obviously we can just say, well, do you think Axel Woodokabana is British?
You know, I think everyone in their right mind would say, no, he's the son of two Rwandan migrants who shouldn't have ever been here in the first place.
But they are forced to go to these positions.
And another one is reform for the longest time now have been saying we're on the cusp of a terrible judgment day event.
This is the final election.
We have to get this.
This is the only election we have.
However, if you don't believe that ethnic replacement of the British people or English people, however you want to frame it, is a problem, which they don't seem to think is a problem anymore, then what is the rush?
Because everything else can be changed, right?
Yeah.
Again, I think it's worth being nuanced about the cultural and the layers contained in the word British, because there are a lot of a cultural layer is a layer that is there.
So, for example, Rishi Senak is culturally British.
I hate to say David Lamy is culturally British.
I mean, it's my fondest wish that one day David Lamy gets offered a reality TV show where he gets dumped in Africa on his own with a cameraman and is forced to survive.
Can you even imagine?
Can you even imagine?
Well, if we all tune it in, right?
God, it'd be amazing TV, but he'd be fucking useless and probably either starved or scalped within a week, right?
He wouldn't know what he was doing, right?
Because he may be obviously genetically of African stock, but culturally, he's British, unfortunately.
And so they will make the argument in that way about Axel Ruda Cabana.
However, Ruda Cabana seems to have taken his presence here with great resentment.
And he seems to have genuinely hated the white British population.
So there's some pretty good arguments that actually just because someone is born in Britain doesn't mean that they want to be here or they fit in.
And in fact, as we saw from the Islamic radicals, it's the second and third generations that become way more radical because they're still living in Islamic households.
And then they're being told, yeah, but we're living in this country.
It's like, okay, why?
Why, if you're trying to teach me to be a good Muslim, am I living in a Kafir country?
A country that is basically heretical.
Everything about this country is wrong if you're trying to be a good Muslim.
So why the fuck are they here?
Why have you brought me here, mum and dad?
You know, you can see why the resentment and the anger would build.
And you can see why it's radicalizing as well.
Like, you know, we allow the radical clerics to proselytize.
And, well, they make a good argument from the perspective of Islam.
Like, yeah, this is a fallen country.
What are we doing here?
We've got to do something about it.
But anyway, getting off the subject of Islam.
Yeah, there's a real problem with this.
Now, I'm not saying that there's an easy fix either.
I don't think there's a single policy that you can implement to really solve this problem.
But I think a good test of who has properly imbibed our values and who hasn't is how do you feel about welfare, bro?
Because the average British person kind of hates welfare.
They don't like welfare sponges.
They don't like people who are just benefiting off the system while they go out to work.
They accept that they should...
Sorry.
Sorry, jump in there.
I was just going to say, I think there's also an element of people who are on welfare, like in work benefits.
They don't like the fact that they can't afford to live without them.
Yep, there's all sorts of, but it's the people who aren't in work and just happy to sit on benefits forever.
That's generally considered humiliating to the average Brit.
That's socially humiliating.
And yet we have entire communities that are just here for the benefits.
So basically, we need to severely restrict the availability of these benefits.
Now, what I'm not saying is people shouldn't be given any help if they find themselves unexpectedly out of work or sick or something like that.
But it is definitely the case that a quarter of the population is not disabled.
We didn't lose a war.
We haven't got millions of cripples walking around missing legs because they were shot off on the Eastern Front or something.
What we have done is allowed people to game the system, take advantage of the system, and take us for mugs, right?
This is self-evident.
So basically tightening up the requirements to be able to access these things is a really good litmus test because I think that as soon as you're not able to just get free money from the British government, millions of people in this country will actually leave of their own volition because it's no longer worth their time being here.
Another thing we should do is tax remittances.
No, we're not having it that half of Somalia's economy is based on money that they sent home, at least from us.
Why is that happening at all?
I mean, this really strengthens Ratcliffe's argument that this is a colony of foreign peoples.
Because part of being a colony is extracting wealth and sending it back to the mother country.
And that's what remittances are.
So I don't think we should.
I mean, I don't know if you can ban it outright without quite a lot of pushback.
But, you know, like a 35% tax or something, make it that it's just not worth their time would be a very strong incentive not to bother.
So, because I mean, there are going to be a small number of people who, you know, a minority of them who are genuine sort of anglophiles and who love Britain and who this is the right way of life.
No, they agree.
You shouldn't be on benefits.
You should get up, get a job, get a, you know, be an alarm clock Briton, as they say, and get to work and run a business or whatever it is.
And that's, that's fine.
I don't mind, you know, that's not going to be the overwhelming majority.
Especially in the way that we've let people in.
I mean, I see them in Swindon Town Center all day, every day, just sitting around doing nothing in coffee shops.
Just sitting there, just drinking coffee all day.
And I'm like, I know that's my money.
I know that's my money.
And that's not even trying to address, you know, crime or illicit drugs or the, you know, the vape shops and the barbershops and all this sort of stuff.
Just turning off the free money will be a huge incentive for millions of people to go home.
And the great thing about this is it's non-invasive.
You know, there's nothing to protest about because it's not something that is, you know, a riot van rocks up and drags like an old granny out of her house or something like that.
So you don't get any bad press.
No, we're just turning off the free money and there's literally no good argument that you should have it.
Obviously, investigations need to be done into all of the illicit businesses.
When you cut that supply of money off, again, they're just going to go home.
Kirstan's like, we're going to smash the gangs.
It's like, yeah, with the military here, like literally, like Trump should do with the Mexican cartels, if the French and the Dutch or whoever are just going to let them through, send a crack squad over and shoot them.
Fucking shoot them.
They are literal drug smuggling, people smuggling, you know, who knows what the hell they do.
And give them a warning and then just use the military.
There's all sorts of things you can do to just incentivize people just to not bother coming.
Because really the thing that's actually attracting everyone is our weakness, our laxity, our permissiveness.
You've seen the TikToks where they say they literally send TikTok videos to one another.
They post them and say, come to Britain, come to France.
You can get access to white women.
You get access to money.
They'll put you in a hotel and the government will protect you from anything happening to you.
And it's like, okay, so this is just a giant, jolly adventure to these people.
This is just a giant, jolly adventure.
And the second that we just come down hard, eject all those people and tell them, look, if you cross that channel, we've got a gunship that we are just going to blow you up with.
Don't test us.
That'll end it.
The end of it.
End of the Jolly Adventure00:14:51
And the second that the hostile environment becomes tangible, millions of them are like, yeah, okay, I think the party's over, guys.
I think it's just time to leave.
And that's all we need to do, really, to get the problem significantly under control.
Absolutely.
I mean, I'm quite keen to hear from the store in terms of this halal slash kosher ban non-stun slaughter because I genuinely believe if we have an import ban on that as well, which Harrison Pitt alluded to the other night, that they're looking to do that, it would mean that we would become basically the first country in the Western world to completely ban everything to do with non-stun slaughter and what that the effect of that could be huge in terms of them just saying, well, we'd rather go and live somewhere else, you know, if we can't get our food here.
It'd be massive.
It's really exciting times ahead.
So let's talk about the store then.
Over the last week, obviously, I mean, they're an out 70,000 members now today.
What did you make of it?
Did you expect it to be this explosive?
I did actually.
I'd spoken previously to all of the lads around Restore and Rupert Lowe and Alistair about this.
And I was probably about, I don't know, six months ago, something like that, encouraging Rupert in particular, like, we need a party.
We need something we can solidly vote for, something we can solidly rally people to.
And they didn't want to do it because it would make them alien to all of the other parties in parliament.
Because as a movement, because you don't threaten them electorally, actually lots of them can get on with the movement and can put Rupert on various committees in Parliament and things like that.
But as soon as you become a rival party, you alienate yourself from all the other parties.
So I understood their reason, but I was told that I'd made the most persuasive case for starting a party.
And then when it came out, again, less than a week ago, and it was, oh, it was electric, wasn't it?
Like, it was the video Rupert put out was so good and so powerful, hitting all of the right points and exposing a vast vacuum in our political sphere that it should have been Nigel Farage filling, but he wasn't.
He had absconded from it.
The serious, grim determination that unfortunately everything is terrible.
I'm going to treat you like an adult and tell you what you already know and promise you that we are going to fix it, but it's going to hurt.
I'm not promising you comfort.
This is going to be painful, but we will come out of it on the other side.
And that was like with Jordan Peterson.
That's the message people wanted to hear.
They knew it for themselves.
They've always known it.
Everyone knows that fixing this problem is going to be a really long and difficult job.
And there are going to be tears.
There are going to be people ruined.
There's going to be a lot that happens.
And we still have to do it anyway.
Agrees.
And yeah, wise words in terms of Rupert in particular.
I think the message of this is not going to be easy.
I think people were wanting to hear that.
I think people wanted a bit more honesty.
And let's be honest, when people talk about things like Margaret Thatcher and so on, and any great, even on the left, when they talk about, you know, their great political hero, Clement Attlee, or whatever, he never said this is going to be absolutely easy.
It was always, you know, we have to work for this and all the rest of it.
Carl, can I just ask you, Restore Britain itself, then we are currently seeing, and I say we, because I've just been supporting Rupert for the longest time now.
We have a job to do, which is obviously in stages.
And I think the first stage is to supplant reform as the obvious choice for people on the patriotic side of politics.
Right now, what would you say to any reformers who are kind of not in the cult, not completely cultified or whatever, but what would you say to them in terms of convincing them to jump across?
Well, there was internal polling done of reform members and only a third of them were actually personally committed to Nigel Farage as the leader, which I thought was really interesting, actually.
I would have thought it would have been way more than that.
But basically, you know he's not the guy.
You know that he has always been the Jack the lad who, when the going has got tough, he's checked out.
I mean, how many times has he retired from being the party leader in his various parties now?
How many times has he said, no, I've retired, I've retired, I've retired.
Only to be practically the only person on the British right wing who could have done anything.
And we've got to the point now where he has basically revealed that he is just a part of the Blairite establishment.
It's been clear that Nigel Farage.
I mean, I watched a video from a radical leftist, and I mean a real radical leftist called Maximilian Robespierre on YouTube.
And I don't know who the chap actually is.
He's just using the name in the French Revolutionary.
And he hates Nigel Farage, but he doesn't hate Nigel Farage for the reasons you think he would, right?
Because he came out in this video and said, quote, I don't know if Nigel Farage is racist.
Now, he bloody well knows that everyone else on the right is racist, but he doesn't think Nigel Farage is, because he thinks Farage might just be doing it for the money.
And it's like, right.
So if Nigel Farage isn't even persuading his most mortal enemies that he's actually their enemy, how can this guy be trusted to be the guy to fix the country?
How is it we can think that someone as wishy-washy and flip-flopping as Nigel Farage has inconsistent and honestly morally dubious?
Like, genuinely, there's a real question of character around Nigel Farage that nobody is willing to properly address, but has to be done at some point in that he acts like a villain.
He has backstabbed so many of the people around him because he thought they were a challenge to him.
It's like, sorry, that's evil vizier behavior.
Like, what are we doing here?
I actually don't want someone who, I mean, Rupert Lowe is just the latest example, but there's such a long list of bodies that Farage has created through backstabbing his way up the right-wing political pole.
And it's like, I don't know if I want that guy, man.
And suddenly we have an alternative who is way more consistent, way more constant, way more virtuous on a personal level.
Rupert Lowe's been married for 40 years, has his kids, has his grandkids, has his businesses, no scandals, right?
Is completely unfazed by Emily Maitless and the media class.
He does not back down from them at all, and they've got nothing on him.
He can just say, I don't care, this is what we're going to do, and your opinion on that, whether that's racist or not.
It's just not really very relevant, actually.
So, you know, shut up and get out of the way.
Nigel Farage just can't do that.
And so Nigel Farage is just, he's just bent the knee on all of these substantive issues.
And Rupert Lowe hasn't.
And it's just clear that Rupert Lowe has this seriousness that's needed to get the job done, whereas Nigel Farage doesn't.
And what I really feel bad for the people in the lower ranks of reform, right?
All the branch managers and the actual activists who have signed up for free.
They spent their money.
They put their hours in.
They've pounded the streets.
And I'm told all the time that the headquarters treats them like shit.
And every time I hear this, and I'm just like, oh, it annoys me.
Because obviously, I was in UKIP.
Like, all of those people are really good, well-meaning people who just work really hard and do the things that need to be done and are the unsung heroes of any political movement.
And apparently, reform just takes them for granted, treats them like shit, and kicks them out the second they become politically inconvenient.
And I'm like, look, man, I hate the way that he runs his party.
And I could never run a party that way myself.
I could never do anything like that myself.
I hate it.
So all I'm saying is I think that Farage is morally weak.
I think he's politically weak.
And I think he's personally weak.
And I think he's running what is essentially a villainous enterprise.
And he has done his entire career.
And I think that he's just a really good grifter.
He's a really good con artist who gets people on board and then essentially never delivers.
I mean, like, standing down to Boris was really annoying, I've got to say.
I can see why he did it at the time.
But in retrospect, it's really fucking annoying, you know, because if Farage had had the balls, if Farage had had half of the balls that Rupert Lowe has, he could have flipped him.
Like, he could have done it all then.
But anyway, I shouldn't go on, you know, tangents, but like, it's a consistent pattern with Nigel.
It's a consistent pattern that I'm really tired of.
And it is time that we actually choose something that is worthwhile, has roots, has a trunk, and can flourish.
And I do genuinely think that thing is restore.
I agree again.
And you'll be surprised to hear.
Look, I've said this myself for the longest time, but if you just track back the just list of events that have happened in the, I mean, it hasn't been sort of hit and miss with reform.
It's just been miss after miss after miss.
And the letdowns have continued.
And I mean, the latest one was just yesterday when he announced that, you know, the reason I got rid of Rupert Lowe net this time, it wasn't the bullying.
It wasn't because he wanted to be prime minister.
It wasn't because he wanted to take over the party.
All the things I've previously said.
It was, and I got a KC to confirm that I paid for.
It was because he wanted to deport rape gang families.
Now, again, I think Charlie even brought, Charlie downs even brought it up on your show.
This is popular with the British public.
We don't want rape gang communities in this country.
So bearing that in mind, and you bear in find the reform membership base don't want even a debate over illegal immigration.
They all should go.
And they actually want legal immigrants to come as well.
You sit there and think, why do you think Nigel Farage feels he can just take this for granted?
Why do you think he doesn't care what his base think?
It's really baffling, isn't it?
Because, I mean, like, Rupert Lowe wasn't being punitive, right?
He wasn't just saying foreigners gone for the sake of foreigners gone.
He was saying people who are complicit in rape gangs should be removed from this country.
Now, that's a really uncontroversial statement, actually.
The average person, if you walk up someone on the street and say, do you think that people complicit with rape gangs should be deported?
They'll say, obviously.
I mean, they'll probably say they should be hanged.
But at the very minimum, they'll say, yes, obviously.
Why aren't they being?
And it's like, well, for some reason, Nigel Farage has leapt in front of this bullet and is taking it for them just because they were born here.
And it's like, sorry, but they have dual citizenship.
Because Pakistan, to take the particular example, has blood-right citizenship.
It is not that you were born in Pakistan and therefore you have Pakistani passport.
You have to have a Pakistani passport by having Pakistani parents.
It is done literally through the right of the blood, which is the same way that Britain does it, by the way.
We do it through the right of the blood as well.
So if they have this second citizenship, which they do, why don't we remove the citizenship we've given them and send them back?
That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, I think.
And the fact that Farage, again, just showing he's not the guy.
He doesn't have the stones for it.
And it's what actually needs to be done.
Otherwise, we are permitting communities in which there are thousands of rapists, of children, just wandering around free right now.
I mean, Farage promised to do the rape gang inquiry, which he didn't do.
Rupert Lowe did do it.
And what we, I mean, we knew this anyway, but it was just so awful how it was a community effort to run these rape gangs.
And it was cousins, brothers, neighbours, people who know each other who get together and repeatedly in the course of an evening rape a child.
And I'm sorry.
Like, arresting the ringleader is not enough.
Everyone else who raped the child has to be sent back.
I mean, and that, that's a very moderate thing to say, right?
Because there could be way worse things that I could be advising happen to those men.
But while they're not, we are just allowing these child rapists to have the freedom of our country, even though they've done what is possibly the worst thing a person can do.
So I'm sorry, this is a scar on the country and it has to be dealt with.
And Farage is just not the guy.
He will not deal with it.
Again, agree, Carl.
Fantastic.
Right.
So Alexandra's going to ask a quick question.
While she does that, I'm going to have a look through everyone else's questions and we'll start going through some of them.
Carl, listen, I'll be asking you the questions.
I'll filter through the good ones.
But if you don't want to answer something, it's absolutely fine.
Just say I'm not interested.
It's totally fine.
I'm sure I can answer.
It's fine.
Alexandra, you go ahead and I'll start having a look through.
Oh, okay.
Hello, Carl.
Pleasure to meet you.
Well, kind of online.
I watched your podcast yesterday and I was absolutely screaming at the screen.
Yes, I agree.
Yes, I agree.
You were brilliant as usual.
Thank you.
And I hope your wife's recovering as well because I understand she's not been very well and yourself as well.
So, yeah, I hope she's recovering well.
I just wanted to ask, Restore Britain's pushing hard on migration, as we know, and zero tolerances for illegals.
What do you think of their approach to legal migration?
And if you had any advice for them, what would it be?
As I understand it, Rupert Lowe, as he said in his video, it's not enough to simply end immigration.
It must be reversed.
So not only do we have to make sure, I mean, at the moment, for example, like the Labour government were crowing because they only let in 850,000 people last year only.
And this is technically a reduction in the amount of migration we're allowed into the country.
Rupert Lowe has said that essentially we need what will amount to just an end to immigration.
And then millions of people have to be encouraged to go home.
Smaller Parties' Role Crisis00:11:17
I think that's honestly, I think that's a very strong position.
I think that's the right position.
Because not only does it set him in a class of his own, as in Nigel Farage, Zach Polanski, the Lib Dems, none of them would agree to this.
None of them would agree to this.
But it is what the public wants.
The public wants an end to immigration for a lot of people who are here to go home.
And so that puts him not only in the league of his own, but also on the right side of what the British public actually desire.
So I think this is a very powerful and effective strategy.
And as he's laid out, I mean, there are many different ways of encouraging people who shouldn't be here to go, as we've already talked about.
So I think it's the correct strategy.
And I mean, honestly, I didn't think he was going to come out so boldly.
And I'm just very pleased that he did.
And I don't see how we can afford to pass this opportunity up.
If you know what I mean.
Yeah, I totally agree with you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Right.
Okay, let's just start going through some of the audience questions.
Obviously, I know we have about 20 minutes left, but these do take time.
Again, be as quick as you like, Carl, whatever you want.
So the first one that I saw that was interesting was question for Carl.
Being a rare example of both a working class patriot and research fellow working in academia, what can I do to improve the situation in the universities, quote unquote, without losing my job?
I mean, on an individual level, probably not that much.
If you can network with other conservative professors or researchers and students, that would be good.
But I don't know how far you can take that without drawing the eye of Sauron upon yourselves.
But obviously, you have to be very moderate and very sort of scrutonian in your perspective on conservatism, which is always good anyway, no matter where you are.
But this is highly necessary in the academy because it's the kind of conservatism that can philosophically defend itself against the left in particular.
And so you don't look like a wild-eyed lunatic if you can properly articulate this.
And then, like I said, make connections with other fellow right-wing and conservative professors and students.
I don't know your particular situation, but that I think is the best way forward to begin creating a network in academia.
Because this is all the left did.
The radical left did exactly this.
And soon they were the dominant force in academia.
So it's worth you doing to it.
Remember that the radical left did this at the height of the Cold War as well.
A lot of them were like openly Marxist at the height of the Cold War.
And they still managed to do it anyway.
So worth giving it a go, I would say.
Thank you very much.
Just another question that came in was, could you give us your take on possible, there's a lot of questions around this, possible mergers, the smaller parties, UKIP, advanced, etc.
What do you think they should do and what you think resource should do?
Yeah.
I think that Rupert Lowe has what is called in sort of political circles the mandate of heaven.
As in, it's clear that he's the guy.
He's the person with the he's in the right place at the right time for the right reason.
He has the dignity and gravitas.
He has the rhetorical power.
He has the moral power.
He has the political position, as in he is the MP.
And he has also created a very big tent.
He's very good at building alliances and bringing people into his orbit.
And so it's clear that it is Rupert Lowe who is the true leader of the right in Britain.
We thought it was Nigel Farage, but he was never prepared to pick up the crown and wear it.
And that's fine because that's his loss.
It's actually better for us to know who is real and who is not.
And what this means is that we have to accept our role in the hierarchy.
Whether you like it or not, humans are hierarchical creatures.
Everything has a hierarchy, down to the family, down to the small business, down to the mega corporation, down to a local association.
There's always someone who's the treasurer, someone who's the chairman, someone who's in charge, and then people who are at different levels.
And this is the same with political movements.
Trump, of course, is the best example of this in America, where it's like he's clearly the boss, and everyone then is underneath him.
Well, we're the same here.
We're no different.
And it's the same with Keir Starmer and Labour or Kemi Badenock and Conservatives.
There's a hierarchy to everything.
And the smaller parties are old.
They've been going for a long time.
The Heritage Party has been going for like, what, seven or eight years, maybe 10 years.
UKIP has been going for more than 30 years, I think it is now.
It's time to admit that these were not projects that could capture the imagination of the British people.
This just wasn't here.
And it's good that they were there.
It's good that they were options, but they were not utilized very well by the people who lead them, unfortunately, and didn't manage to have a significant breakthrough, which might not be your fault.
It might not be anyone's fault, but it is definitely the truth of the matter.
And from a cold Machiavellian perspective, we have to be real about how we can win.
And therefore, what I would suggest, with the greatest respect, is for the small parties just to fold.
This wasn't your time, unfortunately, but you can still do good work for the right-wing movement.
And I'm sure that if you were decent and humble about this and just said, Rupert, you're right.
I think I do need to admit that I'm not the guy to lead the charge, but I'm good at this.
I'm good at that.
I'm good at the other.
And I would really like to be an asset to reform, to restore, sorry.
I've got no doubt that Rupert Lowe would at least give you a good hearing.
And if you were good at something, I don't doubt that he would have you doing that thing for the cause.
And I think that's the best thing that all of the smaller parties can do.
Because if they don't, the momentum is with Rupert.
I don't think he's going to lose the momentum either.
So I think what will happen is that that will sweep up all of the real energy towards change.
And you will essentially be left behind.
And you will become bitter.
You will become jaded, but you will also be trapped in your own failure.
And I don't actually like seeing that happen to people, especially when they could be very useful lieutenants and soldiers in the war against the left and the Blairite and the globalists elsewhere.
Because I know basically everyone on the British right at this point.
And I don't dislike any of them.
I really, honestly, I said this about a year ago to Harrison.
I was like, look, look at the amount of talent that's out here.
We have so many good people who work really hard.
How are we not joined up?
How is it we can't get on the same side?
We all agree on basically everything.
We're all heading in the same direction.
Even if there are minor doctrinal differences, these shouldn't prohibit us from being able to work in unison to achieve a greater goal.
And I think it's just literally come down to the vanity of small differences at this point.
No, it's time.
The hour is too late for that.
The situation is too dire for that.
And I'm sorry.
Like I said, I know all of these people and I like them all.
They're all good people, but they have to admit that they aren't the guy, that they haven't failed.
And that's why they're in the position they're in now.
And Rupert's in the position he's in now.
So it's about knowing your place in the universe and coming to terms with that, but then doing good work in that.
And I think that's an offer that would be open to basically everyone.
I'm sure Rupert would just say, look, come on over and we'll find you something to do.
I'm sure that you'll have something to do.
I don't doubt.
Carl, I can't take, this is by far the most popular question I've had tonight.
Rupert has said he wants patriots to stand up.
He needs 650 candidates.
Will you be putting yourself forward as one of them?
I mean, I really don't want to.
If that helps.
I'm not going to rule anything out, obviously, but I really don't want to.
Like, it's horrible.
It's a horrible game.
And it'll hurt a lot.
And it'll be difficult.
And I'll lose a lot of hair.
I mean, the reason I've got such a grey beard, my beard's more grey than my dad's is because of my UKIP career.
So it's hard.
But I'm not saying no.
I'm not ruling anything out.
But if I don't have to, that would be nice.
I understand.
I get it a lot as well.
People saying, you know, just come out of anonymity and let's get on with it.
And I'm like, listen, there are people out there who are just as good, if not honestly, a lot better than me.
And they would be better at doing this thing.
And I feel like I've got my place.
And I'm sure you do too, where it's like spreading the word is far more important for people like us than maybe potentially being the actual guy on the front line doing.
You know what?
I hate to contradict you on this, but none of them are called Basil the Great, right?
Like, you know, the reason I'm not ruling anything out is because I can't remember who it was, but it wasn't very long ago.
Someone made the case to me that, like, look, you guys who are in the trenches all day, every day actually have a much better depth of knowledge than the average person who just listens, right?
For that person who's just spending an hour a day at work listening to a podcast, you know, who appreciates everything, their backs on Patreon, they sign up to lotseas.com, whatever it is.
Like, that person is a good person and they're really well-meaning.
They're helping them doing their part.
But they will be thinking, well, you guys do this all day.
This is your job.
You know, you are better at this than I am or could be.
And I expect more from you.
Right.
And I was just like, right, okay.
Well, I'm not going to rule anything out.
But it's not a thing I particularly desire.
But like I said, I don't think we should rule anything out, Basil.
Well, I, you know, I obviously wouldn't rule anything out either.
But, you know, it's what comes with it.
And as you said yourself, I mean, I remember your YouTube campaign and it was brutal.
And the things that, again, people go through your life, they go through your backstory.
They troll through everything you've ever posted.
They just lie about you.
And lie about you.
Exactly.
They just lie and just say anything.
And you sit there and think, oh my God, was this worth it?
Would it not be better to find someone who has, you know, got a middle management job or whatever, who no one knows about, but he has the same kind of opinions as me and get them to run instead.
Do you know what I mean?
Yeah, no, it's exactly.
Freedom and Belonging00:16:02
Exactly.
Exactly.
Word for word almost what I've been thinking.
But we can't rule anything out, even though it'll be difficult and painful, right?
So like I said, I'm not ruling anything out.
But I'm very optimistic that there will be very good men and women who will be more than capable of doing everything.
Because, I mean, like you said, you know, I'm very happy doing what I'm doing.
And I think we're doing really valuable work.
You know, we are being able to articulate the arguments this coherently, this concisely, and this broadly to so many people.
Because, I mean, our numbers recently have been just incredible.
It is a very important and valuable thing.
So I don't want to just give that up or anything like that.
But, you know, like I said, I'm not going to rule anything out.
Good.
Right.
Okay.
Someone said, can you ask if he's a nationalist?
No.
I mean, how would you describe your politics?
How do you describe yourself?
No, I certainly wouldn't pigeonhole myself and call myself a nationalist.
The problem is with any ideology, it comes with front-loaded with a certain set of precepts, a certain set of expectations, and a certain ready set of already formulated counters to your position.
So having anything that exists in this sort of purely ideological space means you can be pigeonholed very easily.
My opinion is just drawn from what I think are the facts of reality, which is there are four nations that occupy the British Isles, and these nations have occupied the British Isles for literally thousands of years now.
And they are the ones who have the primary claim to the British Isles.
And if anyone else gains a claim on Britain, it's at our pleasure.
It's because we allowed them to have it.
And that means we can revoke it at any time.
And from that, all things follow.
And I think that's a demonstrably true statement.
And from that true premise, everything that we ask for follows.
So I don't need to call myself anything.
And I don't think we should use the term ethno-nationalist or civic nationalist because they are just literally words for the same thing, basically.
Ethno is Greek for nation and natio is Latin for ethnos.
It's just Greek and Latin for the same word.
It's liberal trickery that they try and say, oh, there's such a thing as an ethno-nationalist.
It's like, there's a such thing as a nation-nation.
That's all you're saying is a nation-nation.
Oh, you're a nation-nationist.
The fuck does that mean?
Well, I'm a legal nationist.
It's like, well, where did the laws come from, if not from the nation?
Well, they come from the nation, obviously.
So you're a nation, nation, nationist.
And it's like, no, this is just linguistic trickery and sleight of hand.
This is all ideology and it needs to go because it's not useful.
And it's just the way that the liberal tries to mystify what is actually being spoken about here.
And it's like, so look, we are talking about the nations of Britain, the four nations of Britain, and their moral claim to this land.
They don't have a moral claim to another land.
And it's impossible to derive how a different nation could also come to the same claim, considering they don't share the same space.
They have their own countries.
We have our countries.
This has been the way that the world has worked since the peace of Westphalia in like 1643 or whatever it was.
This is completely uncontroversial.
And it doesn't need any mysticism in order to put people into categories.
These relationships of the people to each other and to the land are real.
This is a long heritage that is a shared community that is basically an extended family, which is what a nation is, which is why, as you said, we can genetically determine the nations of the world.
And they are historically determined as well.
And these are things that we are not at liberty to just mystically like create a word to magic out of existence or to stigmatize someone into believing or not believing.
So I don't believe in nationalism.
I don't believe in ethno or civic nationalism.
There's no difference between them whatsoever.
And we shouldn't be fooled by this.
Great point.
By the way, I'm guilty of that myself in the past.
Everyone is.
And it's no one's fault.
It's no one's fault.
Like, I had to do two degrees in philosophy to be able to understand this.
Well, there you go then.
I don't feel too bad.
No, no, no, of course.
I didn't understand this.
Like, back in the day, like, I had to do fucking five, six years of constant study to be able to understand and articulate that point because it's not self-evident.
You know, and that's why it works.
That's why the mysticism gets in people's eyes and they can't see through it.
But really, when you just break it down etymologically, they're saying is I'm a civic, which is a national set of laws for a nation and a nation.
So it's nation, nation, nation.
That's the kind of nationalist I am.
It's like, but that's the only kind of nationalist that there is.
And you may as well just use the word N for nationalist.
And that's it.
You know, it doesn't go anywhere else.
I wasn't going to talk about this, but there was a YouTuber called Lander who I'm a big fan of.
And he did a video.
Yeah, he did a video a few weeks ago, months ago now, probably actually, where he spoke about how he said we're all ethno-nationalists.
And after watching that I realized I was like oh, hang on, it's because I've been logically brought up and programmed by the system to not think that it's a that I, you know, to not even consider my what I actually believe to be true, that you know the British are a people and we do deserve a homeland and stuff.
It's because I grew up in the Blair Wright school system and all the rest of it.
And it just said, like it's someone, just said just basic things and I was like that is true.
So I guess I do believe in us as a people and and again, it's so, all I'm saying this for is because there'll be plenty of people listening who have not gone on that journey and do it.
Just sit and just think to yourself what do you truly want and what do you truly believe, and try to forget the bubble around you and you'll realize what you believe.
And next question, um was just and I don't know if this is true, but it says i've heard Carl mention recently that we should replace the Latin words liberty and equality with English words freedom and belonging.
Could you elaborate on that?
I I can, but it's, it's uh, it's a.
It's a fair amount.
I'll try and keep it brief um.
So the the problem with the Latin words in English is that they always describe the abstract and scientific concepts, whereas the Anglo-saxon words always describe things that we are related to.
Uh, they describe earthy things that are real and that we have, we experience in our daily lives.
So to be at liberty is, for example, an abstract concept.
Am I at liberty?
Well, kind of, but not at liberty to say something racist on twitter because, of course, the government will come down on me like a ton of bricks.
So i'm not really at liberty.
I don't really exist in this state of liberty um but, as you can see, i'm.
I'm talking about something that is hypothetical and abstract, but the question is, am I free as in?
Can I just get up and do what I want?
Well, that's a better state to be in, because that doesn't rely on anything else.
That's just.
Am I personally a free man?
And historically, of course, the English were the free people.
They thought of themselves as the one free people frankly, of all in all the world.
Um, and so you?
You've got a different um.
Freedom comes from the bottom up right.
It doesn't require someone else to do something, it requires you to be left alone, but to be at liberty kind of requires something higher up to consent to your behavior, and so it's.
It requires a system to be at liberty, or it requires an individual to be free uh, and so that's always been the Anglo-saxon perspective.
And then equality, again, it's one of those words where it it?
If you use it in a normal setting, you don't really think about it.
Like you know, we each got like three sausages at dinner.
Therefore we're equal.
It's like yeah okay, that's fair, you know.
But but then when you start using equality in an ideological way, you realize that you're talking about numbers and categories, and numbers and categories are actually not really how human beings live their lives.
Human beings live their lives in families, in a web of relationships, as in, how's your mum today, how's your wife today?
What are the kids doing?
You know, suddenly questions of equality are like, oh, I don't know.
I mean, where would you even put that?
Like you go to visit your mum, where's the question of equality?
You know, you go into the workplace and you say good morning to your boss.
Where's the question of equality?
Like, this is not a concept that is actually very useful outside of very abstract political discourse.
And I think this is what I said to David Starkey.
I think that what people, when they say equality, I think what they mean, and in British politics in particular, I don't think they mean it in the communist sense of being exactly the same in all respects, as in, you know, moral respects, financial respects, whatever it is.
I think what they are looking for is a sort of equal recognition and acceptance that that person's concerns are valid and worthy of being considered and helped and dealt with.
And this, I think, is what we could call belonging, as in when you belong somewhere and everyone around you recognizes that you belong there.
Everyone respects your requests and expects you to honor their requests.
And this kind of notion of belonging, I think, is really what people actually want.
I think it's the very root of nostalgia.
When you look back and you think, oh, times are so good there.
I think what you're actually feeling is the memory of not having ever doubted that you belonged in this place.
And so the place is secure, it is safe, it is comforting, and it is welcome, it is warm to you because you knew that you belonged in this place.
And so this place has a kind of golden aura to it.
And I think that's what a lot of people are actually asking for.
And this is one of the reasons that ideology is such a bad thing, because it breaks the sense of belonging that a person has with the place that they are.
When they call you a racist, when they call you a homophobe or a misogynist or a xlanophobe, what they're saying is your opinions don't matter to us.
Your feelings about the subject don't count.
And that is the breakage of belonging.
That is to say, you don't belong here.
We are not going to respect your wishes.
We are not going to respect your objections, your opinions.
We're not going to give you moral consideration.
And as far as we're concerned, you are morally dead to us.
And that is horrific, cold, sharp edge of ideology that comes down on people there.
And so I'm really against using these sort of abstract Latinate terms.
And actually, I think if we speak in the Anglo-Saxon terms, we realize that we're talking about real things and we can name the real people that they're connected to.
And we can tell them that, no, we really feel that they matter.
You matter to us is what we're trying to aim for here.
And I think that is how we actually make the country how it used to be back when our parents were children.
Because you can say there are many things wrong with Britain 100 years ago or 80 years ago, whatever it is.
But to say that people didn't feel like they belonged is not one of those things.
Everyone belonged and they knew it.
Thank you very much.
I know we're at nine o'clock.
Just two more questions, Carl.
I'm really sorry for anyone who didn't get questions too.
There were so many, but I've kind of picked the ones that were most popular.
There is a question here about big tents and people saying, in terms of restore, there is a big argument, as you can imagine, online.
It's amongst online people.
They were saying, you know, we should be pure believing.
And then some people say we need the biggest tent possible.
Can you, this person say, can you explain why having the biggest tent possible is the best course of action regarding low winning?
You might disagree.
No, I do agree with that.
Politics is the art of the possible.
And it's all built on compromise.
There's no such thing as pure politics.
You will all, in the real world, that is.
Purity in politics exists only online, where you can have a particular set of discourses in your Discord groups or your Twitter chats or whatever, and you can block or eject anyone who disagrees with you.
In real life, it just doesn't work this way.
And there's no point asking for purity when actually what you need is demographic power.
You need the numbers.
You need enough people to agree with you in some respect in order to vote for you in order for you to form a government.
So you necessarily have to have not necessarily a moderate message, but a message that doesn't specifically say to people, if you don't believe precisely this, then you're never coming in.
And you'll notice that Rupert's done a really good job on this.
He said millions must go.
It's like, yeah, okay, he hasn't given a figure.
He hasn't, you know, stipulated the exact number.
He hasn't even said who must go necessarily.
It's just the principle that Restore is committed to is people leaving.
There have to be a net negative on migration or this country is done for.
And there are a series of other issues that are connected to this that obviously need to be fixed as well, which again, actually are not themselves very divisive if you actually poll the British public.
They all agree with it, like literally more than half the public agree with basically everything Rupert Lowe says.
So there's no point being a purist because actually Lowe is standing on a platform that has probably about a 60% ceiling in this country.
Now, that's a high fucking ceiling.
You know, like it's hard to imagine anything that the Labour Party could put together that would have more than a sort of 30% ceiling, 35%, maybe 40% ceiling.
But Rupert Lowe, and we know this from the polling, that 60% of people basically agree with everything that he's saying.
And so it's like, right, okay, that's a winning hand.
Like he is holding the winning hand and he seems to be the man of the hour.
And it seems that the moment couldn't be more pregnant with possibilities.
So there's just no point being a purist about anything.
You're going to have to accept that any large mass political movement is going to have lots of people in it that you don't either like or directly agree with on everything.
But you're all pulling in the same direction.
And so I'm afraid we're just going to have to tolerate one another until we win.
Thank you very much.
Wright.
One more question left.
It is a little bit of a fun one, slightly different, what we've been talking about.
But just before that, just a little bit of housekeeping.
Just let everyone know.
I know some people say there's audio issues.
There always is on X, unfortunately.
But this is recorded and Carl's going to put it out as well, I believe, on your channel as that I have.
Yeah, I will.
Yeah.
Brilliant.
So you can listen back to this at a later date if you want.
We are going to have an afterspace.
So if you're following me or Alexandra, you can catch us in there afterwards.
Obviously, people do find it weird that I don't talk back on any of the questions.
Believe me, if I was talking back, we could pick one question and me and Carl will be talking about it for three hours.
Okay.
So I want to get through as many of your questions as possible.
Just a quick bit of an announcement.
We are having a bit of a Restore Britain spare time right now.
So just let everyone know tomorrow night at seven o'clock, Charlie Downs, the lead campaigner for Restore Britain, will be on a space with us.
On Friday, Alexandra, if you follow her, she runs the Restore Britain community on X. Maria Boutel, the first counselor who jumped across to Restore Britain, she'll be interviewing her on Friday.
Also next week, I'm pleased to announce that in Western Supermayor, obviously Reform have lost their branch manager.
They've also lost their treasurer just tonight.
Both those men, Oliver and James, I'll be interviewing on Tuesday.
They just joined Restore Britain.
Lord of the Rings Lessons00:05:07
And then on Thursday next week, good old Connor Tomlinson will be back and we'll be getting his update on what he thinks of what's been going on in Restore.
Many more things to come in the future.
So please, obviously, if you want to follow me or Alexandra, you'll see when those spaces are coming up.
Right.
Finally, Carl.
I was asked this question today by a very lovely woman who said, listen, Baz, I know this is about politics and restore and stuff, but I love it when Carl talks about Lord of the Rings.
And I was like, well, to be fair, I think Lord of the Rings is actually very political.
And I was going to ask you, one, which Lord of the Rings, she wanted to know which is your favourite of the films.
Obviously, you could say books as well.
Which is your favourite of the books or the films.
But two, why are Lord of the Rings important for the English, the British, etc.?
I don't think I could say that I have a particular favourite in that the entire thing is a coherent narrative.
And there's something very important with narratives that, frankly, Hollywood seems to have forgotten.
And that's that they are didactic.
They teach you a moral story.
And any story worth remembering teaches you something about the human condition.
And what Lord of the Rings teaches you is that it's never too late.
You can always do the right thing and win.
And so I couldn't isolate any one book or film as my favourite because they are all made great by the context in which they find themselves.
The first one is what is to come and the struggles that they have to go through.
The second one is understanding the power of your enemy.
And the third one is making the sacrifices to finally achieve a goal.
Tolkien was explicit about this in his letters, that the Lord of the Rings was basically the lost mythology of the Anglo-Saxons that he thought he was writing.
There's loads of, and these are pre-Christian, so pagan mythologies from all over the world.
Loads of them.
You know, you've got the Irish cycles of Kukulane and, you know, there are a bunch of them.
I can't remember the names off the top of my head.
Then you, of course, have the Nordic ones.
You've got the Icelandic sagas.
You've got Beowulf and things like that.
And you've got the Greek in the Iliad.
There's a Persian one.
The name escapes me at the moment.
There are loads and loads of these different heroic mythic texts.
So there are different kinds of societies.
And prior to the Iron Age, most tribal societies lived in this heroic way.
Whereas a warrior aristocracy that ruled over a productive peasant economy and they told themselves stories of heroism.
This is, I mean, you can see this in Beowulf, for example.
Hrothgar calls upon Beowulf because Grendel is harassing Herot, his mead hall.
And what I love about this as well, the mead hall, Hrothgar's mead hall is called the Stag.
I mean, it sounds like a pub.
Like, we haven't changed in thousands of years, really.
But so he's in his mead hall, and he needs his help.
And so you get the story of bravery and heroism from Beowulf, but it's not an epic cycle.
It's the tale of one man.
Which, don't get me wrong, it's an amazing tale, but that's the closest the Anglo-Saxons have to a proper epic.
And Tolkien, being a linguist and mythologist, I suppose you'd call him, was painfully aware that the Anglo-Saxons were lacking something.
And what these cycles did, what the point of all mythology is, is to show you the virtue of a set of values.
There's a reason that Alexander the Great slept with a copy of the Iliad under his pillow and then happened to go on and conquer the Persian Empire.
The mythology is a story that tells you about a set of values and shows you through the tale how they interact with the world and with other people and the sort of archetypes that will feature in the story and why this is something that teaches you about the kind of person you are.
Because in every story, you'll probably find someone who's most like you.
And you'll see what their actions had, the effect they had on the world as represented in the story.
And you'll come away with a moral from the story that teaches you something about life.
And this is very helpful because the only other way to know about life is to go through the pain of it yourself.
And actually, telling stories is a way of preparing us in lessons about what could happen in the future if you make certain decisions.
And so actually, we're made wiser through our stories.
And Tolkien realized, well, we don't have one as the English, actually.
We may have had one.
We probably did have one.
But it's been lost.
And it's a very romantic idea that, you know, I think I've got my pulse on the finger of the English as a people.
Understanding What Drives Britain00:00:20
I think I understand what drives them.
And in 2011, I think it was, Lord of the Rings was just Britain's favourite books.
By far, outstripping, like everything.
You know, there was Harry Potter or whatever it is.
Like, the British love Lord of the Rings more than anything.