All Episodes
Previous Next
May 14, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:36:07
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1164
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to Podcast of the Lotus Eaters, episode 1164.
I'm joined by no longer special guest, but team member Stephen Wolfe.
Oh well, it's good to be here and good to be back.
Excellent.
But we have a new special guest, Ed Dutton.
Hello.
And this is Ed's website, so if you like the cut of Egypt, he's looking at various interesting things that happen.
Yeah, can I say what that is about?
Well, let's skip that for now.
They can click on the video and they can find out what it's about.
You've also got a...
Samsung, the buttons aren't working.
There we go.
You've also got a Twitter page and you've just released a book.
The buttons still aren't working.
I have, yes.
The biography of Jonathan Bowden, who seems to be the guilty little secret pleasure of a vast number of people that are conservatives.
Jonathan Bowden, Shaman of the Radical Right, The Life and Mind of Jonathan Bowden.
It's the first biography of him, and it looks, it really was a man that in many ways was completely mad, but also, like a shaman, has managed to inspire people and make them feel that the world will get better and bring together all kinds of recondite information into a fascinating synth.
And so, there you go, that's Jonathan Bouton.
Excellent, right.
Well, if you want to find out more, then, you know...
I'm not even heard of him.
Oh, really?
Okay, he's...
He's big among the young people.
He's very memeable.
There's lots of YouTube videos that take his recordings that were above pubs and put them to music and all kinds of stuff.
Is he no longer around?
He died aged 49 in 2012, which I think dying young helps to kind of sanctify people's profit status.
You gave a lot of speeches on the way that things were going over the top of pubs.
Some of those are committed to VHS, I understand, but many have been lost.
So what we're going to be talking about today is why everybody should speak English, obviously.
Sadiq Khan's bad maths.
You're going to take us through that?
And I thought it'd be worth covering what did Enoch Powell actually say?
Because a lot of the leftists, they basically just...
They just say, ye not power, then that's it, as if that's the whole argument.
What did he actually say?
Yes, what did he actually say?
So without further ado, everybody should speak English, and please don't arrest me, British police, because it's not me saying that.
It's actually the Prime Minister of Great Britain is saying it now.
You know, this is all part of his speech from, was it yesterday or the day before?
Where he basically made a lurch to the far right, promptly after reform started to...
That's the thing, if he does it, it's not far right.
If he does it, it's perfectly centrist and normal.
When he moves, he moves the centre with him.
Yes, he's now the JFK of the left.
Hang on, steady on.
There's a libelous comparison.
We're not allowed to say that in public, that kind of stuff.
Not quite yet.
We're not quite ready for that.
But that's exactly what JFK was saying, that people should be coming over to America, speaking English, confine themselves with the country, being behind the Constitution at that particular time.
There's a lot of things that were said about that.
Right going up to Clinton, it was very similar in terms of what now would be regarded as far right.
It's only far right if it's not useful for them at that particular time.
Far right, I'm surprised they still keep using it and they haven't come up with a synonym.
It's obviously a smear.
We're tired of the smear.
It's far right if it's not useful for him.
It wasn't useful for him ten years ago.
It's useful for him now to say, immigration's gone too far because people really have had enough.
it really is getting too tense so suddenly it will stop being far right as long as those in power and those that can be trusted advocated rather than Housewives or whatever for or angry and on to Yes, I mean, you've both seen it the way that I think that I saw it.
That could also be perceived as a coded assault on Angela Rayner, possibly.
I always find it really weird that I was actually about a mile away when I grew up from Angela Rayner.
She was on the Stockport Guild on the council estate.
Actually, to be fair, it was pretty rough where she is.
Did she have a bit of a reputation back in the day?
It spread to where you are.
Well, I was down in Burnage and then moved into an area called Fog Lane.
On the other side of it was literally, I was seven when she was born.
It's just gone.
Recently criticised in any questions.
Lucy Powell.
Lucy Powell.
So you had Lucy Powell, myself in the middle, and then Angela Rayner within all the kinds of...
She sounds much more middle class, though, Lucy Powell.
Oh, Lucy Powell goes to shares that.
She was born in Mosside.
There was no hospital in Mosside, Lucy.
You couldn't have been born there.
If you were born at all, it was in Willington Hospital.
I could imagine her delaying pregnancy to 18, even 19. And so her mum was the headmistress of the local comprehensive school.
Her dad was working in trade unions.
Two of her aunts were also headmistresses of school.
She lived in a nice middle-class area on the side of Fog Lane.
We looked past the houses and dreamed.
So basically she's a genetic head girl.
Yes.
A genetic Karen.
Yes, that's right.
Right.
Okay, so this is interesting because this is only...
Did you remember this incident?
Yes.
Samson, why don't you play this with the sound off?
But this was basically the video that emerged.
Can't be more than about a month ago.
At this point where this guy is basically getting arrested because he asked somebody to speak English.
We said that this guy wasn't speaking English or something like that.
And, you know, back in the days of a month ago...
Yeah.
Suggesting that people should speak English was considered an arrestable offence.
I mean, it's a difficult thing, a difficult position these people are put in because, and apologies to any police officers out there, I'm aware that some police officers are highly intelligent and they become detectives and they solve major crimes and that's great.
But the average IQ of a police officer, the average, is 100.
And 100 IQ, that's...
Is that high?
Yes, perhaps it's lower now, but it was about 100.
So that's kind of Gareth Keenan from the office level.
That's the kind of people that would say...
Things like, if you talk about physiognomy, they'll say, oh, well, you're not so good looking at yourself, so how can you talk about that?
Which is the obvious fallacious argument, appeal ad hominem or whatever.
This is not intelligent people.
And they're being asked to negotiate the nuance of what is a highly subjective and elastic...
And the whole point with woke rules is that they change all the time.
because the whole thing is we're going to change the rules arbitrarily and frequently, and it's a signalling mechanism for high-status people to show that they can keep up with whatever the latest twist and turns of this nuance is.
But then it filters down to police officers who, bless them, And they've got to interpret this.
Basically, if you don't under this...
What was the name called?
It's called rank concession syndrome.
And it's this idea that if you're not part of something, let's say status, then you will imitate it.
But you will imitate it wrong.
And so you will imitate it in an ostentatious, over-the-top way.
I forget the sociologist's name.
It's some 1950 paper that looks at this.
And so obviously, if the...
Acts of Parliament defines what is offensive and wrong in a certain way.
If you don't quite understand it, because you're imitating a higher class that you're not and trying to seem as good as them, you will go over the top because you don't understand the nuances of it.
Well, actually, I quite enjoy that particular analysis because I've often said that when you get to chief constables and those who want to run the police in their particular areas, they're actually sitting there delighted with their wives, perfectly happy that now they can stand in mayoral events or they're at the VE day at the front because it's a social status that they've managed to...
reach.
And so there's a level of snobbery, one of those old classic things that come into Britain from Alfred's day and before, is that's one of the key elements of being Look, I could never have got there on my own.
The way that I've done it is by brown-nosing and accepting what my political masters tell me to do.
And if I want someone not to be able to arrest them for saying they're not speaking English, is an arrestable offence because it's offensive.
I'm doing so because at least next week I'll stand in front of VE Day and my wife is happy and I can feel as though I'm one of the...
Exactly.
And there's probably an inherent insecurity to these people as well.
These people haven't got degrees or whatever.
If they have, they've probably been to bad universities.
So there's an inherent insecurity about them and they would have to overcompensate by flexing power and by stretching the boundaries of what is illegal.
And that's where it becomes really deeply offensive to ordinary police officers who rightly say they're getting to the job.
Many of them, those that I've met when I was a junior barrister doing prosecution cases, is they generally want to help people who have been committed, who had to face serious crimes, but they're often caught between this trap of their bosses who have a different agenda.
I know plenty of police officers who didn't want to go out and fight against their local individuals in the miners' strikes, for example.
So eventually they won over, and that's a classic case where they said, OK, Yorkshire policemen, we know you're in the communities, you're friends with these people, you grew up with them, so what we'll do is bring a whole load of Londoners in from the Met and they can have a good fight and knock them out and put them in hospital, and then you won't be blamed.
But at the end of the day, people did blame them because they were part of the institution.
Who was doing as they were told.
There was something to be said, as I understand it.
When the police force first began, there was a degree to which people that became detectives and so on were relatively educated.
And then it was, this is 1850s or 60s, and it was felt that, no, they need to be part of the community from which they come.
It gives them a degree of respect or so forth among the community.
And so they're kind of pre-empting crime via just being there.
And B, simply because they can think how they think.
They've grown up with these kinds of people.
So there is some benefit to that sort of street smart, that kind of intelligence, if you want.
But unfortunately, it's a problem when it's people who get into positions and have to interpret.
Really vague and bad laws.
Well, yes, and a ruling sentiment.
And, you know, returning to Keir Starmer's point about how we're all supposed to be hearing English now, I mean, we're going to have to explain why, you know, half the signs on the tube station are now in foreign languages.
Yes, I was there the other day.
I was there the other day.
I thought this was a joke, actually, when I first saw it.
Have you not seen this?
I thought it wasn't realistic.
Why this language and not any other?
Because everybody there is Bengali.
So, pretty much without exception.
To the extent that if you want to go there, you probably should learn a little bit of Bengali, because otherwise you won't be able to make yourself understood with a lot of the market traders that are opposite that station that are in front of you.
If you go into a foreign area, I suppose it's incumbent upon you to learn the language.
Well, that's a good point that Kirsten Armour has made.
Yes.
Yes, except it used to be the other way around.
Interesting point.
Are my buttons working?
No, my buttons aren't working yet.
Here we go.
This is Somalian proficiency.
The key takeaway being, and I've got the comparison to the Dutch people here, but if you're a Dutch person who has never visited an English-speaking country, you are more likely to speak English than a Somalian person living in the UK.
Yeah.
Yes, that is true.
I mean, I assume this is Somalia rather than Somaliland.
In Somaliland, which was British rule, then the standard of English is a lot better.
Somalia was Italian rule.
And, of course, you still get elderly people in Somalia that can speak Italian.
Oh, right.
But...
That I didn't, though.
With the education system having suba kwanaksan to any of us Wali viewers.
Yeah, very good.
This...
Keir Starmer's effort to try and get people to speak English, you know, there was some pushback from the Welsh and the Scots saying...
And the Scousers.
Well, did the Scouts have their own language?
I don't know.
So I'm Mancunian, so there's always this battle between Liverpoolians and ourselves.
I'll probably get killed for all our Scouts of France out there, but you know where I'm coming from.
Right, I thought it was just dialect rather than their own thing.
Yeah, it is.
We're not sure they speak English.
I checked the numbers on the Scots, and apparently 1.3% of Scotland's population can speak Gaelic.
Which isn't that much.
Gaelic.
No, it's not very much, no.
Apparently there's more Gaelic speakers in Nova Scotia than there are in Scotland.
And it's been maintained in Nova Scotian communities.
But then, of course, there's Scots, and there's Doric.
And some people would suggest that those are separate languages, to the extent that I was once in a pub in Aberdeen, and this girl comes up to me and just says some gibberish.
And I went, what?
And she goes, and then says it again in English.
And she was speaking in Doric.
So it's different, which is the Aberdeen version of Scots.
So it was different enough that I couldn't understand it at all.
So it could be argued.
Of course, Scotland doesn't have any immigrants hardly at all, so that's why it's able to virtue signal about the...
It's a bit cold.
They don't want to go there.
Well, to be fair, they come to Finland, which is even colder, because it has a good welfare system.
But, yeah, you could argue that they should be learning Scots.
Or if they go to Wales, they should be learning...
Well, Welsh are doing a bit better.
Apparently, 17% of the Welsh population can speak Welsh, which seems astonishingly high to me.
Actually, you'd be fair, I lived in Colwyn Bay in Clandidno, and they spoke Welsh pretty clearly up there in the north, between the north and the Gogs.
There's the Goglites.
I went to Aberystwyth University, and I spent my first year in Pantacallan, which was...
They regarded that as their Oxford college, where everybody spoke Welsh.
Every evening they'd have their dinners with Welsh speakers coming up on the way that it was introduced.
It was a formal college for them.
Unfortunately, being somebody who couldn't speak Welsh at all when I got there, I tried to learn it and realised that once you've got seven words for the, that was too much for me, particularly as a Mancunian.
So, huge number of words in there.
And all I remembered learning was dimma smogu, dimparcio and dimmancio, which was no smoking, no parking and a dimmanc.
Oh, okay.
That's what was given to you, basically, wasn't it?
Yes, that's right.
It's dimmanc.
Stupid Mancunian person.
Yeah, that was me, stupid Mancunian, because I couldn't speak Welsh at the time of my year there.
So that was it.
It remains to be seen if the Welsh and Scottish governments are going to impose similar edicts upon their immigrants, but I don't know on that.
I doubt that.
When you see the councils up in the north of Wales, they were not doing that then.
Yes, apparently the UK government is at the moment spending 200 million a year of taxpayers' money on providing free translation services.
Now, this I don't understand.
My wife was raised in Australia, in the Finnish community there.
And a lot of these Finns would, in the 80s, and a lot of the 70s, a lot of these Finns would find jobs for themselves.
And my wife's uncle, by marriage, he lived there from 1960...
Seven or something, to his death, if not quite recently, and he never learnt English, because he was always with other Finns and so on.
Now, when he needed to go to the doctor, of course the doctor didn't speak Finnish, so what all that happened, they didn't provide translators, his wife went with him, and his wife could speak English, and his wife acted as the interpreter.
That slows things down a little bit, perhaps, but you don't have to spend that...
Well, I think slowing down is the point.
So, for example, I speak of police officers.
I've got a mate of mine who's a police officer.
And he was telling me that there is an interesting combo in his area.
Basically, there's a deaf Iranian bird.
I can't hear the police coming.
And there's also one guy in Hampshire who can provide signing in Farsi.
And so...
Basically, this second guy's services are in demand because the other guy isn't particularly proficient at not getting caught.
So every so often they have to bring him in and then they have to go and basically...
So are they in cahoots and they split the difference on the pack?
Well, I've always wondered if they're brothers or something.
No, apparently they're quite separate or something.
But, you know, they have to provide a fast...
If you're going to get caught this week, OK, because I need a little extra on my mortgage.
But he could just pretend to be deaf.
And frankly, if someone was speaking Farsi sign language, we're not to know.
So it could be like that South African that was doing sign language at Nelson Mandela's funeral.
It could be anything.
That sounds dodgy to me.
Well, I suspect, especially amongst the criminals, a lot of them actually do speak English, but they know it slows down the process if you say, OK, well, you know, I've got to wait for the one Farsi sign.
Translator who's coming on holiday for two weeks.
Can't wait for that podcast.
I mean, the useful thing...
Can't wait for that podcast.
I don't know about...
The useful thing, of course, is if...
I'll see hands.
If you speak...
I think it was...
What was that guy called with the limp that used to do tourism programmes in the 80s and 70s?
That would walk along with the limp.
That guy.
What was his name?
Famously.
And when Michael Palin set up his Round the World in 80 Days, he got advice from him.
What was his name?
But anyway, he said to...
Palin says to him, well, should I learn the following...
And he said, no, no, no.
He'll just put you in a position of weakness straight away.
Always speak English.
That's your native language.
It puts you in a position of power straight away.
Well, the way I do my holidays is I very...
Well, not the ones with the wife, but when I go alone, is I never fly out of the same airport that I flew into.
So, you know, I'll go into, I don't know, northern Vietnam and I'll have a flight coming out of southern Vietnam and then my holiday is basically travelling between the two.
I often end up in completely remote areas where there's, you know, very few people around or anything like that.
And I've never actually had a problem speaking.
English.
I mean, once or twice I've had to sort of point at things or something and break out Google Translate.
But, I mean, you could be in the middle of nowhere these days and everyone speaks English.
Where are the comments?
Can I see the comments?
Oh, um...
Because then someone might know the name of that limping TV presenter that I can't remember the name of in the chat.
Um...
Okay.
They may come through on this.
Yes.
If anyone on Rumble can send a super chat as to who a limping guy in the 70s was.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Limping tourism presenter.
Yes.
Or failing that when we get to the website comments at the end.
I'm sure somebody will.
Oh, wait till the end.
For failing that, we can always Google it in a slack moment.
But I ought to round this off.
I mean, the key issue really is not so much about the fact that, you know, people come here and don't speak English, because as far as I'm concerned, let's say you're an Indian centimillionaire and you want to come here and spend your time at Bond Street, clearing the place out, speak whatever language you like.
I mean, the core issue is that people are coming here, going straight on benefits, and not even having the courtesy.
Alan Wicker!
Oh, okay.
I didn't know Wicker had a limp.
Okay.
Well, there we go.
We've got that sorted.
Yeah, no, the key issue is that people are basically coming over on welfare and not even bothering to learn the language.
This is interesting in terms of that, because it doesn't marry up with the asylum applications, which is fine, because we've had basically 1.2 million asylum applications at the Centre for Migration, which is similar to these.
Some people start confusing us, even though I've been around a lot longer.
Is that the top ones are Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and then Eritrea, and we actually then got India and China.
But here we've got the Congo coming in at benefit claims, and also Algeria, and Morocco, which are not really even in the top 15. I want to go to a Somali restaurant.
Oh, we've actually got one in Swindon.
Have you?
Yes.
It could be Ethiopian.
Is there much difference?
I don't know.
No, it has to be Somali.
And the problem is that there's none of them in central London.
And two meetings with people running, I've said, let's go to a Somali restaurant.
We're in central London.
By the time we finish the interview, or having a laugh, then we're too knackered to go out to Putney or something, to a Somali restaurant.
So it's very elusive, and I've never...
Why are you so keen to attend a Somali restaurant?
It's just so strange that most ethnic groups seem to come to foreign countries and set up things.
So in Finland, where I live, there's lots of Iraqi shops that bring in meat from Bosnia or something.
It's frozen, and it's much cheaper.
That's the argument as to why we need them, isn't it?
There's even a Sudanese shop in Oulu, but the Somalis, for some reason, don't seem to set anything up.
Well, the entire left-wing argument is, yes, they're coming here, yes, they're committing crime and terrorism, yes, they're going on welfare, but they bring yummy food with them, therefore it's OK.
There's no yummy food.
To be fair, I've had Nigerian food.
Nigerian food is basically normal food with lots of pepper on it.
It's not yummy.
So that's out.
I'm always reminded of that scene from When Harry Met Sally where he takes her to an Ethiopian restaurant and he goes, I really didn't think they'd have anything to eat in the Ethiopian restaurant.
That's very good.
That's like a joke from the 1980s.
It is a 1980s joke.
Obviously we'll get cancelled and burnt alive as we leave the studio.
I've got another joke about the Ethiopians, I can tell, but it's not appropriate.
For any Zoomers listening, when we were young, lads, all we ever heard about was Ethiopian famine.
Yes, that's right.
It turns out they didn't have a shortage of food.
They were just in a civil war with their neighbours, or a civil war against their neighbours, and they were basically sending their grain to the Russians in order to buy...
Yes.
And that's why they invented Red Nose Day.
Yes.
The Lenny Henry thing.
That's true.
I don't know if the Zoomers know what Red Nose Day is.
Maria Perkins here is asking, does the same go for British expats living in Spain?
I would imagine, well, first of all, that's up to the Spanish.
And if so, yes?
The parasormalised True Finns, which is the second biggest party in the Finnish coalition, Finnish governing coalition, said there should be on-the-spot, like, on-the-spot basic Finnish tests for foreigners.
Which my attitude is...
Bring it on.
I would pass that on-the-spot test, mainly because I had to take my daughter to the park every day when she was a baby.
No one at the park spoke any English, and so I had to learn Finnish.
That's what forced me to learn Finnish after a couple of years in the country.
But you do get a lot of people in the country.
I know people that have been in the country.
In fact, even when I was coming to the UK, the woman at Border Control said to me, oh, you live in Finland?
I said, yeah.
And then she asked me to speak in Finnish, and she was surprised that I could speak any Finnish at all.
You do get a lot of European expats.
Come to these countries working for Dokia or working for universities and they just don't bother learning at all.
And I think the Brits, if they're out there in Spain, many of them know a few words of Spanish.
You'd have to.
English is not good in Spain.
No, they're not.
That's my point.
Yes, but I mean, again, it's different.
They're not arriving and going on welfare.
I mean, they're basically arriving with their pensions and they're spending money in the local area.
If you get a job at a university in Norway as a foreigner, you're given two years.
To learn Norwegian, I think it's two years, to a reasonable degree.
And they will test you on that.
And if you don't manage to learn enough Norwegian, they will just fire you.
Okay.
That's quite important, actually.
It's a really useful way of doing it.
Because when I lived in...
Portugal, north of Portugal for a year, and actually I was teaching English as a foreign language, and they said don't learn Portuguese in order to teach English as a foreign language, because it's better for the students to know that you're English.
But at the same time, in that area, which is small villages, not many of them actually spoke English, so I had to learn Portuguese.
I do remember having a brilliant conversation about football, you know, as Benfico, sorry, Sporting Lisbon had come up to Porto, and there was a mass fight going on.
The taxi driver dragged me into the car to save me from being attacked by Sporting Lisbon and took me to a coffee shop.
Oh, that was nice.
A friend of mine, a Scottish friend of mine who speaks Finnish, and he has a friend who's Italian, and he speaks Finnish but not English.
And we once met up a few years ago, the three of us, and we just sat there speaking in cod Finnish, and it was perfectly fine.
Where I will end on this is...
A part of this drive of this swing to the hard right that Starmer has taken is going to be used to push out digital IDs.
And the way in that they're going for is, OK, we're going to roll it out for overseas citizens.
We're going to start there.
We make it a thing there.
We prove it there.
And then after it's been there for a few years, we find another category of people to roll it out to, I don't know, students or something, and then they roll it out to somebody else, and then eventually it'll just be everybody.
Yeah.
I mean, and this is a disgrace.
I mean, I do fear this.
Along with the digital currencies, which we're currently examining, the Bank of England are working with various banks to control how we're spending our money.
They're already managing to destroy the freedom of cash, which gives us an ability to be able to spend as we wish by making sure that many places in Winchester, as you know, it's very difficult to actually go and spend cash anywhere in Winchester.
Most of the pubs now won't even allow you to buy a drink.
In Winchester?
In Winchester, yes.
Are you telling me that the black boy in Winchester is cards only?
Yeah, that still exists.
Yeah, I know.
It's great, isn't it?
Yeah, it's a great place, but I've not been there for a while to know, but I know most of the central ones now, and the coffee shops too, apart from the chains.
They do, but a lot of them now turn to cards.
Yes.
So, anyways, that's a key point.
Speak English, and I think...
Yeah, or the first in, last out in Winchester.
I know the pubs in Winchester quite well.
My grandfather was born there.
Oh.
Some comments from people.
So Stigallstone says...
Oh, it just leapt.
I don't understand why they bring a youngie food argument when the internet exists to see their food is...
Moving on.
That's a random name.
It says, question for Ed.
If the average cop's IQ is 100, can you give us examples of what defines each standard IQ deviation as in how accurately to guess somebody's IQ by observing them?
Well, not within the time limits that we've got, but let's see if we can come back to that one at the end.
Somebody says, chat says it's Sam Hyde under the alias Alan Whittaker.
I can answer that quite quickly.
Go on, we'll go on.
So, 100 IQ, then policemen, people that work in offices, 85 IQ, low-level security guards, things like that, people that work in shops, 70 unemployed people, people on the dole, whatever, 115, high school science teacher, something like that, high school teacher, and 130 would be a professor of science, something of that order.
Right, 145.
145 would be a physicist, low-to-seat panellist.
Excellent.
Right, okay, let's hear about Mr Khan.
Right, is this working now or not at all?
Your box might be, but mine wasn't.
Let's have a go.
It's not working very well, is it?
So, if Samsung can just bring it down and just play this clip for us a bit.
So, actually, not just yet.
Let's give the context about it.
An interview two days ago on...
O 'Brien's show in LBC, Khan comes in and he's asked a question that, listen, Starmer is your friend.
How are you going to deal with him when he is now sounding like he's Enoch Powell and all this about immigration?
And one of the responses that Khan brings out, and what LBC, if you go up a little bit, says there, I think, Sadiq Khan has a lovely stat that says dispels the ideas that migrants are sponges or skivers.
First of all, note that the use of the word migrants there.
But then we go in and listen to the actual statement from...
A skilled migrant will contribute on average £16,000 a year towards our economy.
And that's when you include the public services he or she may use.
By the way, compare that to a Brit skilled worker.
That's £800 minus the public services they use.
And here's the lovely stat.
A skilled migrant's family will contribute to the British economy £12,000 a year.
That's even when you take away public services they use.
A British skilled worker's family takes from the economy £4,400 when you include public services they use.
That skilled migrants are sponges or skivers just isn't the case.
Right.
That can't possibly be true.
That sounds like...
You might as well remove the whole native population.
What the hell does that mean?
That's the first point.
If foreign workers and skilled migrants are absolutely so brilliant, then all we need to do is just get rid of everybody...
Sorry, get rid of everybody that is a Brit.
A home state individual, because clearly we're such a drain on society.
But the figures and facts are just absolute nonsense.
It just stands to reason it cannot possibly be done.
I mean, I know we're running a deficit, but we're not running that sort of deficit.
Yeah.
And so everybody who's listened to this has gone a bit viral, his statement, I think that had something like two million views on this.
I think we start obviously seeing the claim.
And this is the main claim that he's made.
Skilled migrants' family will contribute £12,000 a year to the economy, where a British skilled worker's family takes from the economy £4,400 was the number he used.
So there's a £16,400 difference between a British skilled worker's family and otherwise.
Now, I'm going to talk about how we got to these numbers just to show how poor at maths he is.
On terms of this.
But Connor, I'm speaking to Connor about this as well.
He's had an analysis of it.
He talks about only 15% of British post-Brexit migrants can principally work of those skilled worker visas.
The OBR, this is one of the things, the OBR only a few months ago admitted that 60% make less than the median salary.
50% of skilled workers earn less than half the average salary, costing British taxpayers £151,000 each by the time they retire.
He goes on to talk about other numbers, life expectancy to 81. They cost us £460,000.
And if they go up to £100,000, they're costing us £1 million.
There's further studies on there.
Then, Wolf, not me.
World by Wolf just shows that the skilled migrants make up a tiny fraction of the number of visas that are actually issued each year.
I'm doing a little bit of work on this at the moment myself.
He's just being incredibly selective of who he picks out of the migrant.
For example, when I was in the city, you'd walk through one of the big investment banks and it would be uncommon to find, say, a whole table of French...
Absolutely.
Bank Paribas, if you ever worked in there, as I've done for a while.
Or a table of three in quants or something like that.
So it'd be quite...
And typically what would happen is the whole team would move from one bank in one country to another London bank.
Now those people, I don't think we mind that immigration because they come over, they earn an enormous amount and they pay an enormous amount of taxes and then eventually they go home again.
Fine.
So if you want to make them your example of immigration...
And fine, of course they're going to be contributing a lot of money, but the vast, vast amount of immigration is people who don't contribute anything.
Well, the point that he's raising at the moment, and I'll go towards this on the end, is because Keir Starmer is saying skilled workers in his recent speech were going to bring down the numbers of skilled workers that have arrived in here, particularly with taking away the visas of those in care homes.
And so this argument now is...
That's not a skilled worker.
That's wiping old women's arses and things.
Well, I'll come to that in a moment.
And also, isn't dependence but with an E?
I don't mean to be pedantic, but...
Is it?
I don't know.
I can't spell.
Yeah, I think it is, actually.
I'm just seeing on that, but that's the Home Office's work.
Now, so, first of all, before I like to go out and criticise what is obviously the blatantly obvious tickler of us, I want to try and work out where did he make such a statement from this.
So, initially, it wasn't obvious.
And I'd have forgotten about this report, and then I went, right, okay.
I'd come across the Migration Advisory Committee annual report.
There's some good people on it.
Madeleine Sumption from Oxford Migration.
She's pretty reasonable, normally hot in the stats.
But most of the Migration Advisory Committee, which is the committee that I advised Boris Johnson to actually establish during the Brexit campaign and when I wrote the paper, a fair, flexible, forward-thinking immigration paper, was one that was supposed to...
to be an organisation that looks at our economy, works out where the skills are needed and Do we need more bankers?
Do we need more footballers playing for Man United that come abroad so they can actually win?
That sort of thing.
I think no to all of those, but we do need a better class of politician.
And so we're looking at that, and instead they filled it with a whole load of people that, when I look at them, it's their reports and stats always favour the migrant coming in.
No Paul Collier from Cambridge, for example, who wrote Home State, Host State, which is a vital piece of book, a vital book if you want to understand the whole arguments.
And when you go through this, and I'm not going to...
Tell the audience to read it completely.
They can if they want, and I'm certainly not going to read it here.
This is the report that it goes through, and here are the individuals, Professor Brian Bell, Dina Kiwan, Sergi Padras Prado, Madeleine Sumption, Joe Swafield.
Most of those are utterly left in terms of the way that they assess it, and they try to try and justify their arguments about mass migration.
Through the Migration Advisory Committee in reports like this.
And I broke it down.
So that's where the paper come from that he obviously is referring to.
And one of the key findings within the government on page 28 at the bottom, if you read this here, it says, it provides our estimates of government expenditure at individual levels for main applicants, adult dependents, child dependents on the skilled worker visa.
And here's the key point.
In comparison to the equivalent UK-born adult.
Not the comparison to an equivalent skilled worker UK-born adult.
Right, that's a complete lie.
So it's a complete lie.
He's basically comparing working-class people with middle-class people, or sort of.
Yes, that's right.
He's comparing a banker, BNP Paribas, to someone who's working in a factory.
And does he know that, or has he just been badly advised by his sycophant?
Well, this is the report.
This is the MAC report.
This is page 28. He isn't conscientious enough to actually read the report.
Oh, I don't think for a minute.
He probably just told some underling that he was going on the radio, put out some stats.
Right, yeah.
Now, interestingly enough, This is what the Migration Advisory Committee says, a skilled worker volume for 2022-2023.
And a fascinating element about that is they're saying there's 170,300 main applicants, children and dependents, come in there.
And we've only got 329,200, of which he says they make a contribution of £12,000, which is obviously the tax that they supposedly pay.
Well, for a start, that's out of 1.4 million.
So there's 1.1 million additional immigrants on top of that number.
Absolutely.
So there again.
Another blatant use of facts to try and justify his argument.
But we'll look at that, and the Migration Advisory Committee, when they're dealing with this, when they're saying the analysis of skilled workers and UK adults to ensure consistency, I don't understand how they can say that for a minute, that it's consistency.
But they also do say it's a specific point in time.
They're analysing the 329,200 skilled workers and the cost to the government on the day that they're here, or this year.
But they're doing the cost to UK workers across their lifetime.
So the skilled workers, they're saying, do not claim benefits now when they get here.
They're young, they're virile workers.
They don't get pensions like the Brits in there at all, so they're not claiming off healthcare because they're getting older, but at that time they're young, very paying taxes.
They're not saying what happens to them over the period of the time that they're living here, or when they can claim benefits once they get indefinite leave to remain after three years.
So, again, they've cherry-picked the numbers.
And one of the things I put on my tweet here is the 12 Clay is just wrong.
It would mean, those 329,000 is actually 172,000, would need an average of 82,500 a year to actually make those numbers work.
Bearing in mind the vast majority of the skilled workers that they call skilled are care home recipients.
And in what sense, though, that's my question, this term skilled, it seems to have been stretched out of all proportion.
I would think that a skilled person would be a person that was specifically trained in a complicated trade.
Yeah, electrical engineer or something.
Right.
At the very least, someone that maybe had a postgraduate qualification or something.
Whereas what I see a lot in my local area is obviously immigrant people shepherding around people with mental infirmities of some sort.
I see a lot of that.
Right, that's unskilled workers.
Yes, but from what you just said, they go in the skilled workers.
Yes, and what's interesting, I mean, now you've got it, perhaps I would have been better at pulling that out.
Actually, the Migration Advisory Committee tries to assess the question of what is skilled workers, and they include skilled workers as chefs, those working in the construction industry.
Possibly.
Yeah, depends which part of the construction industry.
People working in care homes.
So they do this list, and then they go...
Oh, well, perhaps the use of the word skilled worker is not really the best definition of what we're looking at.
Perhaps we should look at educational or academic equivalents, but they're not doing that.
They're literally saying everybody that comes here is a skilled worker.
It seems to me they're saying everyone that is a...
Worker is a skilled worker.
Yes.
Well, I suppose a waiter is not a skilled worker, but a chef is.
Is that right?
Yes, and they're the ones that defined what is a skilled worker because they're the Migration Advisory Committee.
They advise what the categories are.
They're used by the government to implement it into visa policy.
So when someone makes an application for a business for somebody who's doing a chef at your kebab bar, he's a skilled worker because he can...
So this makes it even more worrying to me that they're obviously making it as broad as they possibly can, and yet even then, out of 1.4 million people that arrived...
Only 300,000 of them get classified as skilled.
So the other one point...
That's including their families.
It's actually 170,300.
Fair point.
So 1.4 million people came here.
Even 1.2 million could not meet this incredibly broad definition of what skilled is.
And one of the things they're saying I think is interesting.
You know there's that stereotypical kind of joke argument that the good thing about immigration is that there's a variety of foreign food.
That's the only argument a lot of people can think of.
But even that is breaking down.
Because the first generation that come here, yeah, they run the Indian restaurants or whatever, but increasingly the kids who were born here, they have other ambitions.
They want to be lawyers or doctors or something like that.
And so then the consequence is they're having to import chefs or whatever or workers from India in order to sustain the restaurants.
Yes, and that's where they get the qualification that they're a skilled worker and they make the application for a skilled worker's visas.
But as I said, actually, here we are.
There is playing this £25,617 per worker.
That's the tax fraud scam.
The dependents scam is that, you know, they're saying that the kids pay no tax, but schools, NHS, housing benefit, none of these actually apply to them.
But of course, over the course of their lifetime, it may do.
One of the things I find so confusing about this, and I don't mean to big up Finland where I live, but what used to happen in Finland, I don't know if it still does, but 20 years ago it did, it was quite rare, unless you were applying for a job in Helsinki, because lots of people want to live in Helsinki, that there'd even be other applicants for your job.
So if you wanted to be a vicar, what would happen is that the government would work out, how many vicars must we train a year?
Just to replace those that retire.
And then they would say, OK, this is how many we need.
Therefore, there will be this many theology places available, funded by the government with a grant, at universities, and no more.
And they did that pretty much with every single job.
How many car mechanics do we need a year to replace retirement?
This is how many car mechanics we will train a year, and no more.
You see, I wrote the paper that included the idea of a Migration Advisory Committee exactly based on that.
And there was a slight extension to kind of copy some of the more positive aspects of Australia, where they have a similar situation where they work, admittedly, with business and trade unions and the NIH to try and become a broader number.
It's not exactly, we need 100, because sometimes that's more difficult, someone might die in a car accident tomorrow, but they had a broader range.
Even that range, when I did it, showed that we could have a net migration of just 50,000 a year in terms of the way that we got.
And that was actually then actually being covered by the number of people that died.
So we're effectively moving towards a zero net population increase.
Because we'd bring in enough people, people would die, and our population would actually level itself out.
Now, of course, the argument about net migration is being driven by the Treasury.
The Treasury has always said, for many, many years, that we've got to keep GDP up.
We've got to compete with our other GDP partners.
We've got to be in the top seven.
Because if our GDP falls to such a low level, then the bond markets get concerned.
They stop buying sterling, they stop buying our bonds, our interest rates will rise.
That will increase the cost of energy, and we'd have mass inflation.
So you've just got to keep pumping in.
Population after population.
Other countries manage to cope without massive inflation and without having constant migration.
Exactly.
And that's partly down to one of the areas where we've got, even going back to Tony Benn's arguments of socialism, where he said that we've got a low-skilled, low-wage economy.
Part of Brexit was to try and drive us away from that and increase the skills and level, and we do that by reducing immigration.
And also it fails to understand, it's very short term, because it fails to understand that if you have...
A nation of strangers, as Tuti Akir has put it, then this leads to further economic problems in the long run because social trust collapses.
This causes prices to go up, for example, because you're concerned about stealing or whatever it happens to be.
So then you just have further problems which they're not thinking about.
They're just thinking of a short-term economic model.
I call this the population growth that we've got is the Population Ponzi Scheme.
Because as you increase the population, it's exactly your point.
When you get a Migration Advisory Committee, they can't turn around and work out, we only need 50 deacons or 100 ballet dancers.
Human quantitative easing.
Yeah, because we've got so many coming out.
And what I say there is, look, the UK comparison is saying non-UK workers arriving in one year versus entire adult population is like the Olympic sprinter is faster than your grandma.
How hard would it be to just say, this is how many...
Medical doctors, we need to train a year.
This is therefore how many, give or take, we will train.
I don't think it's that hard, but the government seems to say it's a massive problem, and they've been saying that for years, and that's one reason why Boris brought in the Boris wave, which, to be fair, on Keir Starmer.
So I'm going to run through some very quickly here, because looking at the time, because when I have a back-end discussion of this, here's another of their scams where they turn around and say the UK skilled worker takes very little, Of the government expenditure, 4,800 and 1,100 at the bottom for the whole family.
But if you look at a UK-born adult, we're taking around 16,500 a year in terms of from the government.
What they mention is that includes pensions.
It's what we get as a pension.
Right.
Numbers have been fudged.
Yes, that's right.
So it's old age pensioners.
We put into the system all our lives, but now we're a net drain.
So if you say that those that work for the government, which is what percent of the population?
What percentage of the population work for the government?
Essentially civil servants.
Doc teachers, doctors, they all work for the government.
Wouldn't be surprising off the top of my head.
Is it 20%?
And then add the sort of, what, 20% or something that are unemployed or not fully employed.
So we're now on 40%.
And then add those that take out more than they put in.
Then you're probably dealing with a situation where about 50% of the population are actually sustaining everybody else.
Almost, yeah.
And that's not sustainable, is it really?
No, no.
I think someone has actually provided statistics that actually we now have a situation in this country where we have less of the population providing for more.
Well, yeah, sure.
Somebody like 46%, 47% are paying for 53%, and it's unsustainable.
But does that include the people that work for the state, who it used to be argued you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you work for the state because you are part of the state?
Yeah, I'm not sure about that, but I knew that numbers were saying that we're in a level now where we can't sustain this, where the people who are working in the contributory part of the economy is actually paying for those that are not, and it's less.
I picked up on this one.
I'm going to come on here.
And this is why.
This is why he's coming out making statements as Khan and O 'Brien.
It's because they're now saying that Starmer has crossed the line even for Blue Labour.
I know we're going to talk about it briefly.
Because they're pulling out statements that in the rivers of blood they found themselves strangers in their own country.
And Starmer is saying we're at risk of being an island of strangers.
So even for Blue Labour, which is...
They say it's Blue Labour, but it's actually being run...
Blue Labour's being run by a former communist, and he admits he was a former Gramscian communist.
And he views the whole of Blue Labour as an ability to be socially conservative and reducing immigration, but it's too far for them to recognise that.
What's so potent about this word stranger?
That's the interesting point.
I don't...
Or they just, there's nothing potent about it, and they just hope they can render it potent in order to manipulate people.
I mean, we have people we know, friends and acquaintances, and we have strangers.
And you can say that at an individual level, and presumably you can say that at a group level.
I mean, I would say a group of Buddhists are strangers to me.
I know very little about Buddhism.
And I think when...
When Powell was talking about this, we obviously had smaller communities that were very tight-knit, and then we had individuals coming in.
The stranger argument was actually there.
Alfred used it in...
The Chronicles, where he talked about the strangers to the East coming in and bringing them in.
That's why we had to have Christianity, to actually develop them and bring them into our own Christianity.
The idea of a stranger coming in has always been there.
The question is whether that stranger itself is actually a danger or something of betterment.
We all know someone who's come from a different country, a different part of our own country, that might have actually benefited our own community, benefited our own family.
But the point about this is whether the vast numbers of strangers can have that benefit anymore.
And I think it's not about the individual per se, it's about the volume.
Yeah, but you can literally, if you read Frank Salter's book on genetic interests, you can calculate the number of strangers, the foreigners, that can come in from a specific country for it to be the equivalent of you losing a certain number of children.
In terms of the damage to your genetic interests.
And this can be offset if, let's say, a Danish person comes to England, so a quite closely related person, and he comes up with an invention that's so fantastic that it's really useful for your society.
So then it can be offset.
But that problem is always there, that you're being, there's a word I'm not allowed to use, but you're being that by people of a different group.
I'm saying this coming across, the news agents here is Alf Dubs, who they always bring out, I have to admit, because he and his family obviously managed to survive Auschwitz and helped getting their kinder children across, so they always bring out Dubs on this.
They brought him out in Brexit, they brought him out in Boris Johnson.
And here he is saying it's regrettable language.
I'm unhappy senior politicians are using the language reminiscent.
Of this, and then we come to...
The key takeaway being, don't ever stop mass immigration, otherwise it will lead immediately to a holocaust.
Yes, of course.
How manipulative.
And I do not believe the Prime Minister would have wanted to invoke Enoch Powell, his Labour MP Olivia Bloke, saying that Starmer's speechwriters had never heard of Enoch Powell's revival of blood speech.
I find that absolutely...
We need nonsense.
Half the arguments the left ever make about Enoch Powell.
Exactly.
That's absurd.
Enoch Powell, I should emphasise, did instruct his supporters to vote Labour in the 1974 general election.
Yes.
And it's been argued that that is why Harold Wilson won, albeit with a tidy majority or was it even a hung parliament, the 1974 general election.
So he was, for a period, pro-Labour.
Well, look, that was a particular time in our history where there were clear differences on issues such as the European Union.
If you looked at Labour at that time, they weren't really enamoured of the idea of joining the European Economic Community.
I mean, we'll talk about him next.
So there was these big, strong arguments that he made.
And, of course, he was falling out of the Conservative Party at that time over this particular issue.
And I didn't know that.
I didn't know that.
It was actually...
That was the reason that they thought that he'd won, the Labour Party.
There is people that...
Certainly there are historians that have argued that.
Yeah, because he had such big support because of the 68 speech among working-class people.
He had such big support that they would do what...
A lot of them would just do what he said.
So it was, how should you, as my supporters, as power lights, vote?
And if he said vote Labour, they would do it.
And it was felt...
Because it was so close.
Yeah, it was.
That would tip the balance.
Well...
You've seen this, the mass attack on Keir Starmer, which I believe that the Khan massive mistakes that he made over the numbers, is all about this particular speech that the Prime Minister had made, where he says, I believe in reducing...
I'll play this very briefly, only just to listen to the tone of the voice of...
Actually, I've got to click for sound, have I?
He's right.
I just want you to listen to the tone of his voice.
And because it is what I believe in.
There you go.
Look at that.
Let me put it this way.
Nations depend on rules.
Fair rules.
Sometimes they're written down.
Often, they're not.
What's the key takeaway you're getting from this?
But either way, they give shape to our...
It's Blair!
He's being Blair!
Even with the hand.
Did you see the hands?
Exactly.
He has been round Blair's house.
They've had a little snuggle and then Blair has taught him and rehearsed him on how to do this speech.
Look at his face.
Look at the fact that...
He's right.
What is important is that we understand, that we use our hands a lot when we talk to show how sincere we are.
And in this particular way.
And look straight in and then every now and again dip your chin and look to be honest and hear.
But it's when he says, you know, it's something I believe in.
Look at the vacancy of his eyes.
There's nothing there that he believes in at all other than maintaining power for himself at all.
And I just find that very interesting.
But there's a more interesting point that I find fascinating about this whole speech.
Use Joe Biden to Tony Blair's Obama.
Tony Blair is still in charge and there's a vacancy behind his eyes.
When you think about it, you know, Blair is still there.
He's behind him.
You've got Mandelson as ambassador in the US, and Alistair Campbell is out there pontificating on his own podcast as the greatest...
Alistair Campbell couldn't find any reason to talk about this, though.
He skipped it.
Oh, has he?
Yes, he skipped it, yeah.
I didn't see that.
My mate, Starmer, can't do that.
But what I want to say is if Samson managed to get this right, this is something that I found...
Really, really important for us to get.
I've talked about how the numbers that the ONS, the OBO, the Migration Advisory Committee have been looking at, and why have we been accepting mass migration for a long time?
And that's because the Treasury, on the main point, has been driving this agenda about growth and GDP.
And there is evidence out there that more people you get in, you do increase GDP.
But GMP per capita, actually how wealthy we are as individuals, has been on the decline now for the last...
We're now in a worse state than we were.
We used to be up there at the top 5 GMP per capita.
We're now sitting there around 30. The decline is dramatic, and people don't understand that for every percentage point, we're losing £100 to £500 per person each year.
Standard living is getting to the point where the standard living is higher in Slovenia.
That's right.
Someone's even talked about some African countries getting close to us now.
I'm not sure that's entirely right when we look at Ghana and Nigeria, but certainly their economies are growing on GMP per capita terms than they are perhaps on GDP.
So here we have that argument.
Can I ask a question?
Excuse my ignorance, but GMP is the sound living of ordinary people.
That's correct.
So why is GDP, gross domestic product, Why is that considered more important?
Well, the important thing is the standard of living of the people.
Not according to the financial markets.
The financial markets look at you and turn around and say, GDP is like, how expensive is your house?
Is it going up really well?
You bought it for a million.
Is it worth 1.2 next year?
Is it worth 1.4?
That's the net income of the country.
What are we producing, allegedly?
So it doesn't matter that we might have a few billionaires increasing their share prices in terms of their pensions.
But as long as it looks good and it's growing, your house and your wealth is growing as a nation.
So they say that's important because then when we're lending money to you, you're a safe bet.
You're saying the GNP is downstream of GDP, like that?
Well, it's a different measure of how you look at the wealth.
So the GDP is the wealth of the nation.
That's what they say.
GMP per capita is the wealth of the individuals within that nation.
Right.
And the way that GMP per capita is basically GDP, your total, what is your household income, including your house.
So if you've got a house and a pension, and let's say it's all a million and it's just you, your own GMP per capita matches your GDP.
It's a million because it's just one of you.
As soon as you get married and have children, your wealth is declined.
Because there's now four of you.
So G&P per capita says you've got four, but actually it's now 250,000 each.
It's not quite identical to that analogy.
But the main point is, as you increase more people into your economy, that wealth that you have, if you now imagine putting 100 people in your house, your house is still the same value, but the income that you've got to feed everyone suddenly means you've got less to spend on clothes.
That's what's happening with ordinary people.
Right.
So we should focus on GNP rather than...
I've been arguing this now for 10 years, and everyone says, shut up, Stephen, the GDP is more important.
It's actually, to be fair, over the last 18 months...
It's more conducive to the set of policies they want to...
But we are a bit tight on time, so we probably...
We'll go into this briefly.
I just want you to listen to this, because I'm looking at time...
Great, migration.
Yeah, well, thank you, Sam.
Just succinctly and then adding to the answer I just gave.
Firstly, the pure theory, if you like, that simply higher migration numbers necessarily leads to higher growth, I think has been tested in the last four years.
We quadrupled in actually a very short period of time.
And, you know, I think whatever political persuasion you are, it is quite extraordinary that net migration quadrupled in four years.
We've never seen that before in this country, but growth didn't shift.
It stayed stagnant.
Secondly, this point about...
Finally, we have a Prime Minister who is actually saying GDP has not grown.
That is a bit of a watershed moment, actually.
And that is actually a major, major...
Most people haven't picked up on this.
There you are, a bunch of journalists from all the major newspapers and TV shows haven't picked up on the fact that here we have a Prime Minister for the first time in 20 years as accepted.
And it was the argument for 20 years that that was the reason we had to do it, although I'm not that hung up about it because they just pivot to a new reason.
I probably will.
But this is crucial, and I think it gives us an opportunity now to hammer down on them.
Yes, we should do.
Hammer down on them to say, we now have proof from your own lips that what you've been saying for the last 20 years is incorrect, and we should be able to focus on what really matters, which is the individual wealth.
And wellbeing of the people of this country.
Absolutely.
And mass migration is not making us richer.
As Dan said, then they'll just start talking about humanitarian reasons and it'll be back and it'll be Red Nose Day in the 80s.
Which is why I'm pivoting back to the beginning of this.
This is why Khan has emphasised these numbers on skilled workers to say they're better or skilled workers good, home workers bad.
There you go.
Right, let's talk about Enoch Powell, because for the leftists, simply citing the name Enoch Powell is enough.
And I don't think many of them actually know what he said, or much about the man.
I don't think many of us necessarily have looked into who Enoch Powell was, and the character of the chap and all the rest of it.
I have.
I'm sure you have had, but a lot of people have not.
So let's give you a very brief CV of Powell, and then what I want to do is get into his rivers of blood speech, and we'll just analyze it and see what it was that he actually said.
So Enoch Powell was born in 1912 in Birmingham, but don't hold that against him.
He got a double first in classics from Cambridge University.
He did further study at the University of Helsinki, and this is where it gets interesting.
He was the youngest...
Professor in the British Empire, because he became a professor of the classics at age 25. So a very, very young professor, the youngest in the Empire at the time.
He served in World War II with distinction.
He entered as a private and was swiftly promoted to brigadier, one of the fastest promotions in British Army history.
You know, this is a man of considerable...
He became a Conservative MP in 1950 and was until 1974.
He spoke 12 languages.
If you're interested, those languages were English, Latin, Ancient Greek, Hebrew, German, French, Italian, Welsh, Urdu, Hindi, Russian and Portuguese, all of them fluently.
He declined knighthood.
Because he never wanted titles or establishments.
He just wanted to sort of get on and do things.
Other notable things, he declined to write a letter of recommendation to a young Nigel Farage because he saw through him at an early days.
And he predicted that he would become more hated than Hitler in public discord, which, of course, he has effectively for the left.
And it's also, to him we credit, the line that all political careers end in failure.
So, I mean, he was a remarkable man, highly intelligent, highly capable man.
I'm not going to do what some people do, which is run away from Enoch Powell.
No, I claim him for the right.
He is an example of the absolute best of us.
But then we get, you know, front pages like this, where because Keir Starmer is suggesting that he might turn off the taps of unlimited mass immigration, Well, he's Enoch Powell, and Enoch Powell is obviously bad, and therefore Starmer is bad.
That's pretty much how the logic goes, yeah.
And this is a cut from the, this is the nationalist newspaper.
That is a newspaper in Scotland, yeah, that had that front page on it yesterday.
So, let's go to, I've got here a copy of the speech.
We might need to zoom in a little bit on that.
A little bit more.
Readable.
Is that good?
Okay, so I want to go through his speech.
I'm going to pick out passages because we won't have time to go through the whole thing, but just have a look at some of the predictions he made and how did he get on with them.
So he starts off, the supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.
In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things, such evils are not demonstratable until they have occurred.
Well, yes, my mind turns to Southport, Manchester Arena, the grooming gangs, countless other examples.
He was warning about if we go down this route, there will be many ill effects that come off the back of it and it won't be provable until they happen.
And he was right.
He says, I'll skip it here and there in order to get through this.
Above all, people are disposed to mistakenly predicting troubles for causing troubles, or even for desiring trouble.
If only, they love to think.
If people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen.
Now, this has been the story of the last 50 years.
People have hated on Enoch Power because he predicted things, negative consequences would flow from immigration.
And to the leftist mind, if you predict something, it's as if you are summoning it into existence.
That's exactly what Jonathan Miller said in an interview with him in the 70s.
Exactly this.
Because you, with all of the power of your office as a politician, are predicting it, you're kind of making it happen.
And this is just magical thinking.
It's how they think.
It's magical thinking.
Yeah, I mean, he goes on and talks about that in the very next line.
He says, perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object are identical.
And yes, primitive people will do this.
If you mention a thing, it's like you're summoning it.
And obviously leftists are primitive people.
So if you say to a leftist, you know, and we've had this all the time on the Lotus Eats, we predicted things will happen and people will get angry with us and say, why are you trying to make that thing happen?
By speaking it, by summoning it into existence.
And so, you know, right at the beginning of this speech, he hits the nail on the head of the fallout that we cause from this for the next 50 years.
I'll jump right now to this bit.
Okay, this is a line that is often repeated.
In this country, in 15 or 20 years...
The black man will have the whip hand over the white man.
Now, I'm going to fact-check that and go with partially correct.
I say partially because it wasn't the black man that had the whip hand.
It was literally everybody who had the whip hand over the white man.
Let's see if this box is working.
Can you go to the next link, Samson?
So here we are.
I've picked out a couple of stories here.
So this is...
You know, people put up some stickers that said it's okay to be white, sparked a police investigation as a hate incident.
The same would never be treated of, you know, if you put up a poster saying it's okay to be a woman or Black Lives Matter or any of those things, that would never be treated in that way.
What else have I got?
I've got...
The NHS are discriminating against whites in interviews.
So they've given themselves a rule, the Rooney rule, where basically they say that if they can justify hiring a non-British national, then they will do so.
So another example there.
I think I do have more.
Yeah, so MI5, MI6, and GCHQ, so the intelligence services of this country.
Navy did the same.
Yeah.
I mean, there's countless examples.
RAF did the same.
You know, they won't hire whites if they can, unless they absolutely have to.
They won't hire whites.
We've got lots of these sort of things.
I might have that as well.
And then, of course...
It was only because Robert Jenrick pushed back so hard and made it a thing, but we came exceptionally close to basically having UK law target white men specifically, where everybody else, if you had different levels of melanin or you were a woman, you would get lighter sentences than a white man.
A white man would be specifically marked out for receiving longer and harsher sentences.
Non-whites entering the government can be, although it's an emotive metaphor, can be understood as the black man having the whip hand over the white man.
And that started in, I suppose, the late 90s.
Yes.
Unless, if they support right-wing things, they're called a coconut.
Oh yes, that is...
The amount of times that I got called that when I was...
Why would you be called a guy?
Well, I'm mixed race.
Are you?
Yeah, absolutely.
If you look at my pictures when I'm younger, I'm much blacker than I am now.
I've just faded over time.
I like to say that I've faded naturally.
Like a sepia photograph.
Unlike Michael Jackson.
He had a complete blackened deck to me.
He put the creams on.
Yeah, that's right.
He painted himself white.
I just happened to go with him.
My melatonin seems to have disappeared.
Apart from when I go on holiday, then I come back and I'm now mistaken for whichever country I go into.
Right.
Italian, Turkish, you name it.
Yes.
But that's the same sort of thing.
The coconut argument is disgraceful.
It's getting people to back off from something.
That's right.
So I will say that his prediction was correct, other than that it wasn't the black man.
It was literally everybody who wasn't white.
We'll have the whip hand on this.
I can already hear the chorus of excreation, yes.
Excreation.
How dare I say such a horrible thing?
How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feeling by repeating such a conversation?
So, yes, I mean, again, this goes back to the idea that if you talk about something, you are summoning it into existence.
Not that if you drastically change the demographics, that will result in problems, but that would result in no problems if you didn't talk about there being problems.
It would go swimmingly if you don't talk about it.
Here he cites, you know, I'm saying what hundreds of thousands of people are thinking, yes, and to continue for another.
Here's another meaty prediction that he got into.
And bear in mind, this speech was in 1968.
It says, in 15 or 20 years on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants.
There's no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of 5 to 7 million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population.
And, of course, it would not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen.
Notice that in the one that was broadcast, he used different towns.
Oh, did he?
This is the written speech.
Oh, OK.
It was Land's End to John O 'Groats, he said.
Oh, OK.
That's a bit more relatable.
Maybe you found Aberystwyth too hard to actually say this.
Well, I certainly did, yes.
Whole areas and towns and parts of towns across England would be occupied by different sections of the immigrants and immigrant descendant populations.
So how did he do on that one?
Well, we did have the 2001 census and there were 5 million...
Foreign-born or foreign-origin people living here, 8% of the population.
So it was very slightly off on that one.
Although then, of course, it started to accelerate, and by 2021, the figure is 10 million.
But, of course, 2021 is before the Great Boris Wave.
And if you take that into account, that was, what, about 6 million people, something like that?
So, you know, we're already up to at least 16 million.
You know, must be about 25% plus of the population.
Yes.
So initially he was slightly over-egging it, but in the end he ended up being very much under.
And he was correct in that it basically clusters in certain towns and cities rather than being uniformly spread.
So he got that part of it right.
So so far, you know, basically he's been absolutely spot on.
The entire time, if anything, he's underagging it.
Let me...
Here we go.
So, as time goes on, the proportion of the total who are immigrant descent, those born in England who arrive here by exactly the same routes as the rest of us, will rapidly increase.
They did indeed.
We're coming up on his first major error.
The answers to the simple and rational questions are equally simple and rational by stopping or virtually stopping further inflow and promoting the maximum outflow.
And here's the bit he got wrong.
Both answers are parts of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
He could not have been more wrong.
But there was at the time.
Well, the policy...
We have to bear in mind when the Conservatives is the policy that they talk about and there's a policy they adopt.
That was the policy at the time and they put up posters about re-immigration.
There was Conservative Party policy in 1968.
Yes.
He's right.
Well...
He didn't say that would be Conservative Party policy in 2025.
Well, no, I mean...
I think you need to change that to black.
He's right.
He's saying present tense...
I mean, bear in mind, they did kick him out of the party, more or less, for this speech, so...
But that was still their official policy.
Well, yes, the official policy under Boris Johnson was that immigration would come down, and what they actually did was the complete and upper opposite.
Yeah, but in stating it's their official policy, I don't mean to be...
Well, I do mean to be pedantic here.
Well, yes.
It is correct.
OK, there's a bit like saying that Boris Johnson's official policy was to reduce immigration while he massively, massively increased it.
But it's still his official policy.
All right, OK, I'll give you that.
I'll give you that.
I'm enjoying it because I can see both sides of it.
Well, you can see both sides of it completely.
No, I can see that it's actually, as the language is written, it's right.
But actually, I also understand the policy decisions of all politicians.
They may write it down, but they never carry it out.
Yes.
And certainly when it comes to immigration, looking back even from the time of the Conservative Party then.
They didn't carry it out.
They were still allowing it to happen.
I'll give you the technical win, but technical only.
This is just kind of ridiculous, isn't it?
It almost passes belief at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week.
That means 10 to 20 additional families in a decade or two hence.
I mean, first of all, it's terribly quaint that he's worried about 20 or 30 additional families in Wolverhampton.
Shall we go and have a look at Wolverhampton?
Here we go.
So here's Wolverhampton.
And let me see, can I set...
Here we go, the proportion that are white.
So let's take Wolverhampton Central is now 40% white.
40%, 60% something else.
So whites are now the minority in Wolverhampton.
This is Enolt Powell's Old Sea.
And if you push down into South Wolverhampton, only 30% of people in Breckenhall are white.
Again, only 30% people there are...
So, you know, he...
I don't think any...
Because there would have been people in Wolverhampton who would have been appalled by what he said, who probably had no idea what was going to happen to Wolverhampton next.
In Finland, when immigration first...
The same in Walsall, you know, also Birmingham, the whole lot.
Oh, yes.
First began 20 years ago.
People were saying to me, oh, why would this happen here?
Like, no one wants to come to Finland.
Why do you want to come to Finland?
Well...
Because you've got a welfare system, that's why.
Another famous line, to those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
They must be mad, literally mad, as a nation permitted the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents.
We would give our right arm for 50,000.
I agree.
Absolutely.
For who are the most part the material future growth of the immigrant descendant population?
In the interest of time, I won't look at the immigrant...
Well, actually, let's quickly look at the immigration chart.
Like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.
Yes.
Yeah, next line, yes.
Well, that's the recent immigration chart, and we've got the, you know, this is the Conservative...
Party policy.
And to be fair, it will come down.
I mean, my estimate is it's going to come down to around 500,000.
Well, yeah, it's still up here.
The OBR and the ONS think it's going to be 360,000 as the average for the next 10 years.
If I'm right, we're 80 million people in this country by the time we've got 2033, 2034.
Outrageous.
We should have a policy of getting the country down to about 40 million.
And how will we do it?
Yes.
Oh, he makes the point here about for every 5,000 people who come in, you can expect 5x that number because of dependence.
He also makes the point that this is making no allowance of fraudulent entry.
There's a lot of that as well.
I mean, he's partially pre-empting the small boats crisis there as well, but also the fact that a lot of people just turn up on holiday visas and then disappear.
You never see them again and for whatever reason they don't get counted on the immigration numbers.
You know, he says that this should be reduced to negligible proportions.
He does here talk about, he makes a distinction between settlement and entry of Commonwealth citizens, because he was the health minister for a while, while the NHS was expanding rapidly after the Second World War.
And as part of that, because the NHS was expanding so fast, they did bring in a number of England doctors, for example.
And he was the minister who oversaw that, so he always drew a distinction between, kind of goes back to our last segment, actually skilled immigration.
He didn't so much have a problem with that, especially if there was some sort of work visa arrangement, as opposed to people who were just coming here in order to settle and to, you know, take up permanent residence.
In fact, yeah, I mentioned that below there.
Can we have that?
Back sums and I don't know what happened there.
There we are.
So yeah.
A little bit there on his background as health minister.
So he brought in people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jamaica and Barbados.
We did.
We managed to get lots of nurses coming in from Jamaica and Barbados because we got doctors from India.
And Pakistan and Bangladesh ended up going not necessarily into healthcare from what I understood at the time.
They ended up going elsewhere.
They had basically full working rights.
So it doesn't matter what they brought over for, they can then go off and do anything else.
I've put this down as my second great failure.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Hence the urgency of implementing the second element of the Conservative Party's policy, the encouragement of re-immigration.
Okay, technically it was the Conservative Party policy.
They've never once done it.
So, nobody can make an estimate of the numbers of which generous grants and assistance would choose to either return to their country of origin or go to other countries anxious to receive their manpower and the skills they represent.
Another quaint thing about the time in which he said this, and at least the people coming then actually had skills.
Well, of course, the people we're trying to offload today, or hopefully we're going to be offloading today, their only skill is claiming welfare checks.
So who the hell else is going to want them?
Even their own countries won't want them back.
But that was at least the case in 1968 that the people coming in had some skills at least.
I do like this bit.
It can be no part of any policy that existing families should be kept divided.
So basically saying you deport them together or you send them back to be reunited in their country of origin.
The third thing, which I will skim over to avoid any friction, but he's talking about Conservative Party policy again.
Technically true.
Oh, here we go.
So this does not mean that immigrants and descendants should be elevated to a privileged or special class, that the citizen should be denied rights to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow citizen and that of another.
Of course, as we talked about earlier, The white man is now actually discriminated against a whole number of ways.
Hiring for, you know, the armed forces, the intelligence services, the NHS, for broadcasts.
Yeah, but also, as you said, they've banned the riot.
It used to be that your home, including your business, was your castle, and if you wanted to discriminate against somebody on any basis you wished, then that was allowed.
Yes, whereas now you can only do it against white men.
But this is why he argued that act was such a...
In 1968, which is what he was speaking against, was such a problem because it would ban, for example, before that act, landlords could say, I'm not going to give you lodgings because you're black, and it would upset my other lodgers.
And the attitude was, well, it's his house.
It's his house.
It's sacrosanct.
It's his house.
Even if you disagree with his reasons and you think it's unpleasant or whatever, it's his house.
And this undermined that fundamental aspect of English liberty.
Yes.
So here he is talking about, you know, legislation against discrimination.
As we've seen, that basically becomes discrimination, but the other way, against the majority population.
Well, it began the basis of actually leading us up to acts such as the Malicious Communications Act.
Indeed.
They all start stamming off in different ways.
You become a hydra.
You begin with the so-called pleasant idea that we don't treat people differently because of colour or skin or race or religion, which in principle we all agree with.
No one should do that.
And so by enforcing it into legislation, which then become part of common law, it's what we talked about ID cards.
We know what's happened.
When they bring it in for the foreigners, we'll be having it to us next.
So the idea is this becomes a multi-herdehydra that extends their powers and their decisions to control us and make us think along their lines.
He says they have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.
The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and the resentment lies not with the immigrant population, but with those who have come amongst and are still coming.
Again, this is the leftist theme, that to mention any criticism of immigration, well, you're creating alarm and resentment amongst the immigrant population.
Actually, no, it's the...
Isn't that interesting, again, that he was working on that speech, he had it written out and right to the last minute?
Because what he actually said was the sense of resentment and alarm.
So he reversed them.
And he was thinking about the exact cadence of the words right to the moment he delivered the speech.
He was a very clever man.
He makes a distinction between the black community and the United States, which he says, look, they were already in existence, whereas the Commonwealth citizens coming here, they're basically leaving one functional country and coming to another, where they then get free treatment under the NHS.
Again, quaint that it was...
The NHS was seen as the big bill at the time, not the welfare system and the retirement system and all the rest of it, but that was the immediate concern there.
Talking about the existing populations, and for reasons they could not comprehend, they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
So first of all, he makes a point that people were never asked about this, and they were never asked subsequently.
In fact, they were asked subsequently, and they said, yes, we don't want immigration.
And they got it anyway.
That's right.
Many, many times.
Every polling for the past 20 years has suggested that immigration is at the top of the tree and that we do not want illegal immigration and we do not want to have excessive immigration into the country, but all the time.
Interestingly, did he say that?
I don't know what he said.
This is in the written speech.
My memory of the recordings is, he goes, on which they were never consulted and which they could never have expected.
Applause.
It could be.
And I don't think he said those lines, which are now being attributed to Starmer.
I think he had them written down in the speech, and it's on the YouTube version of someone who is an actor to be him.
But I wonder if he actually said that.
Ah, that'd be interesting.
But it is in the written speech, yes.
Well, this is the bit that people got upset about in the last couple of days, which they found themselves made strangers in their own country, which, you know, wherever my meme is, there we go.
Yeah, that's the same thing.
So very similar to what Keir Starman said, and of course, you know, kicked off all of this.
He highlights an issue here, talking about the British population.
They found the wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places.
Again, exactly what has happened.
The pressure on service.
I mean, even Starman talked about that in speech, the pressure on public services.
The reason that pressure on public services is there is because we're rapidly expanding the population.
And these people bring dependents with them that need to go into schools and hospitals and all the rest of it.
People often like to say, well, the NHS wouldn't function because, you know, without immigration, because, you know, the staff make up, like 15% of the staff are foreign-born.
Well, yeah, but something like 25% of the patients are.
So if you've got rid of both sides at the same time...
It's probably more, because the health level of the ethnic minorities is lower than that of the natives, controlling for age.
Yes, yes.
So in terms of per capita, let's look at it per capita rather than pure numbers.
They don't like using the per capita.
You don't?
In terms of crime, when we look at crime numbers, for example.
As Connor Tomlinson recently showed about the migrant rape gangs and the abuse gangs.
Well, that's just a deliberate misunderstanding of maths.
And in order to pass GCSE maths, you need to understand things like the capita.
And if they don't, then frankly, they should be forced back to school until they do.
He says, the sense of being a persecuted minority is growing amongst ordinary English people in areas of the country affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.
Now, he wrote this speech in 1968, and he's talking about the sense of being a persecuted minority of the English people.
And it's taken until yesterday for the government to respond.
It took 50 years for the government.
And I think that only happened because we've got people like David Betts or whatever, the King's College London war expert, talking about things like civil war.
Yes.
And it being ramped up to such a degree that they know they're going to lose power, they are losing power, if they don't, it's like the Majesty or Reformation, if they don't sort of take control of this.
Yeah, if they don't put a containment exercise in place.
They've got reform on one side of things.
They've also got the Muslim parties that are rising and the so-called independence in certain areas, like a girl from Burnley who's, what, 19, who's just been elected as a councillor in Burnley, and she is part of her policy, say we should have segregation between men and women in our schools.
What was it, five?
Islamic MPs now?
Yep.
And I reckon, you know, if we did a...
Someone helped me overlook some of the polling, potential polling, they could move from 5 to 25. In the next election.
All Labour seats.
And that's what Labour is thinking.
They're thinking, OK, well, next election, you could have 25 openly Islamic MPs and you could have reform as the biggest party.
Yes.
And they're being squeezed out the middle, like you say, and therefore that's why they're having to put this containment effort in place where they start to pick up...
The thing is, I just can't...
Why...
Please, just don't believe them if you're thinking of...
I suppose people watching this channel won't vote Labour in a million years, but...
Most of them won't.
The idea that you would believe these people is just, for me, it's astonishing.
It would almost be as mad as believing the Conservatives.
Well, yes, exactly.
And that's why I was fully in favour of zero seats.
I remember coming on here when it was...
I don't believe the Labour Party, but I think they're slightly more believable than the Conservative Party.
Well, I actually believe the Labour Party will ruin the nation.
It's their intention to do so because they just can't think it out of the box when they were 17 or 18 and really being oppressed by someone else because they were actually stupid.
Yeah, that's it.
It's the child that's never grown up.
It's the Kevin from Harry Enfield.
It's so unfair.
They're motivated by resentment that they don't have power.
They never feel they have power when they have it because they're neurotic and they feel that other people are controlling them and they lack a sense of agency.
And so therefore they will always fight for more power and against that which is historical, which symbolises power.
It's resentment, as Nietzsche said, in one party.
They will never...
Let me skim through a couple of other points.
He's talking about the dangerous delusion of thinking that integration would be a thing.
We spent the last 50 years...
Hammering that, you know, oh, integration's going to happen any time now.
50 years ago, he said, no, this is a nonsense.
Integration is not going to happen.
He even points out, talking about the immigrants coming here, he said, to imagine such a thing enters the head of the great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception.
It does some, though.
I mean, I looked at this in my book.
Some, yes.
Yeah, I looked at this in my book, The Past and Future Country, The Coming Conservative Revolution, and what you'll see is that some of them do this.
They white a line, particularly if they marry a native person and have a child.
And then they've got a stake in the people.
And it's also different communities.
I found that within the black community, for example, a lot of Africans who were here initially and West Indian men are supportive of people like Tommy Robinson, for example.
Sikhs are supportive of that particular ideology, and they were supportive of Brexit in big numbers that I found.
And so what you have is different groups are willing to do so, but in small numbers, in very much small numbers.
We're almost at the end now.
So now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration of vested interests, the preservation, sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination over first fellow immigrants and then the rest of the population, what we just talked about ago with the openly Islamic MPs.
This hearts back to the fact the reason he was giving this speech was about the Race Relations Bill.
For these dangerous and divisive elements, legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very parabellum of what they need to flourish.
It is the means of showing the immigrant communities can organise.
That's a key point.
The right gets arrested if they try and organise.
The left or immigrant groups do not get arrested if they want to organise.
Yes, very much so.
I'll quickly mention some points of the Race Relations Act of 1968.
It basically prohibited discrimination in housing, employment and public services.
That was swept away by the Equality Act of 2010.
And under Section 158 and Section 159, it gives you the sort of discrimination that has become commonplace these days.
So RAF pauses job offers to white men, calling them useless white men.
That actually led to a senior female officer resigning in disgust of what they were doing.
Another example is, you know, here's a story by the police basically discriminated against a highly qualified individual because he was a white man.
I think he actually had a degree in particle physics or something.
He was applying, you know, well above the average of the normal policeman and he was applying to join, but he was a white man and so he got rejected and won a later tribunal case.
There's a legion of examples that I could give here, but we don't have racial equality, we just have basically what they call positive action is acceptable in tiebreaker situations, and funnily enough, the fact that you've applied for a job means it qualifies for a tiebreaker, so basically the white man can be rejected.
I'll now quickly cover, because we're a bit low on time now, the other passage which is very famous.
And in this, he's making a reference to a Virgil book about the fall of Rome and about a vision that they had there at the time, in that he basically saw the coming fall of Rome.
And the passage that Powell says in his speech is, As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding like the Roman.
I seem to see the river Tiber foaming with much blood, the tragedy, an intractable phenomenon with which we watch the horror on the other side of the Atlantic.
But there is an interwoven with the history and existence of the United States itself is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.
So he's not actually directly saying that rivers are going to fill up with blood.
He's making a reference to a vision in a classical text about the fall of an empire.
A couple of lines from the end.
Only resolute and urgent action will avert it, even now.
Whether there will be the public will demand to obtain that action, I do not know.
All I know is that I will see, and not to speak would be the great betrayal.
So there we go.
That's what he actually said.
Every prediction he made was correct.
possibly apart from the bits about what the Conservatives would do all of the predictions you made were correct laughs Sometimes on technical grounds.
I'll give you that.
I can accept that.
The passages that often get people fired up was a classical reference, a cultural anchor, effectively, to a warning.
But it's the end of an empire.
There's nothing about people being burnt in blood in rivers and things like that.
Although I do think that we will have some more violence between groups as we're beginning to see, whether it's in Leicester, between Indians and Pakistan.
Sometimes they don't even need us.
The violence in Leicester, for example, is between the Hindus and the Muslims.
Nottingham between Poles and Romanians against Somalians.
It's going to continue.
In different ways, in the same way that we've had it, you know, the battles in the 1800s between the Irish and the English.
So it will happen, but in this occasion, we've got far too many groups and far too much disparate people with no link to this nation anymore.
They only see it as a place that they can make money and live.
It's not a cultural tie.
Yep.
Yeah, so, you know, I certainly claim him as, you know, one of our own example of the best of us.
And this speech, which has been demonized, used to demonize him for 50 years, he was bang on the money.
Yeah, this is true.
And he also had many of the qualities of these kind of eccentric Jonathan Bowden-type charismatic.
You know, the fact that he was extremely intelligent, which normally means you're bad at things that normal-level intelligent people can't do.
So, for example, he couldn't drive.
No.
That was beyond him.
The Farage story goes in that I was the driver for Enoch Powell to this speech, or one of his speeches.
And people that are very, very highly intelligent are often high in openness and experiment with things.
He went through a phase of being gay and actually wrote to his parents, say he was gay.
He was bad with girls.
He didn't court a girl until he was 37. He didn't lose his virginity until he was about 40. I mean, there's all kinds of, you know, an unusual lopsided guy, which often goes together with having extremely high intelligence.
Very interesting.
Never knew that.
Right.
Okay, there we go.
I think, I think, I don't know if there's any video comments, but we are a bit pushing time today.
So what was that?
We have run out of time.
Okay, we have to leave it there.
Oh, hang on.
We've got a couple of...
Sigilstone says, import people ad infinitum, but the GDP will never rise, and the GDP of where they come from goes down.
And Scanline says, this Enoch fellow is a bit too left-wing for me.
No wonder Starmer imitates him.
We need some more proper right-wing politicians.
I would love to do some of the website comments.
I shall have to do an extra bit on those tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection