The Lotus Eaters dissects Britain’s collapse: a welfare state bloated to £1.37 trillion—45% of GDP—with £900 billion swallowed by debt and quangos, while 53% of households live off benefits. The host contrasts the Empire’s lean efficiency (424K civil servants, 10% GDP) with today’s unsustainable statism, linking it to post-WWII vote-buying and cultural erosion. Jim Ratcliffe’s "immigrant colonization" remark ignites debate: multiculturalism now celebrates Eid lights over English identity, yet Manchester United fans embrace foreign players as pride. Restore Britain surges at 7% polling, exposing discontent with mass immigration and policies like Ramadan match pauses, while critics like Khaled Hassan dismiss it as "ethno-nativist." The episode rejects civic nationalism’s false equivalences—Nana Akua isn’t "English" by ancestry, despite cultural assimilation—and demands policies reflecting "normal" British priorities: tax cuts, welfare cuts for non-genuine claimants, and English cultural dominance. The conclusion? A nation fractured between elite multiculturalism and a majority demanding accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
Understanding Scale: Civil Service Edition00:14:34
Good afternoon folks, welcome to this slightly delayed podcast of the Load Cedars for Monday the 2nd of March 2026.
I'm going to be honest, I got stood up a bit brokenhearted, but thankfully my beautiful co-host Stellielsa stepped in to help me out.
I'm the Euromaxing factor here.
That's why it's 20 past.
That's not the reason, by the way.
This is not the reason.
It's not my fault, I swear to God.
I can confirm also it's not Carl.
It's neither Carl's fault.
No, I turned up exactly on time like the Anglo-Protestant that I am.
No, no, don't worry.
It doesn't matter.
We'll talk about it another time.
So anyway, so today we're going to be talking about the scale of the state, right?
You think you understand the scale of the state, but you don't.
And we're going to go through it in detail, all with numbers from the government, and just put it in context.
Just how unbelievably rinsed we are getting.
Again, you don't understand how bad it is.
Then we're going to talk about how, well, they admit that they're colonizing us.
They're very proud.
Everyone's very proud of colonizing Britain, which I realize is something we've talked about before, but it just keeps happening.
They just keep rubbing in our faces.
And then we're going to talk about why Restore Britain is basically an ultimatum at this point.
It's basically, no, we will have our way or else it will be trouble.
And I don't want the trouble.
I want to avoid the trouble, but this has to be the way things go.
Anyway, directly after the podcast at, I think, about 3.15, something like that, because of a slight delay, maybe 3.30, Ferras' Real Politique Show will be live.
And, well, I mean, a few things have happened.
I could have talked about Iran stuff, but you know what?
I'm not the guy.
I don't follow it.
I wasn't monitoring the situation.
Ferras hasn't slept all weekend.
This wasn't exactly Chad Jack's weekend.
No, it wasn't.
I was trying my best to deny that anything was happening.
And also, I was complaining a bit that everything happens during the weekend.
We get a weekend to relax and the entire bulk of the news cycle happens then.
It's because Trump knows that Ursula von der Leyen's on her work-life balance and she can't log in until Monday morning.
So he can do whatever he wants before he gets a snotty email from her.
Anyway, so that will be obviously a very important episode that I will be watching as well because I have no idea what's happened and it can't be good.
But anyway, so let's begin.
This is the British Empire at its peak.
And I think this was 1922, 1923.
It's about 13.7 million square miles.
That's about a quarter of the Earth's land area.
It is 458 million people, roughly, about a quarter of the Earth's population.
And it warred with just about every continent.
I mean, it occupies every continent.
It warred with just about every people under the sun and had about 300,000 standing troops, which is surprisingly small, obviously about 4 million in the Navy.
And the question is, well, how much administration did this vast imperial undertaking require?
Well, the answer is not all that much.
Because we actually have incredible records of this because we live in the continuity of the British Empire.
The British Empire never fell.
We didn't lose a war, at least on paper.
And so we haven't lost all of our records because, you know, the capital was burned down and we lost all the records with it because they weren't inscribed on clay and didn't bake hard like in the Iraqi desert or something.
No, we actually know exactly.
We've got all the numbers because it was literally just 150 years ago or so that this sort of thing really sprung into life.
So we have all the records.
We know exactly to the last man.
We know how much they were paid.
We know everything about this.
And when you compare that to now, you just say, oh my god, how was this possible?
How could it have been?
Right?
So this is, as you can see, a paper called The Evolution of the United Kingdom Civil Service, 1848 to 1997 by Michael Duggett, BA, Master of Philosophy, MITD, don't even know what is PhD, principal lecturer at Civil Service College London.
So if anyone could be taken to be an authority on this, I think it's someone with that suite of qualifications who is the principal lecturer at the Civil Service College in London, right?
And so he says, in 1929 to 1931, Tomlin Royal Commission examined the British Civil Service and found overall that it was very high quality.
It had a series of exams and a series of classes that you had to take certain exams to get into the classes.
And each one was the equivalent of a master's, a bachelor's degree, just to get into the civil service.
And then you had to proceed up through the rest.
Was there no DEI there?
No, there wasn't.
It was a lot like a very pragmatic version of the kind of Chinese imperial administration, actually, where it was a highly specialized and very, very meritocratic administrative organization.
And for the entire British Empire, everything you see, the Empire upon which the sun never set, there were 424,000 civil servants.
Now, 122,000 of those were involved in the armed forces.
300,000 of them were what they call non-industrial, and only 8,000 of them were colonial.
So everywhere outside of Britain had 8,000 administrators.
You don't need that many civil servants.
No, you don't.
I mean, I can appreciate the necessity for civil servants in the army, for instance, but you don't need that many.
Especially now with technology, which is the interesting thing that now with the technology, we have more.
Whereas before, with less technology, there were less.
And I'm exactly the person to be co-hosting this segment because I really despise statism.
Yeah, no, it's insufferable in every manifestation, frankly.
And so, okay, so you've got outside of the army about 300,000 administrators for Britain, which is the colonial heartland, and the entire empire.
And that's everything.
That is the world's largest fleet.
That is an incredibly professional army.
That is the communications, all manner of sort of bureaucracy to determine who is living where for a quarter of the Earth's population and everything they do.
I mean, think of the postal service.
Like, we had an international postal service where you could send letters from Britain to India or from Africa to Canada and things like this.
So, right, this is all done bureaucratically by a civil service that was only 300,000 outside of the military, right?
Mental.
And there was a former, speaking about a former civil servant called Sir Edward Bridges, right?
Michael Duggett says this.
Sir Edward's effortlessly Olympian and to the modern eye, unconsciously masculine style, speaks of a sense of the British civil service as it achieved a state of excellence arrived at after long evolution based on accepted truths and validated by a victorious experience in the last wars in World War II.
So the machine of the international civil service worked.
It actually did what it was supposed to do, and it did what it was supposed to do at a surprisingly cost-efficient way.
So, for example, again, because this is all well within modernity, we've got all the numbers, right?
At its post-war, post-World War I territorial maximum extent, there was the billion pound budget, which sounds like a lot.
That's like a lot of money.
Well, if we compare it with now, it's not that much.
Not really.
It sounds ridiculous.
And that's a billion pounds in 1920s money as well.
So it's a lot of money.
But that comes to about £68.2 billion today.
Can you even imagine our government limping along on £68.2 billion?
I mean, that would be incredible.
If we could shrink the size of the state to merely £68 billion, that would be mental.
I mean, if you just tot up, again, you only get rough estimates of the economy of the British Empire, right?
But it's in their money in that time.
It was something like £10.2 billion.
So I don't know how much that equates to now.
But that means that the total expenditure of the British Empire at its very height was about 10% of the total GDP of the empire.
That sounds very reasonable.
We're running an empire on a budget.
Imagine how much money there must have been floating around elsewhere, right?
And a big one, not just a regional.
Yeah, exactly.
Regional one.
Not just a big one, the biggest one.
The biggest empire that has ever existed in all of human history.
And so it's like, right, okay, that's very, very interesting how they had a really efficient civil service.
Had only 300,000 non-military personnel administering the empire, and they still managed to have it.
So it was only 10% of our entire budget.
And even then, after World War II, that was considered too much.
They were like, oh, we can't sustain the empire anymore.
We just can't afford it.
You mentioned the war, World War II, and I'm going to mention it not in the usual sense in which it happens, in which it's mentioned.
It's just the rise of the welfare state.
And you can sort of understand the kind of panic that people had immediately post-World War II and the need to provide them with a safety net.
But it seems to me that after a while, this got completely expanded.
Oh, you think?
Just a little bit expensive.
Well, I have to put things diplomatically and I have to put things without making huge exaggerations.
Well, let's move on.
So 10% of the British Empire's economy was spent by the government in 1922, roughly, through the billion pound bill, through its spending bills.
Now, if you look at the Office of Budget Responsibility, they'll just tell you straight.
They'll be like, yep, it's not great.
They've got, there we go, a nice graph here.
Now it's 1.37 trillion.
From 68 billion to 1.37 trillion.
And that's in adjusted money as well.
So 68 billion in 1922, 1.37 trillion now.
And as you can see, the receipts that the state brings in is only 1.232 billion trillion, sorry, which means we've got a deficit of £138 billion a year.
So more than double what the state was spending in 1922 is our deficit now.
What we are borrowing now.
This is absurd.
This is just crazy.
And like I said, people just don't understand the scale of the problem.
It is crazy, but it's the logical conclusion of turning your back to private enterprise.
And there are several ways in which people talk about private enterprise.
You don't have to be a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist to go back to the 1922 or the early, late 19th century liberalism of that time.
Yeah, I know.
You literally don't need to be some kind of insane libertarian to be like, guys, I think this may have gone too far.
I mean, for example, look at this, right?
How much will it spend on things like public services, state pensions, and debt interest?
Well, in 2025-26, we expect to spend £1.37 trillion, right?
Equivalent to around £48,000 per household or 45% of the national income.
For every pound that is earned in Britain, the state spends 45 pence of it.
That just is insane.
And £48,000 per household is insane in itself.
The average income in Britain is £36,000.
We'll round it up to £37,000.
So the state is going to spend on average per household more than you make.
And I think you mentioned before that in 1922, about 100 years ago, the public spending to GDP was 10%.
And that's not just 10%.
It's way more.
It's way more.
And so it just sat there like, okay, this is a monster that is just squatting on our civilization.
And again, you just don't understand the scale of the thing.
So as you can see, the government will spend more than you will earn this year for the average person.
Yeah.
By a long shot.
Imagine if you're an average person, your household income is £36,700.
And someone, there was a bank error in your favor, and you found yourself at the end of the year with an extra 10 grand.
Would that help you?
Would you be like, oh, Jesus Christ, we're 10 grand up?
That's brilliant.
No, the government is doing that with everyone all the time and being like, hey, guys, we're 10 grand up for 60 million people.
It is mental, right?
Then you have public sector employment.
One in 11 people in Britain is employed by the government.
One in 11.
That means rather than having 300,000 civil servants, well, it's not just civil servants now because we have a series of extra institutions that are government-owned, government-controlled, and now have apparently an unlimited remit to just drain the life out of the country.
So, I mean, in the modern era now, in 2024, this is of the civil service is 554,000 people.
And the percentage you mentioned, which I think is about 9%, is 9% of the total population, not of the population of taxpayers.
No, no, just the total population, yeah.
So, yeah, if you were to, and well, I mean, the total population of next taxpayers is way lower than that, but we'll come to that in a minute if that's all right, right?
So, as they tell us here, again, the Office for National Statistics, the radical, right-wing, crazy, they say employment in the public sector was estimated at 6.18 million in September 2025.
An increase of 7,000 compared with three months earlier, and an increase of 1% compared with the year before.
So, as far as they're concerned, every year the state employees grow by 1%.
So, in 10 years' time, it's 10%.
Like, this is insane.
This is like, this is mental, right?
The NHS is 2.07 million people.
It's more than 10% in 10 years, because it's 1% on an annual basis.
Yeah, yeah.
So, relative to now, it's more than 10% in 10 years.
Government Spending and Welfare00:14:41
Yeah, but also, like, that's again, and that's only people directly paid by the government.
Exactly.
Where the money for their wages goes into their account from the government.
That's not included.
We'll get onto all this stuff, right?
So the NHS is 2.07 million people, putting it just shy of the Chinese army, which is 3 million people.
It's one of the largest, it alone is, I think, the seventh largest employer on earth.
So there are very few organizations that are bigger than the NHS.
And how's it going?
Brilliant, being run well.
Can someone look back and go, well, this is an institution of excellence like they did in 1922?
No, of course they can't.
Local government is nearly 2 million people.
Like I said, the civil service, half a million people.
Public corporations, 161,000.
And then Her Majesty's forces, 148,000.
And also, they aren't particularly, they don't have a saving mentality.
I will give an example, which I've given before.
And, you know, there may be people who tell me I'm going to be look like an old man who constantly repeats himself.
But there are kits of equipment.
You have 20 pieces of equipment.
And they open one, they take what they use one and they throw the entire kit.
Because they say, no, it has to be desterilized or we can't use it.
Not my problem.
So they're throwing vast resources away.
Yep.
And it's just not their problem.
And there's no accountability for this.
And in fact, on the subject of accountability, these numbers at this point should be basically blowing your mind.
You should be like, right, okay, that's wild.
How is it that basically one in 11 in the country is employed directly by the government?
So that's, you know, families that are just totally because then you've got, again, that's just out of the people who work.
Then you've got dependence on those people who are therefore dependent directly on the government.
So I mean, let's assume that each person has three dependents.
Well, that's a good third of the country that is directly dependent on the government.
And the government already spends 45% of everything the country makes.
So it's just like, right, okay, this is just a parasitic entity that wants you dependent on it.
And then it's like, okay, well, I mean, can we elect a government to do something about that?
Well, not really, to be honest, right?
Because of the quangocracy.
Now, the quangocracy, this is the Kwango is a colloquialism that we use, right?
They actually call them ALBs.
Now, what's an ALB?
Well, an ALB is an arm's length body, as in something that's arm's length from the government, theoretically, and it's not entirely clear how many of them there are.
You think, how is that possible?
Like, how is it possible in this era of technology, in this era of everything being literally ones and zeros falling in spreadsheets?
So you should be able to just do a search.
How many of this column is there?
Extract that information.
I should know.
All of these things exactly.
Because, like you were saying earlier, like the British Empire, when it was being run, was being run by paper.
Now, filing cabinets and paper.
Now it's databases and instant information.
And we don't know what we're doing.
But now it's not entirely clear.
They think there are 305 of them, right?
And these are all broken down to various things.
305 ALBs.
They spend 3.53 billion of government money.
The UK government budgets 355 billion.
Remember, it used to be 68 billion at the height of the British Empire.
Now, the Quangocracy is spending roughly.
More than five times 68.
Yeah, it's about a quarter of the total government budget.
It goes into the Quangocracy.
Remember, there's 1.37 trillion.
So it's about a quarter of it.
And what's the accountability on this?
You don't elect the people who are in charge of these ALBs.
You don't elect the people in charge of any of these things.
And they've got themselves nearly 400,000 staff.
And I'm sure it gets much worse if we start digging on where this money is being spent.
Yeah.
I mean, just who can imagine, right?
Who can imagine?
So it's 353 billion in spending for 400,000 staff.
Over 300 of them, they're not sure.
There might be 600 of them, right?
It's not clear.
Like, it's not clear what is counted as these things.
So I am definitely under counting the amount of money these things spend.
What are we supposed to do about it?
What are we going to do?
Like, just, it's mental.
And then, right, another, the government spends another, I don't know if the actual chance I'm looking for there, but anyway, another £454 billion a year is spent servicing this monstrosity from the private sector.
So the government spends in the private sector another almost half trillion pounds of your money to private companies.
And the government gets to choose which private companies it services.
So that's a huge percentage of the national economy that is just spent on the state.
Again, 45% in total.
It actually makes the infiltration of the state much worse.
Yes.
Because one of the main problems with the Greek crisis in 2010 was that the state was so expanded and it intervened in the economy to such an extent that many private enterprises had the state as their sole partner or as their main partner.
So when the state were nearly bankrupt, they went bankrupt.
That's correct.
I mean, there's a super chat here that says, well, the problem is this is mostly the rise of the welfare state.
Well, only kind of, right?
Because the welfare state is 200 billion for the NHS and about 300 billion for pensions and benefits.
So, okay, that's great.
But that's still just over a third of what the government actually spends.
Because remember, the government spends 1.37 trillion and you've spent about 500 billion.
So, okay, it's about 40%.
Don't get me wrong.
That's a lot.
But the rest of it is even more.
Where does it go?
Where is it going?
Wait, exactly.
How could you hold this system accountable?
How could you hold a system of millions of people accountable?
And it's just impossible to think, right?
It's impossible to know.
It's impossible to think.
And this is just money that will never, it's just literally, you may as well put it in a big bonfire and burn it.
At least it'd be, you know, visually impressive to watch.
It's just, it's just mad, right?
And that's, again, like, so 15% nearly of the private sector is dedicated to servicing the government's contracts.
Right?
That's 15% of everything in the and so that's the again it's sort of you've got 45% of the GDP there, but add another 15% on top of that because that's just paying the money-burning machine.
That's just servicing the money-burning machine.
So it's not like that's productive capacity.
That's productive capacity that is also taken by the government.
It's just, I just, like, I was putting this together, just like, God, I think I'm just going to go mad.
I think I'm just going to shoot myself.
Like, obviously, I'm not going to shoot myself, but like, I think I'm just going to just start babbling like I'm in some sort of HP Lovecraft story where I've just seen into the yawning chasm of the abyss and it's driven me mad.
Also Kafka-esque.
Yes.
Yeah.
It's it's it's it's oh anyway.
So like someone said the benefit system.
Oh, this sorry, yeah.
This is the benefit system, as you can see, 287.9 billion.
But on the plus side, look over here.
55.6% of senior civil servants are women.
Win.
Unbelievable.
Absolutely mad.
11 million people on pensions.
Like just 750,000 child maintenance service arrangements.
Says nearly 43 million calls answered in 2024, 2025.
Yeah, because they're the massive service provider.
They have to answer these calls because they're literally keeping the country.
Yeah, but it's up from 36.7 million.
Isn't that a massive win?
I don't know.
Isn't that worth two trillions?
I don't know.
Yeah, so this is the pension and benefit systems just under 300 billion, which is mental.
I just numbers so stratospheric, you can't work your head around it.
We forgot also another thing to add is that right now Starmer and to some extent the previous ones were very much against private enterprise philosophically speaking and you you we do have the Laffa curve yes we do certainly we do have we've got Rachel Reeves and Starma currently raising taxes every single day and lots of entrepreneurs living 10,000 millionaires a year.
Yeah.
So this is only going to get like, this is going to become a proportionately larger part of a shrinking park.
It's fewer people who are going to pay more taxes for handling more benefits and paying more things.
You know what?
That's a great thing to move on to for our last point here.
Who actually pays taxes?
I know I do.
Most people don't actually pay taxes.
I know that's hard to wrap your head around, right?
But as the census 2021 data here tells us, I can't remember whereabouts on the page is.
Oh, there we go.
The proportion of people living in households receiving more in benefits than they paid in taxes is 53.3%.
And that's been stable over the last three years.
So that's normal.
It is normal that most people in this country do not pay more in tax than they take in benefits.
Just, what are we doing?
I just, oh my God, I think I'm going to have a hernia.
Like, a stroke.
I mean, what can be done?
Right.
What can be done about this?
So I can only assume that basically we're just waiting for the collapse.
Well, I mean, labor is doing all it can to hasten an economic collapse.
And it will require really heavy work and economics to.
Sorry, can we go back to that quickly, Samson?
Sorry, I'm not ready to move on yet.
But yeah, so basically, I mean, what are our options here?
Like, what can be done?
I think that the only thing that can be done is to end the combination of a very relaxed border policy and reducing benefits.
And also, yeah, just that's one of the things, one of the steps that must be taken.
But the problem, where are we?
Yeah, right.
Look, the problem is the welfare, if we get rid of the welfare, we've still got a trillion pounds worth of spending to go.
A bit less.
If it's half a trillion, then there is a lot of welfare, right?
The welfare is 289 billion, right?
We've still got more than a trillion left.
Okay, we get rid of the NHS.
That's still 900 trillion or so.
900 billion left of spending to do.
Like, this is insane.
It's just, and that's that's getting rid of the things that people think are mostly the problem.
It's tough to say without knowing exactly where this money goes to.
Exactly, right?
And like, can you imagine trying to audit a system this large?
You've got to audit six million people and 1.3 trillion's worth of spending.
Like, wouldn't normally have to be my job.
You can audit it.
I I think it's more like that there is lack of will to do so.
Yeah, I know.
You you could.
If you are paying it as the state, you know where you're paying it to.
You know who's the payee.
But this is the point I want to hammer home to people.
Everyone thinks it's the welfare state that is the problem, that is most of the spending, and it is by far not most of the spending.
That's the problem.
Even if you cut every piece of welfare the British government gives, you're still about 800 billion in the hole.
So where's that going?
What are we doing with that?
I will say, just to respond to that, if you don't know where it's going, it could also be going to welfare.
Well, yeah, to some extent.
That's one thing.
The other is, I mean, it could be paying public debt.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, no, a lot of it is.
A lot of it is.
I think that's about 9%.
Buying bonds.
About 9% is paying down debts and things like that, because, of course, we've got a deficit of $138 billion.
But it's just one of those things where it's like, man, it's bigger than the welfare state.
It's this general attitude of post-World War II statism where everyone's like, all right, the government can do a bunch of things.
Therefore, it should do a bunch of things.
Basically, frankly, I mean, the Soviet Union collapsed, so that the pressure to do welfare stuff should have gone away with it as well.
There's also the other bit to mention is that, sadly, in democracies, you frequently have people who want to get elected, and they're essentially purchasing votes.
Yes.
So that's also another issue.
It's what the pensions are.
Not just the pensions.
Yeah.
I mean, a lot of it could be exchange for political votes.
For votes.
That's what a lot of these things are.
Anyway, we'll leave that there just because it's honestly, I think I'm going to have an aneurysm.
It's just.
The dark truth is that people will suffer attempts to solve this problem made.
Elderly are dependent on 24-7 care, disabled children, etc.
Normies will get cold feet at the first sob story.
Yeah, I know.
But the thing is, the Normies, right?
We are not a rich country, and this is the main problem.
The Normies are only on £36,000 a year because of the scale of the state.
Because the state is literally taxing them on everything.
Everything they spend has a 20% VAT.
Every time they go to the pub, there's extra VRT on that.
Everything is just more expensive than it ought to be.
Their electric is 25% green levy before even they get to VAT.
So everything is so much more expensive, the fuel duties and all this.
And then they have to pay taxes on their work.
And then they get state benefits because the state has literally impoverished them.
Exactly.
And it's just very simple.
We're not talking about lavish lifestyle.
Even going to the public.
Even going to the pub is and getting fish and chips or burger or something.
It's £20 roughly.
High Taxes, Low Income00:16:43
Exactly.
It's a fortune.
And you just don't realize because the frog has been boiling in the pot for ages and ages and the temperature games.
Everyone's like, God, why aren't my groceries costing anything?
They're grown used to it.
That's the problem.
As human beings, we get used to something with habituated information.
But it makes the demand for welfare from the state all the more pressing.
It's like, well, I can't afford to live.
And therefore, you've got various kinds of low-income top-ups, which is why 53% of the people are actually net beneficiaries from the state rather than tax contributors.
So you've got to give these people money from the government, otherwise they starve.
And one of the biggest myths here is that this is the ideology of the middle class.
It is actually harming the middle class.
And it's benefiting really large corporations that are able to lobby and essentially...
And they're the 15% that get money from the government to fulfill contracts.
And so this is a deeply unhealthy system that is literally going to divide the country into something the socialists have been complaining about for a very long time.
And it's actually happening now because of the size of the state.
Anyway, we're always bombing the Middle East at the behest of Holden Bloodfeast and his Middle Eastern campaign donors.
So nothing has happened.
Well, you'll find out about all of that in Ferrers' Real Politique.
And thank you, Ramshackle.
I was just digging at Peter.
I don't know what's come up, but for whatever reason, he couldn't make it on time.
So it's fine.
It's just teasing him.
Anyway, let's move on.
I was.
So the UK is embarrassingly shit.
It's just crap.
Now, when I say the UK, Y-O-O-K-A-Y, I'm not talking about Britain or England or Scotland or Wales.
What I'm talking about is the Gargantuan multicultural state and the country that it is formatting us into.
So it is taking areas of the country and transforming these areas.
And you got this going around on TikTok the other day.
It's probably going to get copyright claimed.
So if you're watching this on YouTube, we trimmed it out if you can't see it.
But I want you to see this because this is what they're proud of.
This is what they are proud that they've done to our country.
England to me is Turkish barbers with the sharpest trim.
It's the shopkeeper letting you off 20p when you're skin.
It's English neighbours saying happy, mate.
And Muslim mums going, Merry Christmas, love.
It's the barley lights down the ice street.
And everyone around the same table sharing food.
It's scarcely singing, Mo, Salah, Salah.
And Gunas reminiscing about, I young right, right, right, in young right, right, right.
It's Bob Marley and reggae, oasis on the karaoke, three lions on the terraces.
And you think you're seeing flags now?
Wait until the World Cup's on.
Then you know about flags, my son.
So the point is, he's looking around at the state of the country in the cities.
And he's saying, oh, yeah, this is authentic England.
It's like, no, this is what it looks like after colonization.
There's the other bit here.
I think you're correct.
And one thing to remember about people with like this.
Is he a comedian?
I see.
It's something like in a talent show.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, he wants to address as big an audience as possible.
So that's the audience he's addressing.
He is playing into the illusion that there are zero incompatibilities between his target groups.
Yeah, but moreover, I think he's the sort of person who only remembers the country like this.
I don't think he's old enough.
I don't know how old he is, but I don't think he's going to be old enough to actually remember what the country was like before we were diversified, where the high streets were normal.
They weren't full of Turkish barbers.
They're actually, in very recent memory, there was a time where the high streets just weren't full of Turkish barbers, where you didn't have Eid lights over London and all this sort of nonsense, right?
But this is the best he can say about multiculturalism is we celebrate a bunch of foreign cultures and foreign people.
Like, what's he celebrating that's actually authentically English there?
The only thing he mentioned was Oasis and Oasis are not like Liam Noel Gallagher is a right-wing radical compared to what this guy's suggesting.
Like Noel Gallagher's like, no, this is terrible.
Why have you done this to my country?
Because he's old enough to remember what it was like before.
So it's so weird that this is, and this is the best they've got to promote the fruits of their project.
It's like, oh, yeah, look, this is real England.
It's like, oh, my God, if that's true, aren't you embarrassed?
Because the place is falling apart and everyone hates it.
And people are leaving for places that are currently getting shelled by the Iranians.
Like, you know, why?
Why is that?
And all the people around, it suddenly narrows what he's talking to because he's on like X-Factor or something, right?
And so you've got the bunch of the multi-cult mainstream and they're all like, yeah, cheering.
And outside of that, you've got millions of people who hate this.
This is what the rise of reform is about.
Everyone who supports reform seems to think there's some sort of right-wing nativist project.
It's not.
But that's why they started going up in the polls.
Because everyone was like, no, no, no, things have to change.
We thought the Conservatives would sort this out.
They didn't.
They'll find out that reform won't sort this out.
And then they'll have to keep going to the right.
So there are millions of people left outside of this consensus.
And this is what Jim Ratcliffe got in trouble for.
He was like, well, look, the UK has been colonized by immigrants.
And this is all he's talking about.
He's just talking about the immigrants who have colonized us.
It's the Turkish barbers.
It's the Dilwali.
It's the Ramadan.
So there's no denying the truth of this.
And this is a great thing to put side by side.
Because he got, of course, in a huge amount of trouble for this.
Because, I mean, we'll watch it just to refresh anyone's memory.
Huge levels of immigrants coming in.
I mean, the UK is being colonized.
It's costing too much money.
It will cause.
The UK is being colonized by immigrants, really, isn't it?
I love the fact that he was just like, yep, I'm going to get in trouble for this.
But that's what I see.
And that's what they brag about.
They're bragging about this.
I mean, we have talked about this many times, but I think one of the conversations we have had, and we did have a symposium episode before, it's about ecophobia.
It's that you see a surprisingly large part of the country, and I think that may characterize English culture at the moment, who are essentially brainwashed that being English is a bad thing.
Yes.
That it is an identity that they have to atone themselves for.
And that English is praising foreigners.
Yeah.
And there is a weird issue here because I think that it's what essentially they're saying is that the English identity is a bad thing in their mind, or at least the original one.
And the only salvageable one is the identity he is mentioning here.
Yes.
Which is essentially a multicultural thing, which means a non-identity.
Or at least an identity that is prerequisite on a bunch of foreigners.
Like it requires Moz Salar, it requires Turkish barbers, it requires Ramadan and Eid and Gilbert.
Why would that be essential?
That's the issue.
Why would that be essential to the identity?
Precisely.
I think that one of the reasons why lots of people are doing this, he presumably wants to not get cancelled or to attract as big an audience as he can.
But if he's a true believer, if he's a true believer, as you say, he may be.
He demonstrates this sentiment of ecophobia.
He thinks that the cool thing is to go out and be self-deprecating and culturally self-deprecating.
And we get to cultural self-deprecation in ah, let's so the thing is, like, this caused a huge amount of controversy.
And Ratcliffe had to apologize.
But he said, I'm sorry that my choice of language has offended some people.
He didn't say that he was wrong.
And he doubled down on his comments.
Like, no, this has been a real issue, right?
And then you got people responding like this.
Well, so Jim's team without immigrants.
Like, yeah, that just makes his point.
You know exactly who the immigrants are.
You know exactly who the immigrants aren't.
And when you make it look like that, you realize, God, that is pretty bad.
That's definitely pretty mad.
And then Gary Niliko was like, well, you're an immigrant because you've moved to Monaco to escape taxes, which, as we saw in the last segment, is a completely rational thing to do.
But that proves his point.
You know what an immigrant is.
You're calling him an immigrant, which is true.
And so we all know that this is true.
And then you get like the call to prayer at Old Trafford being sounded.
It's like, well.
Yeah, so there's the call to prayer, but then when people say Merry Christmas, they're supposed to not say it and they're getting scorned because they are told that they're supposed to say happy holidays.
But even if they're not, why do we have the call to prayer at Old Trafford?
Like this, again, this has been colonized.
Yeah, it looks like it.
Like, what else could you call this?
You couldn't say that this is something organic and native to Britain.
This has to have been imported from somewhere else.
And this has to be about elevating foreign cultures above our own, just like that comedian was doing, right?
So there's no doubt that this has happened.
And then when confronted by it, Manchester United fans put up this banner, MUFC proudly colonised by immigrants.
Was that in response to the...
In response to his comments, literally in response to Jim Ratcliffe.
And they've got Eric Cantanar, Patrice Evre, Park Ilsung, Bruno Fernandez, Gunnars.
I can't pronounce any of these names, right?
And they're just like, yeah, no, we're proud that we have been replaced in our own football team.
I think this shows a lot.
It shows several things.
And there are several reasons why these people may be doing it.
I think to an extent, it could be an F you to Jim Ratcliffe.
It's like, he said it, so let us say that we occupy the other.
Let us counter signal him.
The other bit would be that they literally feel that their identity, that English identity is something to atone for.
Yeah, I mean, that the only way to atone for past whatever, for the history of English identity, is to allow this multicultural bomb that is being created.
It's hard to say, isn't it?
Because this is the most disgraceful and servile, subservient attitude that I've ever seen.
I mean, who has ever said I'm proudly colonized?
Who's ever said that?
I mean, you have fifth columnists.
I think this goes a bit beyond fifth column, right?
Because fifth columnist implies like a foreigner.
Yeah, yeah, who's managing football?
This is way worse than just being a bunch of fifth columnists.
This is them literally being like the power bottoms, like being active cuckolds, saying, no, no, we're going to literally bring in foreigners and give our children's inheritance away to them.
I mean, what must their own children think?
Like, oh, could I grow up and be a footballer?
No, we've got foreign footballers.
No, you can't grow up and be Man UFC.
We're proudly colonized by immigrants.
Are you an immigrant son?
No, you're not an immigrant.
So you're not going to be playing for Man United.
This is horrible.
This is such a disgraceful thing to do.
And just imagine what it's saying.
Like I said, their own children.
The children of Manchester, the British children of Manchester, who are, I think, 47% or something like that of the children now.
But imagine what message do they take from it?
Our forefathers have given away our country.
There's also the critical migration theory, which manifests as one of the subdivisions of wokeness, where in wokeness there are oppressor and oppressed groups, and there's a hierarchy of oppression.
Well, they're saying that in every country, natives are the oppressors, particularly straight white natives.
And whoever is a migrant to that country, so long as they're not straight and white, they're also part of the oppressed.
But also, the willingness to be literally a second-class citizen here is really weird, as well as the sort of class dimension that it brings with it as well.
What's the net worth of that image of those foreign players?
like ronaldo and all that that's got to be like a billion pounds worth of it's a lot Right, it's a huge amount.
What's the average earning of those idiots holding up that flag?
Like, these guys are probably the ones on 36 grand a year that are getting state benefits and going to watch the football.
It's like, do you understand how unbelievably raped your brains have been by woke ideology to get to this point?
Wasn't it Gary Lineker who said that all trouble is caused by white Englishmen?
And that when he sees the British flag, I can't remember.
Okay.
I think it's very specific in football.
Oh, it might be.
I don't know.
I'm not a football guy.
I'm just looking at this thinking, right?
Okay, so you've got what I assume are just average earning guys who are just proud of being colonized by unbelievably rich foreign footballers to the point where they've destroyed their own children's prospects, and they themselves are just venerating insanely wealthy people.
Who must?
I mean, what must the guys think of it?
I mean, I don't get me wrong, I would like you know really good football players playing for my team, and I wouldn't mind if it was someone like Ronaldo, I'd consider that a privilege.
But I don't think that that's the.
I don't think that that's what they're doing here.
No, but they're trying to make a political message.
It's not just that that Ronaldo is playing for the team, of course, but at this point, how is it your team?
Yeah, How is that a team that you can say?
oh, this is somehow representative of Manchester?
I think in football culture, there is a long tradition of adherence to the FC.
I understand, but it's just one of those things where, like, if you're an outsider to it like I am, and you just look at it and think, okay, but do you guys not understand what's actually being made present here?
Right?
What you are saying is we are essentially non-entities.
We don't really exist.
What exists are these gods that we have set up above ourselves who have unbelievable amounts of money, unbelievable amounts of fame, unbelievable amounts of influence.
And we are happy for our team, our group, to actually become subsumed into this.
Right.
And there's another issue here is that they are taking a political stance.
Expressly.
They're making an explicit political statement.
And they're using some examples that aren't representative of all kinds of migration.
Thus, they're obfuscating the problematic ones.
So the average, let's say there are some people who respect the country.
There are some people who don't respect the country.
I don't think Ronaldo is, and these players are good examples of the latter group, the group that doesn't respect the country.
Well, they're not exactly representative of anyone because there are so few of them anyway.
Like, how many immigrants, like to call these guys immigrants is so wild.
As if these in any way align with what has happened in the rest of the country.
No, these are megastar football players who are themselves like traded like chattel for millions of pounds each.
This has got nothing to do with immigrants.
When we say immigrants, nobody's talking about them.
What they're talking about is the people our government has brought here and just dispersed around the country to live cheek by jowl with people who you don't know.
I mean, this is an immigrant.
Booing Manchester City's Shift00:07:21
Like, you're proud to be colonized by this, aren't you?
The comment that they're responding to is a comment about the country.
Exactly.
Jim Ratcliffe is talking about the country at large, not his football team, and complaining, well, I mean, look at your football team.
It's got immigrants in it.
It's like, okay, but that's just not representative.
It's not specific to the argument that we're talking about.
And you must know it.
But instead, you deserve, sorry, you deliberately went out to essentially disgrace yourself in front of the world.
Because they knew this would be viewed by millions of people.
You know, the cameras panning out would see that in the crowd.
And so millions of people would see these power bottoms being like, yeah, we're proud to be colonized.
We're weird cuckolds for some reason.
It's like, but why do you want that?
Like, and the only thing I can assume is that it goes back to this guy, where they think that the only thing they could be proud of in their country is the fact that the UK has colonized it with foreigners.
It's the only thing they can be proud of.
Just to wind up this bit though, this isn't exactly a universal opinion.
It's just the authentic, verified, legitimate opinion of the managerial class of this country.
Now, I mean, you had also a week ago this.
So there was a match between Leeds United and Manchester City where apparently a bunch of Muslim players were breaking their Ramadan fast and play has been paused briefly to allow players to break their fast.
And everyone started booing very loud boos in the stadium.
Because it turns out not everyone's completely on board with diversity and multiculturalism.
And so you have this fracture.
Now, where do you think the upper echelons of these teams fell on the should they do it or shouldn't they do it?
On the boo.
Yeah.
I mean, the upper echelons would probably say that they shouldn't do it.
That's right.
The Leeds assistant manager said, I'm disappointed with some supporters that that happened.
Manchester City manager said, well, they didn't eat today.
It's a modern world, right?
You see what's happening in the world today.
Respect religion, diversity.
That's the point.
Sorry, did I agree to that?
I'm here to watch football.
But that's a political and philosophical assertion you've just made that is entirely contestable.
And I'm sorry, I didn't agree to this.
And so, no, I side with the people booing them.
If you're having a problem because of your religion, that's not my problem.
I'm here to watch.
I'm not personally, but I'd be there to watch the football.
And if you can't play, you can't play.
You know, your religious dictates might prevent that.
But that's not my problem.
Yeah, but again, these examples aren't representative of the kinds of issues that exist and people are talking about and we are talking about.
Exactly.
But it does, but you can see here that you can say, look, this is like the Hunger Games, right?
Where they have their sort of, you know, the elite attitude and opinions and they're going to act in a certain way.
But if you rely on a mass crowd to be the willing participants and audience for what you're doing, well, don't be surprised when they have a different opinion.
They don't want to be colonized, actually.
They're not proud of being colonized.
And they don't want, you know, the call to prayer, St. Old Trafford.
They don't want to have Muslim religious ritual override the traditional way that sport is done in this country.
They don't want these things.
And so you can see there's a giant cleavage here between the management of these teams and the people they're actually relying to come in.
It's exactly that because I don't understand why these players, for instance, couldn't say that for religious reasons they can't play in that match that day.
It's not unheard of.
That's exactly what you're saying.
It's that there are all sorts of cultural concessions and retreats that are being made in the name of a philosophy that has nothing to do with football or anything that these people think.
Exactly.
And if the cultural sensitivity was towards the native people of the country, then this wouldn't happen.
But because Jim Ratcliffe is correct and we have been colonized, well, the cultural sensitivity has to be towards the new people.
So, okay, well, I'm sorry, I'm just not for it.
And I can totally see why people are booing.
And this just disgusting.
I know that the people who are holding this up think they're being good people, but what they're doing is just being complicit in their own destruction.
It's embarrassing to watch.
Sigilstone says, Carla successfully convinced me that watching soccer turns you gay.
Well, you call it soccer because you're an American.
It's football.
And I mean, I don't think it turns you gay.
It's just it apparently does something weird to Manchester United fans where they just say harder, please, daddy, and it's just gross.
Don't know why they're like that.
Football players are very high-skilled migrant workers that eventually go back home after their contract is up.
Yeah.
The football lads do not understand their local team has been skin-suited by a globalist entity ambivalent to their destruction.
They're still fanatically loyal as if it were.
It's evil.
Yeah, it is.
It's completely evil.
And I just can't understand it.
I mean, the thing is, if they are going to, you know, if they're going to cheer for it.
But the problem is, the ideological message implies some kind of comprehension as to what's happening and an act of complicity with it.
It's like, yeah, no, we are being colonized and we like it.
It's like.
But the ideological message is purposefully abstract.
Yes.
In order to not point people's attention to specific cases that fly under the radar of ideology.
But the guy with the poem being like, yeah, no, it's the barbers.
Yeah, but he points to specific cases.
But that's the thing.
If you think that the average migrant is Ronaldo, you'd have to be a moron.
Yeah.
You'd have to be an absolute moron, wouldn't you?
The haplification says, Pakistani grooming gangs primarily targeted white girls in their local areas.
Well, who are the white girls in the surrounding areas?
The English.
Pakistani grooming gangs know who the English are.
Yeah, that's true.
Fick says, those who use this team without immigrants argument don't seem to realize that those players in the top tax bracket have visas and are here due to merit, not because their identity.
Yeah, I know.
And the thing is, as well, I really hate about this.
It's like, as if there just wouldn't be a team without these players.
It's like, well, you don't know who you would get, right?
You don't know what talent is out there because you're just buying talent from elsewhere.
Like, you're literally preventing our talent from climbing the ladder by just head-hunting from other places.
So you don't know what you could produce.
But I guess that's just not something they care about, actually.
I'm so tired of it, man.
Polling Worries Rise00:03:33
So tired.
Anyway.
I think England has good football in there.
That has a tradition of good football.
think that's not the kind of uh industry where you need to be worried about well this is other industry yeah Yeah, but England has really good football.
Well, this is the thing that got Andrew Lawrence in trouble a couple of years ago, where the England team lost, and it was because of the diversity that it lost.
And he got himself in trouble for saying, well, if diversity is our strength and it doesn't win, you know, figure it out for yourself.
Anyway, so in light of everything that's happening, it is not surprising that actually something has come about.
And this is going to be a difficult thing for us to talk about because, well, it's been explosive and it has also essentially kind of marginalized some people and they're not happy with it.
So I guess we'll have to talk about it.
That is, of course, Restore Britain that has been constituted as a political party and has reached 100,000 members in two weeks.
That's really impressive.
Well, it's unprecedented.
It's never happened before.
It took reform four months to get 100,000 members and it just hasn't happened before.
And then it started polling.
So you've got 7% on one poll that actually included it.
So when they do polling, they say, what party are you voting for?
And they list a series of the major parties and then they put other.
And as you can see, other is usually around like 1 or 2% because most people don't tend to actually want to vote for other parties.
But as you can see, this in the first week was Restore Britain on 7%, which is pretty amazing.
And then they decided, you know what, if we keep putting Restore Britain on there, that might keep going up.
So we're just going to keep putting other.
But oh, other, 7%.
That's a bit high for other.
Other, 7%.
Yeah, it's because that's Restore Britain voters.
And what they're doing is keeping it on the down low, basically.
So Restore Britain is definitely impacting the polling.
And I mean, you've got this one here with other 6%.
Again, that's really high for other.
And then you have this one here, which is other, 7%.
Again, really high for other.
I mean, this is a particularly interesting one.
It's just the Lord Ashcroft polls, which is not normally the most reliable of polls, but only has reform on 22%.
Conservatives on 20% and the Greens on 19% and Labour on 17%.
So basically, the field has leveled out, according to Lord Ashcroft.
That's for Ashcroft.
Yeah.
And but this is a fairly common way of presenting polls.
Not just way of presenting polls.
A common result from polling is that actually the field is dropping down to roughly 20%, somewhere around 20% for about four or five of the parties, which is quite mad.
But what it shows is that there's something changing, right?
Change is in the air, everything is to play for.
And yeah, and if you see at the plus and minuses, some of them are really consequential, like Labour minus 18.
Yeah.
Labour and the Conservative.
The Conservatives' vote has already collapsed, which is why reform are on here 22%.
But Labour's vote is also collapsing.
And a lot of it is going to the Greens.
And the rest is the coalition is bleeding elsewhere.
And so this has got everyone worried.
Because actually, when a brand new party starts regularly polling at like 7%, and they've got to just be like, right, okay, well, don't prompt that party because that might go up, which it will, by the way, go and spread the word.
That's a bit of a worry.
And that starts putting the wind up people, frankly.
Civic vs. Ethnic Identity00:15:25
And one of those people was a guy called Khaled Hassan here, who wrote an article for the Telegraph called Britain's Broken Institutions Created the Monster of Rupert Lowe.
The monster.
I mean, I've met him.
It doesn't seem particularly monstrous.
No, he seemed like a really decent chap, didn't he?
So he's a monster.
And so I thought we'd take a quick look at his article.
He says, and this is just remarkable, right?
The monster of Rupert Lowe.
It has been more than a decade since I arrived in Britain and made it my home.
Oh, that's nice, Khaled.
That's nice.
I'm so glad you just 10 years ago decided, yeah, I'm just going to move to Britain and live there.
I mean, I didn't invite you.
The British people never voted for immigrants.
But you just thought you'd come here, somehow get employed by the Telegraph, and then write articles denouncing nativism.
Like, sorry, you are part of the colonial project.
This is just remarkable.
In all those years, I've never witnessed a more perilous moment in British politics than the one we face today.
A moment defined by the rise of Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain Party and the normalization of an ethno-nationalist creed that seeks to redraw the boundaries of who belongs to the nation.
Who the hell are you?
Like, who invited you?
as a british egyptian national security researcher i have spent years working to deport terrorists and expose extremists i have watched with growing alarm as friends colleagues and fellow citizens are told with increasing frequency that by some people who support rupert's lowe's party they do not truly belong here sorry do we are egyptian migrants the people who truly belong here Are they?
So I think what this boils down to is the distinction between the ethnic identity and the civic identity.
Yes.
And he is, I haven't read the article.
I don't want to...
I don't want to speak.
That's the distinction.
One thing I want to say is that what I routinely see is lots of people who criticize Rupert Lowe.
First of all, we haven't seen, I think we need to see more from Resto Britain when it comes to the policies and several stances.
I do think we need to see more.
That's my opinion.
Right.
And I don't think I'm the only one who has said this.
But whatever.
Right.
I think one of the things that happen is that people routinely try to act as if they are unaware of that distinction.
And they are very much aware of that distinction.
So for instance, the author of this article says, as a British Egyptian national security researcher, when he writes this, he seems like he's incredibly conscious of the distinction between a civic identity and an ethnic identity.
So he says that ethnically he's Egyptian.
And he civically identifies as British.
So at the end of the day, when people are talking about this, it's not an issue of whether someone is in favor of ethnic identity or civic or not.
The question is, which kind of identity do you put first with respect to who belongs to the nation and in particular ways of belonging to the nation?
I think his Jewish identity comes first.
Weren't expecting that, were you?
No, I didn't.
No, because his name's Khaled Hassan.
You're like, he's not Jewish.
No, he is Jewish, right?
He comes from Egypt and he is obviously some sort of middle-class malcontent who decided there's too much anti-Semitism in Egypt.
He's going to move to Israel and convert to Judaism.
But then he complained because there's too much racism in Israel because the Israelis were being racist to him for being Arab or Muslim, whatever ethnic, religious, ethnic background you want to give.
So that's why he's come to Britain.
I had to look him up because he was demanding to debate me on Twitter.
I'm like, the hell are you?
So I looked him up and he's just some sort of weird malcontent who doesn't fit in his own society.
He's converted to Judaism.
And then he's like, well, the mother of my children is English.
Okay, you've married an English woman.
Great.
My children are British Jewish children.
Okay, what?
For ethno-nationalists attracted by Restore Britain, this counts for nothing.
To them, I remain a foreigner to be deported.
My family's existence is an inconvenient contradiction.
So, look, man, it's not, like, I'm not saying you have to be deported.
You marry an English woman, then fine.
Obviously, you get to stay, right?
But the problem that I have is that what's the focus here, right?
The focus, your entire focus is how can Britain be made comfortable for immigrants?
That's his focus.
As if literally all our politics is just designed for the comfort of immigrants.
And it's like, no, I'm sorry, Khaled, right?
You don't get to describe the only nativist party in the country as monstrous, right?
Because actually, Rupert Lowe, and I covered this in previous segments, everything you're saying has majority support from the British people, right?
If that doesn't make sense to you as a Jewish Egyptian immigrant, then that's not my problem.
And I'm not really very sympathetic to it.
And I'm just tired of arguing the case where I just don't see why I have to justify the way we think Britain should be run to someone who doesn't fit in anywhere and has fled his own society, left his own ancestral religion, and doesn't know why he's here.
One of the reasons why I say, I'm not going to talk about the author here, but one of the reasons I say that I think it's good for Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain to come out with policies is to somehow have a very clear answer to all this.
I agree.
Because the more personal, that's a personal view.
And I think that the more time is lost.
We'll get to this in a minute, in fact, because we've got all this, right?
Because this guy begins at you're not allowed to have a kind of ethnic sense of your own selves.
And he just like he spends his time arguing with people.
Like, he's arguing with Muffin Ali.
I'm Proud Lean, well, blah, blah.
And it's like, you're a fifth columnist?
It's just.
You've got just two Muslims or an ex-Muslim.
Me, about who's really belongs in Britain.
It's like, okay, like, I'm not even saying he's a bad guy, right?
I'm not even saying he's a bad guy.
What I'm saying is, I don't want the politics of Britain to be precisely geared towards is this good for immigrants or not?
That's why Restore Britain are two weeks old and seven percent in the polls, right?
It's already double what UKIP used to get because it's clear that it is a problem whose time has come.
And this really was all sparked by Charlie Downs having a set to is Charlie Downs here the best African, as they said.
Well, yeah, we'll watch some of this.
It gets like a bit towards the end because Charlie is just pointing out the English are an ethnic group in England and they live here.
I was born in Nicar, I'm a Geordie, am I British?
Well, look, you're born in Britain, you know, and all the rest of it.
So in that sense, yes, you are British.
So there is a bit of me asn't then.
Well, there is a spec, there is obviously a spectrum because there is a difference between somebody who has come here in the last five years and got themselves a passport and somebody like me whose family has been in this country literally for thousands of years.
There is a difference.
And this is an important point.
Have you heard of Cheddarman?
Yes.
Cheddar Man turns out that he may well have been black and was here.
I think that's...
Hang on, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
So it hasn't been fully.
And apparently he was the first person in this country and he was potentially black.
In fact, if it is true that mankind came from Africa, then you come from Africa.
Well, I mean, I'm a Christian, so I believe that I think we all share a common answer.
Well, you might believe that, but science says otherwise, that we, mankind, came from Africa.
If you're going, how far back are you going?
I'm going back to the beginning.
Charlie is restored as chief communications African.
I guess he is.
What are we saying here?
Like, you know, like, her name, by the way, is Nana Aqua.
She's got two Ghanian parents.
She was born in Newcastle, sure, but she's Ghanian.
She has no British ancestry.
And she's just claimed to somehow be related to Cheddar Man, which she's not.
She's not descended from him.
There is a descendant of Cheddar Man living in Cheddar Gorge or next to Cheddar Gorge in a village next to it 9,000 years later.
He actually does have descendants, but she's not one of them.
But she's just like, well, I'm black.
Theoretically, Cheddar Man was black, which probably not true.
But what connection is there between them?
What does it matter if, you know, thousands and thousands and thousands of years ago, it's people fled from Africa?
That's just thousands of years ago.
You're talking something like 500,000 years ago.
Yeah.
Why does it, you know, like before that?
Why does it matter?
Well, exactly.
But that's the preposterousness of the argument.
It's like, well, if we go back, then we're all from Africa, really.
It's like, then what was wrong with imperialism?
Why the British get kicked out of Africa in the first place?
You know, you can't have Idi Armin being like, right, decolonize now.
They should be like, no, no, no, Idi, we're all from Africa.
What are you talking about?
We're Africans too.
We're just as African as you are.
Like, it's preposterous, right?
No one believes that.
And yet she's defaulted to this crazy position for some reason.
As if, oh, no, no, we have to be like, right, okay.
So a Ghanaian woman.
And at one point in this, I don't know whereabouts because it's a three and a half minute long clip.
She says, she says to Charlie in a challenging way, am I English?
it might just be after this bit actually because you can see where he's just got to be like did she ask am I English or am I British No, no, she says, am I English?
She says, unironically, am I English?
It's like, you know, you're not English.
Like, she does, you know, charity work for Ghana.
If you're so English, why do you do that?
Right?
And everyone knows she's not English.
She is an African woman, and that's fine.
It's not a moral judgment.
I'm not saying she needs to be kicked out of the country or anything like that.
That's just true.
Right?
That's just a true statement.
I think that she understands really well the distinction between ethnicity and civic identity.
And I think that it's the ultimate question is, do I belong here?
Yes.
Do you think I'm part of the, I can belong here or not?
That's why I think it will help if there is a very clear The get-go.
In response to this, I wrote this little wall of text on Twitter saying, Look, the question, Am I English?
When asked by someone who knows they aren't ethnically English, isn't really about ethnicity, right?
It's not am I English, but am I welcome?
Right?
And no one's ever said to Nana Akua that she's not welcome, right?
And that, you know, she obviously is on GB news.
She can't be some sort of far leftist, right?
So, what's the problem here?
You know, the problem is that essentially what she's saying is you are forced to accept me as one of you, meaning that the distinctions between English and non-English don't really exist.
You can't say I'm not English, therefore, because that's and what's she appealing to there?
A political correctness, right?
Oh, no, no, it's politically correct to say she's English, and it's like, but I don't want to appeal to political correctness, you're correct, yeah, yeah.
It's like, am I welcome?
That's the meaning, yes, and I'm not saying she's not welcome at all, but what she's making me do is tell a lie.
What she made Charlie Downs do is tell a lie, or she tried to make him do that, and it's like, no, I'm sorry, that's not acceptable.
It's not acceptable to try and force us to lie.
She's not English, she's Ghanian, there's Ghanaian, how you pronounce it.
There's nothing wrong with that, that's not a judgment, and that doesn't mean she doesn't belong, but she isn't English, and that's really the root of the issue.
But this got a bunch of people's backs up.
I mean, Ben Habib here, like, posting some stuff.
So, again, this is following on from this conversation.
Ben Habib here put what up utter garbage.
Nana Akua is English and British.
But you know, that's not true.
She has absolutely no English ancestry.
She's culturally, she was raised in the north of England, sure, and no one's saying the other opposite.
And no one's saying that she has to be kicked out.
I mean, they probably are fringe idiots, but who cares about them?
Right?
But that's not what's being said.
What's being said is: are we going to lie or not?
And that's not true.
I mean, as you said, if she has no English ancestry, then she's not ethnically English.
Whether she is British or not, I think it's up for other people to say not me.
She was raised in Newcastle.
The way I think about it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that English is an ethnic identity.
It's like Scot, Irish, Welsh.
Like Ghanaian, yeah.
And British is a civic identity.
It has to do with the feeling of being a member of a wider union that is primarily based on the ethnicities of these isles.
Yes.
But in some sense, it's definitely more inclusive than the ethnic identity.
Yeah, I mean, fundamentally, it's kind of got to be a civic identity in at least the main sense.
There is an argument to say, well, British could or should mean English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish in some form, right?
Because they're the British Isles.
So geographically, that'd be the argument.
And it's not that there's no argument there, but that's not really the way that people use it, especially post-British Empire.
Yeah, because I've seen some people say British is also an ethnic term that just talks about these four ethnicities.
I mean, you can make the argument for it, but that's like that would be normative, as in you're saying it should be this way.
But is that how people use it?
And descriptively, that's not really how people use it.
Really, people use it in the kind of sense where it's civically, did this person grow up in Britain or a British colony, right?
Because, I mean, everyone points out, well, what you're saying then is Richard Dawkins isn't British because he grew up in British Africa.
It's like, no, he is British because he grew up in a British colony in Africa.
Therefore, you're like, am I German?
Because part of my youth, I grew up in Germany.
No, because I grew up in a British colony in Germany.
So it's not just about, I mean, I'm British for other reasons, but like, it's not just about that because it's about the essentially the domain of control, I guess, you know, the primary culture of the area and what you are used to.
And so this, Ben Habiba's right to say she's British.
Sure, she grew up in the north of England.
She obviously didn't grow up in Ghana, Ghanaia, whatever you pronounce this.
But she's not English.
And this is about the lie, right?
And so him, I mean, look at what we have to agree to with what he said here.
She's English and British.
Okay, well, why is she black then?
That's the question.
Why is she very, very dark-skinned?
Because English people actually are light-skinned.
So why is she dark-skinned?
You have to have an explanation for that.
And the answer is, oh, she's got Ghanaian heritage.
Well, how can an English person have foreign heritage?
Claiming England00:15:30
How can someone born and raised in the British Isles end up with two parents, like from another ethnic group?
How did she come by her ethnicity as English?
If that's the case, and obviously she didn't because she's not, right?
But then you've got, there's no room for any serious political party that is ethnically based nationalism.
Yes, the demographic change, rate of demographic change is a huge concern.
Yes, mass immigration is undermining our national identity.
Well, if she is as English as anyone else, how do you square that?
So the thing is, if your ancestry descends from one ethnicity, you can't just automatically assume a second ethnicity as a matter of identification.
No.
It's the same way with gender.
Yes.
If you have parents from distinct ethnicities, then you can say I'm half this, half that.
Sure.
Absolutely.
But when we're talking about someone, and again, this isn't offensive.
When we are talking about someone who has ancestry from, let's say, who has Parents aren't members of a particular ethnicity.
They can't just say, oh, well, I identify as a member of that ethnicity.
Yes.
You may be able to say, I'm British, if you are a member of the UK and you care for the country.
But I don't see the problem.
That's my issue.
Well, that's the thing.
Exactly.
Where has this problem actually come from?
Right.
And it's come from questions of belonging.
Because the issue that, what's his name?
Khaled, whenever I find it.
The issue that Kharled has brought up, right?
Is he is demanding that the native peoples of Britain include him in their, as OPH UK say, he's doing the let me explain your country to you, meme, right?
It's like, sorry, you rocked up 10 years ago, mate.
Like, I've got shirts older than how long you've been in this country.
I don't care about you.
There's no we between me and Khaled here, right?
And I don't, oh, colours like, I've got a British passport.
I don't care.
Who cares?
Who the hell are you?
You know, you're some weird malcontent who couldn't find peace in his own country and is somehow now here and is like, oh, you can't be, you can't think of yourself as a part of a group of these islands that doesn't include me.
It's like, I'm not part of any group that includes you.
The only group that we're in is that the British state will just stamp British passports and hand them out like they're going out of fashion.
That's the only group that shares me and him.
I don't know who the hell this guy is.
And this is where we are now.
So from that, Ben Habib is like, no, we have to tell a lie about this.
And it's like, no, I'm sorry, I'm not having that.
I'm not lying about these things.
But I'm not saying that being English is the only thing that means you get to stay here.
I've never said that.
You know, no one sensible says that.
But Ben has, I don't say deliberately, but Ben instantly leapt to a mischaracterization here.
It would lead our wonderful country into a very dark alley.
No one's saying that.
What they're saying is maybe the politics of this country shouldn't be based around foreigners.
Maybe it should be based around native problems.
Because as you've conceded, the rate of demographic change is of huge concern.
Mass migration is undermining our national identity.
But then John Wong just comes out and smashes it.
He's like, well, look, if Nana is English, then why isn't London just 100% British?
But if she's not, then the actual ethnic breakdowns matter.
So which one's real?
And the answer is, of course, the one on the left is real here.
And it's just, sorry, it's just true.
And I'm tired of like this, this fiction that we're supposed to play along with.
Anyway, so Rupert Lowe posted this in response to it, which is just a completely salient point.
I'm just going to read it verbatim.
He says, if I moved to Japan and lived in Japan for decades, speaking the language integrated in society and contributing to the economy, would I be ethnically Japanese?
No, I wouldn't.
I would never pretend to be.
Nor would I apply that to India, Thailand, Mexico, Denmark, or anywhere else.
So why is England different?
Of course, there is an English ethnicity.
I'm entirely bemused by how many argue against that.
It's just a fact.
Politicians who say otherwise are cowards.
This is painfully obvious.
Restore Britain's position is clear.
English ethnicity exists.
It's the only solid data point that the government collects on anything.
Of course, someone who is not of that ethnicity can be British, obviously.
But equally, it does not mean that the English ethnicity is imaginary.
And this is the important point.
You can't change your ethnicity.
You can't just slide into a different ethnic group.
It's like Schrodinger's identity.
It's like, on the one hand, it doesn't exist.
On the other hand, it's uniquely bad and you need to atone for it.
Exactly.
But it's literally the same as the trans argument.
Well, I'm a man.
I want to wear a dress.
Therefore, I become a woman.
No, you don't.
I think that's correct.
If you suddenly go to Japan, you don't become ethnically Japanese.
No.
I think at the end of the day, what's more important is what you said before, is that the question is, am I welcome?
But it isn't just an issue of some people being a bit worried about Restore's policy.
There is also the aspect of political fire and throwing mud, hoping some of it will stick.
Because it isn't, in these cases, it isn't just a discussion in the free marketplace of ideas.
It is war against restore.
Yes.
And that's why I think that if that's why I said in the beginning, I think if Ruperloe is very clear about what the direction of the party is on A, B, C, D, E, F, G matters, it's going to be much more difficult for people who wage this against Restore to sound plausible.
Yes.
And this, you're absolutely right.
We'll come to that in a minute, actually, because we've got loads more on this.
But anyway, this is a being honest about what's happening is something that got him in trouble previously.
He said that a particular footballer, Paul Pogba, I've never heard of him, was French but not ethnically French, and it's just a factual position, blah, blah, blah.
Separately, Restore Britain has said from the very start, owning a British passport does not make you British.
As in Khaled Hussain, whatever his name was, he's not British, right?
He owns a British passport, but he is Egyptian.
He knows he's Egyptian.
He calls himself Egyptian.
He calls himself British hyphen Egyptian.
That means you're an Egyptian who has a British passport.
That's all that means.
There's no we between us further than that, Khaled.
And he says, we've seen how lazily documents have been fritted away.
Holding up the piece of paper does not automatically make you British.
We're very clear on that, as in that El Fatah guy who hates Britain, an absolute anti-British lunatic.
He's got a passport and he's no.
He should be stripped of it and deported.
Again, another Egyptian, weirdly enough.
Being British encompasses much more than that.
means a culture, shared beliefs, patriotism, language, and common understanding of what is right and wrong.
Now, I'm sure that Nana Aqua has all of those things because she grew up in Britain.
She's going to have a British worldview, because you can't escape that that's informed how you were raised, right?
So she's going to have the same common understanding of what right and wrong is, the cultural handshake that you do whenever you...
The effects of acculturation.
Exactly.
This kind of handshake that you have, you know, saying thank you to the bus driver when you get off the bus, small things like this, you know, holding open the door, being polite, blah, She's going to have all of these cultural acclimatizations because she grew up in Britain and she's going to feel out of place in other cultures.
No one's saying she doesn't have those things.
She's got, you know, shared beliefs, patriotism, language, common understanding of right and wrong.
She has all of those things.
And as Rupert says, that's not a thing that's tied intrinsically and exclusively to ethnicity.
If you have an English person who's born, you know, like Superman, is just dropped into like deepest, darkest India, they're going to speak an Indian language.
They're going to have Indian customs.
They're going to believe in Indian gods.
They're going to think of themselves, they're going to be patriotic towards India because they are just not raised in Britain, right?
They're not raised in England.
And this is just the nature of the beast.
But that doesn't mean that the English ethnicity doesn't exist.
That doesn't mean that the English people don't have a claim to saying it.
We do have a claim to saying it.
So anyway, as he says, look, you know, every country in the world acknowledges ethnicities without descending into hysteria.
England should be able to do the same.
And I think that's correct.
Because, as I pointed out, like, the question is, you know, it's not, am I English, but am I welcome?
And Elon replied to that, saying, if ethnicity exists at all, which it obviously does, then English is an ethnicity.
This is a simple statement of fact.
It's possible to be culturally English or French or Japanese, etc., but be ethnically different.
The first is software, the other is hardware, which I think is actually a really good way of describing it.
This should not be a license to be cruel or unfair to people of a different ethnicity.
I think we should be fair to all ethnicities, but not pretend that one or the other doesn't exist.
And that's the important part, right?
If we're going to be fair to all ethnicities, what we have to then concede is that the English ethnicity has not been in a situation where people have been fair to it.
And this was my reply to Elon, right?
Say, the reason that this is coming up is because there is a question of group claims that has gone for a long time suppressed to facilitate what we call the colonization of England.
The question is, which group has the claim to England?
And the answer has to be the English.
It has to be that that's the case.
And from that, because the English have the primary claim to England in the same way the Greeks have the primary claim to Greece and the Greeks have the primary claim to Turkey, just joking, but the Palestinians have the primary claim to Palestine.
They're the ones who get to determine the kind of culture that dominates that region.
No other group has a claim to another ethnic group's native homeland.
And when they do, we call that imperialism.
We call that genocide.
We call that ethnic cleansing when they remove that claim.
There are serious words we use to describe that event.
And as you can see, I've said that, look, individuals can have certain pieces of property, but the claim to the territory, which allows the group to define the character of the territory, has to reside in the group itself and not in any one of its members.
And this is the question that has been suppressed here.
And this is the question that is actually being answered.
That Rupert Lowe says, well, yes, the English exist.
And anyway, moving on.
But that means that the people who are not English feel themselves to be slightly marginalized by the issues of nativism.
As in, are we going to do this the Egyptian way?
As Khaled Hussain or whatever his name is, is going to ask.
The answer is no.
The answer is just no.
I think that to some extent this could be a native myth.
And what do I mean?
I mean that I don't, for instance, think that I'm marginalized if you are saying that you're English and I'm Greek.
I don't understand why I would be marginalized.
Well, I don't feel marginalized if you, for instance, say that, yeah, that the English have a claim to England.
I don't understand why I would be marginalized by that.
Because you're not trying to impose Greek culture on England.
But if you were trying to impose, say, the call to prayer at Manchester, Old Trafford, well, if we said, well, no, this is England and you're not allowed to do that.
Well, that guy feels marginalized because he wants to impose the call to prayer.
But you're not here trying to impose something on people.
You're here to live in England, right?
And to live as we do, as you would think Nana Akua and whoever else, Ben Habib are.
But for some reason, this acceptance that England should have an English culture, which I think is a perfectly reasonable thing, has got everyone's backs up.
And I just don't see why.
I mean, you've got here Mayarian.
I can't even pronounce his name, right?
Mayuran Senthil Nathan.
Yeah, but the point is now he's got to this, well, why can't we have, like, I want to know if Restore would feel an ethnic minority born in Britain somewhere in their cabinet?
Well, what difference does it make if they would or wouldn't?
Like, sorry, why do you need an ethnic minority in the cabinet?
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, right?
I mean, I'm sure Rupert would, actually.
But why should it be that ethnic minorities are shoved forward?
Like DC.
That's what you said before.
It's a question of, am I not welcome?
Exactly.
Yeah, that's what it boils down to.
But the point is, notice how this is just basically a DEI question.
We're not asking, are they good?
He's not asking, are they competent?
Are they brilliant?
Are they going to be an asset?
He's just saying, no, I just need an ethnic minority there.
Because for some reason, the foreigners must dominate all of our politics.
I mean, let's say, like, what's his name again?
Mario, May Uran.
Let's say that you don't, right?
That doesn't mean anything.
You're not going to personally lose anything from that.
And the question is, well, why do you as an Indian man need representation in the British government?
That you have an entire continent.
the subcontinent that has representation for Indians?
Like, if this is such an important thing, where's my representation over there?
Right?
No, it's because what you're doing essentially is holding Restore Britain hostage.
You're trying to say, no, you have to be for us as much as you are for the native population.
So, but every other party does that.
reform is full of foreigners at the highest levels i think sorry why are you doing this to us now I mean, I don't know about a specific person.
I think one of the, if I am to give a charitable interpretation, I would say that there are people who do care about Britain without being ethnically English.
We know there are.
There are lots of them.
Yes.
And they frequently may take risks in order to talk about subjects, engage in activism for purposes that are pro-British and pro-English.
So that's, I think...
John Wong's a great example.
That's the thing.
The question is, right, I'm taking all these risks and some of these risks are sometimes more than the, let's say, the average person does.
And that's not particularly a high bar, let's be honest, because most people aren't that engaged in politics.
But it is still something.
So the question is, does this count for something or does it count for nothing?
That's the charitable interpretation.
But it's not the only interpretation.
There are other people who have, as you said, very anti-English and anti-British agendas.
Yeah.
So I think that's a great point.
Is it all or nothing?
And I think the issue is that obviously it's neither one of those things, right?
Because I mean, like, Rupert Lowe's been perfectly clear about the policies of Restore Britain.
And so this whole thing has been a rather strange mischaracterization of everything.
Because, I mean, if you just scroll through this very long list of things that he wants to do, you'll find that he's not actually making any kind of ethnic commentary at all.
And none of these policies are explicitly ethnic.
Ethnic Claim vs. British Preference00:06:12
But what they do is represent the ethnic claim to the land, right?
So the most explicit one is foreign language translation ended.
If you live in England, you have to speak English.
That's the most ethnically, explicitly, ethnically one.
And I think everyone agrees with it, right?
But what's the claim there?
What's the claim there?
The claim is this is England.
It belongs to the English, and because it belongs to the English, you have to speak English to fit in.
So that's the only really expressly ethnic claim.
But then when you look at the rest of them, you'll notice what?
No, it's just that it's just common sense.
Exactly.
I live in Greece, I speak Greek.
You know, I live in Italy, I speak Italian, whatever they speak.
You know, but what that is predicated on is an ethnic claim to the land.
There's an ethnic claim to the country.
And therefore, the ethnicity, the dominant ethnicity of the country, to whom the country belongs and after whom it is named, gets the final say.
And that's what these previous people are complaining about.
It's like, sorry, are you saying that?
It's like, yes, I'm saying that.
I want to ask you something about this because I was thinking of whether you think when we're talking about empires, empires tend to be a bit more multicultural.
It's just an administrative issue.
Yeah.
So do you think that current Britain is to some extent a microcosm or intended to be a microcosm of the British Empire?
It's like it's just all of the empire just at home.
So you walk at the map where you see you have the different scales.
It's like, say, you walk down this road, the ghetto is more like I'm taking a trip to the colonies.
Is this a way of somehow linking the idea of empire with current Britain?
But not in the sense of the ultra-pro-empire right-winger.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
In the sense of the person says the empire was bad, then it needs to atone for itself.
And for it to atone for itself, it has to stay into existence.
But it's a form of existence that is a microcosm of what it used to be.
And it stays into existence in order to fund the DI project of addressing all the historical wrongs of the past.
Is this a kind of...
I'm not even sure, but the thing is, it is a continuity of the British Empire.
And all empires view the conquered and subject peoples as human capital.
they just view them as human capital usually they they privilege the an empire is one ethnic group dominating others right that's That's what an empire is.
And usually that privileges the dominating ethnic group over those dominated.
But the problem that the British Empire has had is essentially after World War II, liberalism won over fascism, over ethnic particularity.
And so now ethnic equality became the ruling paradigm of the 20th century, either in communism or liberalism.
And that leaves the European empires kind of up the creek without a paddle because the European empires were always ethnic empires in the traditional mold.
Well, I mean, you know, I disagree a bit with it because I think that liberalism was really strong in the 19th century and there was a continuity between nationalism of the time and liberalism.
But the liberalism of the time is kind of contained in the national mold.
But afterwards, it becomes a worldwide product, right?
Because we end up in the Cold War between the universalist communists and the universalist liberals.
And so really what this is is kind of shedding the previous forms to get to the more pure version of itself.
Right.
No, no.
We haven't actually got that much time to have.
That's a nice conversation.
We should have it.
We absolutely should have it.
But the point is, liberalism and communism had morally delegitimized the national imperialism.
But isn't that more an issue of empire?
Because that was, in a sense, a global scale rivalry between two sides and their spheres of influence.
And because it was like that, and both sides needed to have sphere of influence and the support from their spheres of influence, especially the American people.
I think it's a long conversation.
We'll have to get into it at the time.
But the point being, Rupert is not making an avowedly ethnic case unless you consider speaking English as an avowedly ethnic thing.
I mean, technically it is, but I think everyone would agree to it.
But really, if you look at the list of things that he's asking for here, what they are essentially is just British prejudices.
The British prefer to trust parents to make decisions for their families.
That's just the British preference.
Welfare radically slashed back.
That's the British preference.
That's not necessarily the Pakistani preference.
That's the British preference.
So what this is doing, what this manifesto is, is a way of asserting the English group mind over the country where it has been damaged and taken away from us.
No, we're not happy about the way that the country is being run for immigrants, for foreigners.
And this isn't going to mean foreigners lose their rights.
This doesn't mean that foreigners can't support it.
This doesn't mean foreigners can't be in a position of authority, even though the question is, why do you need that?
It means that this is going to just set the tone and character of the country to be conformable with English prejudices.
And I think that's actually what every group expects from their own country.
The Indians expect India to be conformable to Indian prejudices.
The Pakistanis expect Pakistan, blah, blah, blah.
The same everywhere else.
And so why can't we have that in our country?
This is not about saying that no foreigner can ever belong or anything like that.
It's about saying there's a way of doing things and it has to be our way.
There are good and bad ways of belonging.
Of course.
And just so they can be good or bad ways of belonging for you, they can also be good and bad ways of belonging to a group for the group.
Why Every Group Hears Accusations00:03:00
Yes.
Well, I mean, and the imposition of minority politics on the majority is the problem.
And that's what Restore Britain is kind of response to.
But not in an exclusive way.
I mean, like, you're a minority here.
You're here.
I mean, if you end up here, like, you know, how much more inclusive can we get?
No, I want to say this because I really believe this.
And because I hear lots of people, you know, just hurling accusations and stuff.
The amount of things I've heard in academia off-camera, because there can be also recordings in academia, are incredibly extreme.
Yes.
Anyway, I've actually, this has gone longer than normal.
So I'm going to read some of the comments from the new website.
The new website, what do you think, guys?
Brand new website.
Spent six months developing it.
I think it looks great.
Dirty Belt says, I lose a quarter of my income tax to say nothing of how much more is stolen via VAT and other taxes.
When I think of what could have been done with that extra money, I feel rage.
How many productive businesses have been snuffed out before they've even started?
Because people rightly asked, why should I bother?
I'll be bled dry anyway.
Yeah, it's completely true.
And it's just mental.
Michael says, Jesus Christ.
And I thought the US was stupid in its government size.
And Britain has a more homogenous population.
This is just mental.
Yes, it is.
It's absolutely insane.
Cost says, I paid £69,000 in tax and deductions last year.
HMRC decided I owed them another nine grand and I told them to shove it.
The first time in my life, I've refused the shakedown, so we'll see how it goes.
That's just brutal.
Absolutely brutal.
Fuzzy Toaster.
I paid 63 grand in tax last year.
Listen, fuzzy.
I can't help but notice you're a bronze tier subscriber.
If you're paying that much in tax, you can afford to put them with gold tier.
He says I'm a day trader.
I'm joking.
I refuse to flee my home.
Seriously, the same hit, right?
Like, with this Dubai thing, there are a bunch of influencers who have come out.
Oh, I'm living in Dubai.
It's like, oh, are you?
I'm not living in Dubai.
You know what I mean?
Like, and don't get me wrong, I'm not, I don't even blame them.
I just can't bring myself to do it.
But yeah, I've got to move on from what looks like Fed posting.
Henry says, I really struggle to get over the amount of money the UK spends on debt servicing.
If it's for a single one-off hit, like paying a war or the emancipation of slaves, you can understand.
But for day-to-day spending, yeah, I know it's 138 billion deficit a year.
Just, I just, it's just, it's, it honestly is going to insufferable.
Michael says, I saw a Ramadan Advent calendar in Little.
Couldn't help but laugh.
Oh no, it's insufferable.
It's absolutely insufferable.
Sorry, I'm trying to, I'm trying to find comments that aren't too spicy.
Not Prepared To Lie00:03:32
Okay.
That's a random name, says Carl.
What are they thinking?
That's the point, Carl.
Normies literally don't think, which why universal suffrage was a mistake.
Well, I mean, the thing is, a lot of people are just easily drawn in by the propaganda, and it's because they get a pat on the back and they're told, oh, you're a good person for joining this, right?
Because this is what they think the standard of morality is.
And I'm just at the point where I'm like, I reject it entirely.
George says, the lefties do make one good point.
Football clubs are not English.
They are full with foreign players.
They're often owned by foreigners.
In a way, they're the perfect example of global home institutions where people are interchangeable.
Oh, yeah.
This is literally this.
Furious Dan says, it does feel like people in developed countries just stopped thinking in generations.
Yes, we did.
It's a long conversation to talk about why that has happened.
Adrian says, the distinction between civically or ethnically British needs to be established in these debates as a hard and fast fact that is removed from moral judgment.
Otherwise, pearl clutching will halt any useful discussion.
Yeah, and this is the point of really everything I was saying today.
It's like, look, I'm not prepared to tell a lie.
I'm not prepared to lie about these things.
Really, the moral fault is on the person who's demanding that you lie to maintain a politically correct fiction.
Nana Akua is not English, and that's okay.
It's not a judgment.
I'm not saying she's not British.
I'm not saying she's not welcome, but I am going to say she's not English because that's just the truth of it.
If she had like English ancestry, I'd say, well, like Ben Habib has got English ancestry, therefore I'm happy to say that he's English.
His mum was English, his dad was Pakistani.
Okay, well then you are English in Pakistani.
You have a claim to both sides of your ancestry.
You can claim to, you know, because you do have those things.
But she doesn't have those things.
She was born in Britain.
She was raised in Britain.
So she is culturally British and therefore she can be welcome.
That's fine.
Because, I mean, she's not like some radical leftist who's trying to destroy the country.
But this attitude of somehow my Ghanian identity needs to be included in being English can't be on the table.
And so, and for those Indian guys who are like, ah, yes, you have to consider our interests and our political concerns above your own.
No, I'm sorry.
I'm just not up for it.
You know, these are the concerns I have as an Englishman, as a Brit, right?
And this is just basic.
Almost everyone, everyone, every normal British person in the country agrees with all of these things.
Fly tippers crushed under the law.
Yeah, totally agree.
I don't want the country looking like India.
Crushed under the law.
Personal tax slashed.
Pro-family policy first.
Reform the family courts.
Trust parents to make decisions.
Make Britain safe again.
No nonsense policing.
Welfare radically slashed.
Support Brits who genuinely need help.
As in 53% of the country are not net beneficiaries of the government.
Foreign policy that puts British interests first.
Support system for veterans.
Ending arbitrary foreign aid.
Like, again, this is all just the thing that normal people believe.
You know, you don't have to be British to believe these things or ethnically English to believe these things, but these are things that are majority built in by the English and are held by them.
And I'm sorry, I'm not taking this sort of foreign squabbling.
What are you, what about an Indian?
What about an Indian?
I don't care.
This is what we want.
And we're at 7% of the polls at the moment and we're going to go higher.
So go and spread the word.
Anyway, on that note, I think we're out of time.
I think, in fact, Samson's probably been signaling for a while.
So thank you for joining us, folks.
And we'll see you in, well, I think half an hour for Real Politique on the brand new website.