Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 1, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:08:07

Britain BURNS! UK Riots & Migration CRISIS - What the Media ISN’T Telling You with Neil Oliver

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	so so
	so brought to you by
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	We are getting some breaking news.
	We've got a live shot there.
	Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
	Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	We've got a fantastic episode.
	We're of course going to be talking about Luciferian worship.
	We're going to be talking about the culture war reaching a global scale.
	Can we even have a global culture anymore?
	The more they push for globalism, the less likely it seems to be achieved when there is so much obvious division.
	Once the Olympics would have been a happy distraction, now it is a battleground for the culture war with people being unable to agree as to whether or not formerly male athletes that have transitioned ought be able to compete, whether or not Christianity and its sacred artifacts ought be ridiculed.
	We'll also be talking about the emergence of new nationalist movements And the fact that they are now not derided in the way they once were, perhaps because of the incredible overreach of globalism.
	And who better to discuss all this with than your favourite Celtic lilting poet, commentator and creator of glorious content, Neil Oliver.
	Neil, thanks so much for joining us today.
	Always a pleasure, Russell.
	Happy to be with you always.
	Neil, we'll do the first 10 minutes of our conversation available widely, but then we'll be exclusively streaming on Rumble simply because the condition of your hair will be eventually subject to a ban.
	You cannot be your age and have hair that silky on an alphabet or meta platform.
	They won't allow it.
	They'll censor it.
	They will prohibit it.
	You're looking very well today.
	That's why I grew the beard to cover the chin strap that holds on the wig.
	You look remarkable.
	I know you've posted a lot about the Olympic Opening Ceremony and I suppose in a sense...
	There are few people remaining that would say, oh it was appropriate, what's the big deal in the name of inclusivity and diversity?
	It's helpful and acceptable to celebrate diverse forms of identity and ethnicity by deriding potent Christian imagery.
	Diversity and inclusivity don't need to be earned at the cost of sacred traditional values, I suppose would be a Good place to start.
	And what's your perspective on it, mate?
	Oh, it's so difficult to read what was or wasn't intended by any and all of it.
	I think what amazes me is that we all know that something like the opening ceremony for the Olympic Games, which is a global spectacle, must have been reviewed and contemplated at length before it happened.
	I mean, anything, be it a story before it goes in a newspaper, or a feature before it turns up in a magazine, or something is broadcast, people analyse it endlessly and painfully to see how such and such a thing might be interpreted.
	So it just seems completely disingenuous the way the opening ceremony happened, and then within a What you might describe almost as a matter of minutes, the French regime was kind of apologising for and withdrawing aspects of it and footage was being deleted from the internet as though, you know, nobody meant any harm here.
	But I fail to see how you could have had a look at what was planned and not predicted that in the, you know, in the traditionally Christian West, Some of the imagery wasn't possibly going to cause offence.
	It just seemed utterly disingenuous.
	Okay, so what we will do is first of all we will have some people dress up as Jesus Christ,
	we will have a little child, we will have some drag queens, and then we reveal a blue
	cadaverous figure to be eaten.
	Good, this is good.
	Yes, check, check, check.
	Let's just have a look at a few of the moments.
	And yeah, it's difficult to imagine, Neil, that when at the planning stages, at the stages where it was being sort of plotted out, just in terms of images and choreography, that it didn't cause some French eyebrows to be raised.
	Let's have a look at a few moments together.
	Performing the song King Costumes, none other than Julie Vitzonga.
	She feels lucky.
	I never knew what love was I never met a man who knew what love was
	It's called love, it's called love It's called love
	We'll continue to play that without audio if you can facilitate that in the gallery while Neil and I continue
	talking Go ahead Neil.
	I don't know what is inclusive about what seems to be a preponderance of trans women, men, bearded men juxtaposed in a sexualised costume and choreography in proximity to kids.
	I don't know what that's inclusive of.
	Who that's inclusive of.
	And I don't know.
	I mean, I've seen this thing, you know, the Guardian and others have suggested that, you know, while it might have a passing resemblance to the tableau that's known to everyone as Leonardo's Last Supper, it was actually, you know, the Feast of the Gods by a Dutch artist.
	No, you must have looked at what was going to be the final result of that and thought that most people who aren't art critics or art historians are going to jump straight to the conclusion that you're parodying and mocking The Last Supper, which is a central image for Christians.
	And also, then there was the The way in which people were very quick to say, ah, you would never have done this about any Islamic sacredness.
	You wouldn't have done that.
	Which is to completely overlook the fact that devout Islam absolutely loves Jesus.
	The suggestion that Muslims anywhere would be rubbing their hands together in satisfaction at seeing Jesus mocked is absolute nonsense.
	There's a whole chapter of the Qur'an about Miriam, which is to say Mary.
	There are more references to Jesus in the Qur'an than there are to Muhammad.
	So that divisive element about it, where immediately there was an opportunity to cast Christianity against Islam, is everything?
	Did we just stumble, or are we just herded from one flashpoint to the next, where people with not enough time maybe to process things effectively, I like that phrase.
	One flashpoint to the next.
	Invited to be furious about something all the time.
	If I might guide you to my own interpretation of that flashpoint, isn't implicitly the problem Embedded in globalism, the idea that we have desanctified and desacralized our cultural spaces and replaced it with a new materialistic, rationalistic power.
	I was speaking to a priest the other day, that's what I do, and he said that the Enlightenment, this is rather brilliant Neil, you'll like this, the Enlightenment might be regarded as the flooding of the previous light of Christ, who bears the light to the world, with Luciferian light, i.e.
	the enlightenment, if it could be, and forgive the reductivism, be calcified into a single mental object, is the idea that mankind is the summit of all hierarchies.
	And if human beings are the summit, and there is no God, and there are no principles, that the individual is the apex and the sovereign, Then, it's okay to meddle with nature, it's okay to alter your own nature, it's okay to denigrate sacred principles, it's okay to be morally relativist, all sorts of ideas become permissible when you extract God.
	And don't you think that the Olympics as a ceremony, which I suppose would have always been pagan by its nature, at least at its point of origin, is now being used as an object to demonstrate that power now has overrun Christendom.
	There is not, and not only as you point out, Christendom, but in fact a religious purview full stop.
	Materialism as one, rationalism as one, globalism as one, be who you will, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
	You know, Aleister Crowley's Luciferian edict, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, It's essentially the principle of government now.
	While they simultaneously become more authoritarian and more controlling, they place at the apex of our systems of principle the fulfilment of your own goals.
	You want to do this?
	Do it.
	You want to look this way?
	You can do it.
	So whilst I believe absolutely in individual freedom, it's pretty clear that the culture is pushing some ideals and is repressing, attacking, savaging even, another set of ideals.
	Yeah, but I hear all that.
	Yeah, and you're right.
	I mean, I suppose you could say it's like the replacement of the natural light of natural daylight and sunlight with, you know, with throbbing fluorescent tubes.
	You know, there's just no comparison between the value to be derived from natural light in every sense and artificial light.
	And if it's the replacement of the light of religiosity, or not religiosity, spirituality, with materialism, then I can follow the line of that analogy and it works.
	But at what point do the people that have a problem with spirituality or God get over it?
	I mean, you go all the way back to the English Revolution in the 17th century, you know, so that Cromwell felt the need to cut the head off the king.
	And then there was the appalling things that happened in Ireland.
	Felt the need.
	Felt the need.
	The need for decapitation.
	You couldn't just set that guy aside.
	You couldn't just give him a job with a broom sweeping the streets or something.
	You actually have to cut his head off, you know, to take it to the nth degree.
	And then go off to Ireland and do terrible things there.
	You're focusing on people of religion.
	People of faith, priests and whatever.
	And then after the French Revolution, they were instantaneously about installing an actress in Notre Dame in mockery of a sacred place.
	And all sorts of terrible things again were done to... Was she an actress, Neil?
	Was she an actress?
	What role was she playing?
	Quite so.
	I think she was mocking Sophia or Wisdom or whatever.
	And then you've got the canonisation of Judas Iscariot, you know, who betrayed Christ to his death.
	That happens after the French Revolution.
	Same thing happens after the Russian Revolution in 1917.
	They canonise Judas Iscariot again and then they get stuck in and then there's terrible bloodletting.
	At what point have you made your point that religion or spirituality or belief in God is to be set aside?
	They've been at it for hundreds of years, literally.
	And then you come to something that the Olympic Games, which... Games, it's all there in the word.
	It's for fun.
	It's supposed to be people coming together to compete at the amateur level to see who's fastest, who's strongest, who can jump highest, and all of that happening in front just to give people something to watch.
	Why do you have to traduce that by bringing in, oh, let's take time out here to mock God?
	Why?
	Does everything have to present an opportunity to have a go at something that means a great deal to more people alive on the face of the earth than not?
	Most people on earth believe in God of one sort or another.
	I like the idea that we're experiencing the end of fun, the end of games, but what actually a culture war, because culture might be an expression of humanity's creativity.
	Love of the divine, the various ways that love of the divine might be expressed through nature, creativity and through music or worship or reverence of nature, rather.
	And now we've reached the point where bagatelles and pastimes and festivals of fun and joy and diversion...
	...have become so heavily malign and politicised that almost the concept itself is over.
	How can there be, Neil, would you say, a simultaneous push for globalism, a simultaneous push for diversity, when having such an antagonistic attitude towards the sacred views of, as you say, a significant demographic.
	The largest demographic, in fact.
	Well, there's something paradoxical about it, because you're trying to replace the very essence of something, meaning, you know, you're trying to replace meaning, the transcendent, with an empty void.
	Why seek to replace something, in fact, by some estimates, everything, everything of any with the opposite, with nothing, with an emptiness.
	Which is really, I mean if you take materialism to its conclusion,
	we're not even convincing materialists.
	Because if we were materialists we would have respect for matter,
	we would have respect for the stuff, but we don't.
	All we do is we just dig up the earth, we dig up Mother Earth and we transform the matter that we find there into rubbish that we then after a couple of years throw into landfills that then leaks toxically back into the flesh and blood of Mother Earth.
	The whole thing is so devoid of meaning and I think it's something, there's almost something hopeful about that because When you take globalism and materialism and all of that to its logical conclusion, you find out that at the end of it all, there's nothing there.
	And people are instinctively angry because they sense that the natural law all around them, not just in terms of what was happening there in the Olympic opening ceremony, but everything that's natural, the natural law is being subverted.
	It's being turned upside down, inside out.
	And people who don't consider themselves to be spiritual or to be moved by the transcendent are feeling an instinctive upset with it, a physiological response to it, because it's unnatural.
	What's being foisted upon people is the inversion of, and the corruption of, the literal corruption of everything that means, that has meaning for people.
	To use a phrase like unnatural, I think, is also a tacit acceptance of the idea of a divine order.
	I suppose you could posit a natural order, but deviating from subverting or altering a natural order is only an aberration or abomination if there is something undergirding the natural order that is divine.
	I'm going to let that question hang.
	And as well, Neil, it sort of seems that the whole endeavour is somewhat demonic, a kind of a bewildering exercise in
	attacking meaning itself.
	If you, it seems that, diversity and inclusivity are beautiful ideas because they are already
	afforded in principles like kindness and love and non-judgment and salvation and redemption,
	ideas that are all present in fact in the ideology that is being blithely traduced and attacked.
	We're going to come off of YouTube now.
	If you're watching this on YouTube, click the link in the description and join Neil and I on Rumble.
	I want to talk a little more about the desacralisation of our planet.
	One second Neil, I'll just do this throw my darling.
	The desacralisation of the planet.
	We're going to talk a little bit about Tommy Robinson and the re-emergence of nationalism and if there are versions of nationalism that can themselves be inclusive, compassionate and loving or are they as they are continually assessed to be by their nature, malevolent.
	We're going to talk a little bit about Kamala Harris as well and a number of other stories.
	Click the link in the description to see you over there.
	Please carry on, dear Neil.
	Well, I was just going to say, when you talk about inclusivity and diversity, it's already there.
	Talk about reinventing the wheel.
	It is there if you want it.
	In fact, how can you overlook it in the basics of the Christian message?
	You know, when Jesus was put on the spot about exactly what he was about, you know, it was love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself.
	Love your neighbour as yourself.
	Now what could be more diverse and inclusive than that?
	Because Jesus was manifest in a world which was actually enthralled to an idea of a God that was exclusive.
	You know, that there was just one chosen group of people and everybody else was to be utterly destroyed to make room for this one group.
	And don't mix with the neighbours, don't get involved with anybody, keep the blood linings, all that.
	But Jesus was manifest in that world and said, on the contrary, the one God is for everyone.
	And he loves everyone.
	And he wants everyone to love him.
	And as a living metaphor of that, he wants everyone to love their neighbour.
	Take them into their heart every bit as much as they love themselves.
	If it's diversity and inclusivity that you're after, it's all there in that simple message.
	So why would you then mock The messenger that brought that message was your neighbour.
	I suppose the argument would be that institutional Christianity, they may argue, has become patriarchal or exclusive.
	But early Christianity certainly, it seems to me at least, was defined by that principle of it being an open invitation to the Gentiles and to all of God's people to join the chosen through the electing to become baptised, electing to carry the cross.
	Alongside him.
	And then, of course, in actual practice, Christianity is growing faster in the continent of Africa and the country of China than anyone else, precisely because of its ability to be universally applied, because of these principles of inclusivity.
	So it's not actually about inclusivity and diversity.
	It's more likely about nihilism and the extraction and attack on meaning.
	And in order, excuse me, to attack meaning itself, you have to annihilate its figurative representatives.
	You have to attack its myths, its tropes, its stories, its icons, its heroes, and in the figure of Christ, I suppose, It's King.
	And it seems to be.
	I reckon what's fascinating about it, Neil, is that, you know, it feels to me like when we were young, that the Olympics, if there was a controversy in it, it will be because of like African-American athletes protesting their civil rights or it would become A stage upon which the Cold War may or may not play out from the inclusion or exclusion of particular nations.
	But for there to be an ideology transcendent of nationality that's not overtly religious, it's not like Islam, or it's not like Buddhism, it's a set of cultural ideas that are odd in a way, because when we unpack that, What are they about?
	The ability to choose your own sex and gender?
	I don't think anyone has a problem with that among adults.
	Sure, go ahead, of course.
	And then it seems a lot to me about sexual identity, which is sex, other than for procreation, is by definition about pleasure, or you could at best argue the expression of love.
	And if it is about pleasure, Or the pleasurable expression of love.
	It's a very odd thing to place at the very center of a culture.
	Freedom and freedom of expression.
	Freedom to be who you are.
	Freedom to love.
	Of course these ideas are valid and, as we've already touched upon, already covered in the covenant between man and God.
	To recognize that we are in his image.
	To recognize that there is no higher tribunal.
	To recognize that our primary duty, other than loving God, is to love our neighbor.
	Yeah, but you can't choose your sex.
	You can't.
	You are what you are.
	You is what you is.
	That's an immutable law of nature.
	That's something else that you can't really survive.
	You can present yourself in any way you want.
	Of course you can.
	Adults can present in any way they want.
	But you can't choose your sex.
	Not in any meaningful way.
	Again, that's just nature.
	Just let it alone.
	Well, you can't.
	It's a lie to invite people, especially children, to think that you can change your senate.
	You can't.
	I don't know if you can see our assets, Neil, on screen, but I'm bringing up assets during this conversation, and this one is a story from The Guardian about Some boxers who failed gender tests at the World Championships are competing.
	Imane Khalif of Algeria and Lin Yu-Ting are both competing as females.
	They cite old Barry McGuigan.
	God love him.
	Do you remember when his dad used to sing Danny Boy and that?
	It's shocking that they were actually allowed to go this far.
	I suppose the argument around sport is why have gender categories at all?
	No, I don't buy that at all.
	What motivates the athletes that want to follow this path?
	Because I'm not a sporty person.
	I've taken part in sport and games down through the years.
	I've played and done my best at things.
	But to me, if you're a boxer, let's say, You would want to challenge and to find the strongest person that you thought you could be.
	You'd be aiming really to be the heavyweight champion of the world, able to dominate and knock down, or whatever, the next strongest person.
	I don't understand the motivation that says, be it in boxing or swimming or cycling, where you're going, I need to find the people I can definitely beat.
	You don't get that?
	You know, I need to find someone that's not as strong as me.
	I want that person.
	I want to find someone that can, that doesn't have my upper body strength so that I can definitely beat them.
	I would have thought the sporting ideal, and let's not forget, I mean, even as someone who's not, I don't watch sport, but I get it.
	I mean, there are those transcendent moments where someone, through the perfection of the execution of their Tens of thousands of hours of practice and dedication rises above, almost literally transcends, and can bring an entire football stadium with 50,000 people in it to their feet as one, or it can bring the crowd at a hundred metres final.
	It moves people.
	Everyone can feel it because it's a manifestation of something true when you watch somebody reach like that.
	One of the great moments during that Cold War period when the Soviet was dominating the marathon and basically You just got your turn.
	If you were in the team long enough, it became your turn to get the gold medal.
	And they would structure it, running and slowing down to let this year's nominated gold medalist come through.
	Such was the domination.
	I'm sure the African runner's name was something like Abid Bakila.
	And he just, he was this slightly built guy and he just came, nobody knew he was coming.
	And he came through and he ran past all the Soviet and he took the gold medal.
	And the world was on its feet.
	There are these transcendent moments about sport.
	And to then reduce it in that materialist sense, where you're facilitating and enabling people who just want to get a gold medal, or presumably to enter women's tennis as a man, And get all the six-figure checks for winning all the big events.
	It's such a corruption of everything that is the Olympic ideal.
	And I find that, Trudie actually pointed it out to me, my wife.
	She said, do you know it's the Olympics?
	Because she had only just learned that as well.
	Because we've gone through this metamorphosis where we don't watch the telly anymore and we don't read the newspapers, it completely passes by.
	In the same way I missed Wimbledon.
	I used to watch Wimbledon when I was a little boy.
	I used to cheer for Björn Borg and latterly I was interested in Andy Murray's, you know, finally Scotland and Britain had a male tennis player winning the championship.
	And I loved it.
	And I missed it.
	I don't watch it anymore.
	That whole thing about bread and circuses for the masses.
	I do wonder at the extent to which these things, because of the way in which they've been misused and because of the evolution that sport's been on, Sport itself is corrupted now.
	We all know it's all about money and it's all about the big sponsorship deals and all of it.
	And I think people are just quite naturally, and I mean that, I choose that word deliberately, are just naturally drifting away from it.
	Because that thing about sport that used to lift people up, you know, working class guys that could, after their miserable week in the factory, they could go to the football on a Saturday afternoon and there might be a moment when one of their heroes did something that they couldn't do.
	And it wasn't about earning a million pounds a week.
	or something, I wasn't what they idolised, they idolised the fact that here was somebody that's
	a bit like me from a world that I recognise that goes and transcends. Nice, well the complex social
	chemistry may have just become more combustible because if you deny the bread and circuses
	medicine and anaesthetic to a culture and class that could at any point bubble over,
	you may be surprised by the results.
	As sport becomes politicized, as entertainment becomes politicized, as ordinary people become more evidently loathed by the generators of culture, it appears that working class at movements are starting to reform and this time not in
	the image that we might be familiar with those of us that still revere their civil rights
	heroes of the 60s but in a new form that I don't think has entirely landed yet and might be
	fascinating.
	I want to talk a little more about some of the nation-first movements and whether or not they have to necessarily be predicated on exclusion.
	Even though, of course, you would have to say that a nation is about inclusion and exclusion.
	You can't have a nation unless it has flags, borders, an identity, a territory, Maybe a constitution, or at least something resembling one, and a set of ideals.
	Certainly, as globalism's power and reach has increased, we have seen an understandable growth in nationalism, as people feel impeded upon, yes, by migration, but also by global corporatism.
	And I want to talk about some of those movements, and in particular the march that happened in our country, Neil.
	Over the last week.
	I'm talking about the Tommy Robinson march.
	Before we get into that is a quick message from one of our partners here on Stay Free with Russell Brand on Rumble.
	Remember to like and subscribe.
	Sticker Mule!
	Who don't love Sticker Mule?
	You love Sticker Mule?
	I love Sticker Mule.
	And we've got some exciting news.
	We've launched a brand new store on, yeah, Sticker Mule.
	It's got loads of stay-free merchandise, including stickers like these ones, plus shirts and stuff.
	So go to stickermule.com forward slash rustyrockets and check it out now.
	You can use it, look, to...
	Decorate your mic stand if you've got one, if you've got a podcast and stuff.
	A big portion of sales go directly to us, me, we, here at Stay Free, ensuring we can continue to bring you live, thought-provoking, paradigm-shattering, establishment-provoking conversation on issues that matter.
	So whether you want to show your support or just grab some stickers, we've got you covered.
	Sticker Mule!
	Sticker Mule!
	That's StickerMule.com forward slash Rusty Rockets.
	Go there now, go check it out.
	I'd love to Stick-a-mule, look at this, look, I've made my mic stand better.
	I love this stuff.
	Stick-a-mule!
	So, mate, yeah, I just wanted to talk about this Tommy Robinson thing.
	I've not looked at this before, but I understand that many, many thousands of people marched in London, that there were counter-marches, and I'm guessing we're similar ages, you and I, and in some ways have similar political perspectives, and I've been fascinated with Tommy Robinson for a long while.
	I'll just tell you why that is, then we'll look at the footage, and then, you know, I'd love to hear what you feel about all of this.
	I've always felt that any political movement that's going to be truly grassroots and have a chance of succeeding has to earnestly reach ordinary working people, and that would be, by my reckoning, a non-racial endeavour.
	All working people, the working people of Britain, are drawn from many races and many religions, but due to the obvious demographics and history of these islands, will include a lot of White working class people, just because of where we are in Northern Europe, and because we are a late industrial nation, so that's why working class is going to be a big part of it.
	So, I want to, for a moment, tackle and assess what these marches are about, how they compare to the rise in right-wing politics in France, the MAGA movement in the United States of America, and reformulating populism, and whether it can ever have, at its core and its heart, love rather than hate. And whether that's a fair assessment
	anyway because the many detractors of movements like this are obviously invested in saying, oh
	these groups are racist and hateful. Let's have a look at a little compilation from the
	march the other day to Gevin Hill.
	What a feeling. Most hated man in Britain.
	All your lies didn't work.
	And the best thing is, we're unifying the people.
	Exactly what you wanted to stop.
	You wanted to divide them.
	You wanted to separate us.
	Do we look divided?
	to separate us. Do we look divided? Come on. Back up mate, back up. I'd love to have a
	look at some other footage from that day, like more broadly, because of course this
	very much centres on Tommy Robinson, who's been a sort of a central figure, whether it
	was with the EDL, the English Defence League, or the kind of casual football movements that
	came out of London.
	Luton. He's got an interesting history. I was very interested to see his interview with Jordan Peterson
	and he's someone that I've had a lot of interest in talking to but my own personal purview, Neil, has been
	I wonder if there would ever be a moment where you could unite the followers of Tommy Robinson as
	well as leaders of Muslim communities in the UK in common cause
	against the kind of central government forces that benefit from division.
	Or do these movements always have to be somewhat characterised by an anti-Islamic sentiment?
	even though I know from listening to Tommy Robinson that the particular strain of Islam
	that they are addressing pertains to ideas like grooming and gangs in Luton.
	In fact it's highly particular.
	It's not the Islam that you might know from the late Byzantine Empire and the Ottomans.
	We're talking about Islam in Luton essentially and how that might have been replicated in
	places like Rochdale or whatever.
	So, tell me, mate, what you think of this kind of movement and this kind of march and what role it will play in anti-establishment politics going forward.
	It's a very febrile, volatile cocktail of ingredients that has been collected together in Britain.
	And I would say it's been collected and curated deliberately against the interests really of everyone concerned.
	We need, regardless of creed and colour, to look sideways and recognise the importance of coming together and looking up, because above us, whence the trouble comes.
	We're being manipulated and set at one another's throats by people that we don't pay attention to.
	And instead our attention is directed by the people at the people either side.
	If there's your problem, get them.
	And acting on that impulse only serves them, because it just facilitates bringing whatever, martial law or mores or digital IDs or the further loss of freedom and rights for all.
	Everyone, everyone with any kind of humanity is appalled by the grooming gangs and all of that kind of, you know, that's anti-human.
	That's just appalling behaviour that everyone with a decent beating human heart is offended by.
	I've a long time been friends with Majid Nawaz, late of LBC and now a hard to find podcaster because a lot of his content is so pushed down by algorithms and all the rest of it.
	Majid, who is of, I think I'm right, I think he's of Pakistani lineage, He on LBC was calling out the grooming gangs and he was freely and honestly saying, you know, we're talking about people who are my people here, he was saying, and we have to speak about this and address this and exercise this evil.
	So from within the heart of the very community that was being accused of it and that was guilty of it, there was also a voice and more than one voice saying, we must talk about this.
	You know, what you want is the synergy of bringing together people from all of those groups who understand that it is to love your neighbour and to honestly have the conversation and the confidence to have the conversation that says, this from within my tribe is utterly abhorrent.
	And we're calling it out, and we do not identify with it, and it's got nothing to do with us.
	And that has to be listened to by all of the other tribes.
	That's what I mean.
	It's so volatile.
	And the fatfall that civilizations make every time is by being tricked and brainwashed into behaving as the mob.
	And when these things become violent, then the mob is only and always a tool of the state.
	It's made to look like it's the people doing something for themselves, but it never is.
	I know people that were on that march.
	You know, I know I've got people who are dear to me who are on that.
	And I know the kind of people that they are and the good things that they are honestly motivated by.
	You can't point at a gathering like that and say, well, just all these people are racist or all these people are whatever, nationalists in the very worst sense of the word.
	Because Tommy Robinson is speaking to a congregation that is vilified and has been set aside and white working class being a large part of it.
	And he speaks to that, he listens to their concerns, and someone ought to be listening to their concerns.
	He's a very clever guy, Tommy Robinson.
	I've read his book, and he's a clever operator.
	He knows what he's talking about, and he comes from that of which he speaks.
	He's born and bred in it.
	And so I wouldn't dismiss him for one minute.
	But the crucial factor is that we have to learn once and for all that the trouble that we see on either side of us is put there to annoy us.
	We're being shaken up like ants in a jar and the result is internecine violence.
	Which is the objective of those above that we don't pay enough attention to.
	And if they get their way, there will be something, you know, dreadful things will happen.
	And the solutions that are offered for those dreadful things, the consequences that arise from those dreadful things, will not serve any of us.
	Not in the long term.
	Yes, it's extraordinary to try to even contemplate what a workable and viable solution might look like.
	Obviously, Neil, over time, we've gone from a kind of situation where the issue of migration was held up As a measure of where you stood on a scale of compassion.
	Well, you have to be compassionate.
	These refugee crises are often caused by the results of imperialism, colonialism, or more laterally, economic and commercial exploitation, or destabilization through wars.
	There's almost a sense of culpability and guilt.
	But now, whether or not they will be effective in doing so, even Keir Starmer's apparently left of centre, although if you were to, I'm sure, analyse them by policy, you would find that they're ultimately a sort of a kind of right-wing party in terms of social policy, and potentially only left-wing in terms of authority and government control.
	They have accepted that the argument has been won on migration.
	Most people are concerned about immigration in the UK.
	Most people are concerned about immigration in the US.
	And in both these countries, you've seen parties that would have once attacked their opponents as racists for vilifying or not being sympathetic to migrants, refugees, whatever you want to call them.
	They now have adopted their policies, or at least seek to emulate their policies with a softer rhetoric.
	What I sometimes wonder, Neil, is what a solution looks like in the event that you have nation-first governments elected.
	You know, you have a MAGA president in the United States, obviously Donald Trump.
	You have, say, a Nigel Farage coalition coming in at some point.
	What happens around the subject of migration?
	Yes, there's the idea of closed borders.
	Yes, there's the idea of legal migration.
	But I sometimes wonder what would be the relationship between the diverse existing communities in this country, or in any country, and that's where I would like to return to your point, that we surely have to find a set of ideals that are predicated mostly upon love rather than hate and othering.
	I am so sympathetic to the ideas you've outlined and that Tommy Robinson represents, that essentially a manufacturing and military class are no longer required for manufacturing and the military in the way they once were, so now they have been vilified and abandoned.
	The jobs are gone, the wars that require them are gone, and now they are being essentially condemned and perjured so that people don't have to deal
	with the fact that the people that built the country, that have every right to
	be in the country, whose grandparents died in wars for the country, are now
	feeling like whether it's because of migration or globalism that their voices
	aren't heard. I wonder how a kind of thesis or rather a manifesto might be formed
	that shows us what that would Britain look like.
	Do you see a chance for real, if not real integration, then happy cohabiting?
	Because we're surely not saying, All right, you know, let's exercise the nation of all non-white people or Pakistani people.
	Like, you know, surely, like when I spoke to Galloway about this, he said, I agree that immigration has to be controlled because if you flood the market with migrants, ordinary working people can't earn any bloody decent wedge.
	But everyone that's already here, we're going to have to learn to get along.
	And that, for me, kind of seemed like a good direction to take it.
	And I wonder what your thoughts are on that, Neil.
	Yeah, it's already happened.
	The mass migration has already happened.
	I think it's fair to say that on some metrics the British demographic has been altered.
	To a greater extent, more quickly than any other nation has experienced in certainly modern times.
	It's unprecedented, the number of new people that have arrived en masse all at once, within a generation or less.
	It's obviously something similar.
	I had somebody saying the other day that 50 odd million Americans, in fact it was Conor McGregor I think, 50 odd million Americans or 50 odd million people in America weren't born there.
	So something similar in terms of the scale and the speed is happening there.
	And it's absolutely a defensible and a right stance to take that where there's an indigenous culture It must prevail.
	It must not be obliterated by simply flooding that Indigenous population, that Indigenous culture, with something else, regardless of what it is.
	UNESCO has a list of, you know, they've got the World Heritage Sites, you know, your pyramids and Stonehenge and so on, but there's also a list of intangible cultural heritage.
	Which refers to, like, folk myth and language and cuisine and dance.
	All the things that everyone who belongs to a culture instinctively knows and recognises, but you can't actually lay a hand on them.
	It's not like an architecture or whatever, it's song and all the intangibles.
	And these things are rightfully defended.
	Every two weeks, I think it is, by an estimate, a language disappears.
	The last speaker of a language dies about twice a month, and taking with them what Wade Davis, the anthropologist, called a deep-growth forest of the mind, a whole way of perceiving reality Blinks out like an extinguished light when we lose a language and we're losing them in that way and being cavalier about the cultural inheritance of all the nations on earth built up over not just centuries but over millennia and to treat those things as disposable and to watch them be diluted to the point of extinction and disappearance is the most egregious wrong
	And there's nothing wrong with seeing that has established over a couple of thousand years an indigenous culture and population in Britain and the people who have a stake in it and who are the inheritors of, in many ways, these intangible aspects of cultural heritage.
	They've got a right to defend them and they've got a right to want to be able to pass them on to their own children and to see them passed on again.
	Add infinitum.
	But George Galloway's right.
	There are many ways to approach this.
	George is right.
	I speak to George.
	To bring in people that are prepared to undercut the wages of the lowest paid anyway, that's an egregious wrong.
	And it's happening against a backdrop where we know that birth rates are falling all around the world.
	Every other nation isn't making enough babies simply to maintain its own existence.
	A country like Japan stands to disappear within a century.
	Because their birth rate is so low.
	And there's a background music all the time of people saying that there's too many people on planet Earth.
	And you cannot either.
	I mean, the people that are arriving into Europe and arriving into Britain, that wouldn't be happening in many ways if we hadn't spent the last, since the end of the Second World War, bombing the shit out of every other country on Earth.
	You know, all over, the West's exploitation of Africa, the West's abuse of the Middle East, bombing, invading, seeking regime change by political means and all the rest of it, causing that kind of disruption.
	And then people are left with nothing but rubble and broken dreams and dead parents and dead babies.
	What are they going to do?
	Some of them get up and walk.
	Which is all they can do to go somewhere else.
	And then some of them arrive here.
	Now why wouldn't they?
	If my country had been bombed flat, generationally, by a stronger military power, and I had the wherewithal to get my boys and my daughter out of here to somewhere where the living was better, damn straight I'd be doing that.
	And if they got there I'd be saying, send me the address and mum and I'll come and join you.
	I won't condemn that desperation, but there are so many ingredients to all of this, and again I say, it's been confected and exploited by those above, who never lose, and only gain.
	And by their exploitation of chaos, and their sowing of internecine squabble, and cultural and religious hatred, and all of the rest of it, and stoking of anger instead of friendship, it benefits them, and it's a zero-sum game for the rest of us.
	With over 100,000 gas stations, petrol stations we call them, grocery stores, and that's a better term, and restaurants on the upside app, cashback is just around the corner on daily essentials.
	Essentials like petrol or gas.
	It's real cashback.
	No confusing reward or points.
	Rewards, points, what am I?
	A dog?
	Am I on a game show already?
	Real money to transfer straight into your bank.
	To find out how much you could earn as a person, click the link in the description to download Upside and use the code RUSSELL.
	That's my name, remember.
	RUSSELL.
	Two S's, two L's.
	To get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas or petrol, or scan the QR code here to claim this offer.
	Download this for free at upside.app.link forward slash Russell.
	That's upside.app.link forward slash Russell.
	Two S's, two L's, you heathens.
	Earn three times more cash back than other loyalty payments with confusing points and rewards.
	We just want cash, hard cash, dollary dues, or pound sterling.
	God bless you, mom.
	We'll never forget you.
	Okay, back to the content.
	It's interesting to note the significance of the nihilism of the Olympic ceremony when it comes to the collapsing of those intangible cultural assets.
	The richness of France, its literary, artistic, musical, philosophical, religious history collapsed into a really contemporary A niche idea about individual freedom of expression at the cost of all else is extraordinary and you can see how that would be a useful tool in creating an environment where indigenous populations are prone to exploitation, assault and takeover.
	I want to talk in a minute now about the great challenge the media faces in creating a new icon and hero in the Democrat party nominee Kamala Harris.
	They need to quickly turn around a public perception of her as maybe a little inept and flawed and not great at public speaking and having a pretty draconian record while in office as a lawyer and as an attorney general into the hero that the establishment requires.
	We'll get into that subject next.
	First, we have a quick message from our partners.
	Back in a second.
	So, Neil, what do you think about the Kamala Harris project?
	There's this cover of her at the New York Times as an attempt to repackage some of her odd rambles as a sort of a positive and enjoyable thing.
	It's an image that suggests unity, but it's sort of somewhat slapdash.
	I wonder if you saw the brilliant Bordasar amalgam There's a lot under Joe Biden.
	She was borders are with special purview over the portfolio over border security.
	And now that she's president, they're pretending that she never was.
	There's a brilliant montage, which I'll show you at some point of that.
	And also, I want to carry on from what we were just discussing.
	American children are no longer the primary source of new residents within the country.
	So, in a sense, it relates to what we've been talking about throughout this show.
	A kind of sense that We are being presented with a homogenized uniculture to accompany the homogenized systems of economics and governance and media that already dominate while claiming to be about diversity.
	But if you just start off by telling me what you've observed as the media has undertaken its attempt to get everyone on board with Kamala Harris.
	I can't believe I'm watching it.
	I can't believe it's being done with a straight face.
	It's almost like watching, you know, if you kind of, you know, look into a room when your kids were like three and four or whatever and they're playing with another half a dozen kids and they're in this, they've made up this sort of make-believe thing and they're making it out like it's real.
	And then, obviously, as soon as you get mum and dad walking, the atmosphere changes and you stop.
	Whatever.
	I can't believe that anyone's trying to sell the American people Kamala Harris as a serious contender for anything.
	Because it's all exposed and it's all out there.
	Like you say, this thing where they're now, her having been Biden's border czar, because they had to give her something to do, and now they're saying, no she wasn't, no she wasn't.
	That's the kiddie equivalent of eyes closed, fingers in ears, la la la la la.
	It's not there.
	It's absolute farce.
	And they seem to really genuinely, they must have something else up their sleeves.
	Either they're going to, surely they're going to spring someone else at the last minute or there's not going to be an election.
	Because you can't seriously go into an election against Donald Trump unless you, unless you've just given up, unless you just, oh well we're never going to win that one and we will just expend Kamala Harris here and that'll be her, that'll be her time gone.
	But you can't seriously, she really, I mean, you know, she can't, she can't speak.
	She doesn't make sense and she doesn't grasp She is utterly unbelievable.
	about economics or anything else, or matters geopolitical, that you would naturally be
	inclined to expect your commander in chief to be able to talk off the cuff about it,
	as though they had spent five minutes studying any of those subjects before they started
	speaking about them. She is utterly unbelievable, and yet here we are.
	What does it tell us about how the Democratic Party must work, that it takes a little more
	than a couple of endorsements and some front covers to generate...
	I was just watching a Jon Stewart piece, mate.
	And like Jon Stewart sort of did this, you know, he's always funny, Jon Stewart.
	I really love Jon Stewart as a comedian.
	Like the, you know, the Democratic Party were in bewilderment and within the wilderness and under Joe Biden all was doomed.
	But now, Kamala Harris.
	It was done somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what it wasn't was mocking of Kamala Harris as a political figure.
	It was strongly suggesting that what the Democratic Party and Democrat voters had to get behind was Kamala Harris.
	When Jon Stewart came back, I thought, this is an interesting mark of how the culture's changed.
	In his first episode back, he ridiculed Joe Biden, as well as Donald Trump.
	By the second episode of him being back, he'd stopped ridiculing Joe Biden.
	And what I feel this weird time shows us is something that became evident during COVID.
	You've got a media machine that will just support and amplify the messaging of the establishment,
	whatever that messaging is. When it was required to say Joe Biden is as sharp as a tack, it said
	that. When it was required to say that Joe Biden was in decline and had to be replaced, it said
	that. When it had to say that Kamala Harris was a proficient politician, it's saying that. And how
	can it maintain its trust in a fractured, splintered media environment where now Tucker Carlson and
	Joe Rogan compete to be the world's top podcasters and to appoint political voices?
	How can that old model Succeed.
	And you seem to be suggesting that when it comes to the election, it can't and won't.
	But can it even work reliably as a system of sort of propaganda and thought control, Neil?
	No, I don't.
	It can't.
	I do wonder at the extent to which we're just being there in some sort of liminal period between the way things were, where there was credibility connected to politicians and the media by some people to some extent.
	And they've got into this position where hardly anybody trusts the media.
	Politicians have now got a reputation lower than what estate agents were famous for having in the 90s.
	No one treats them with any kind of respect whatsoever.
	But I do wonder, as I say, are we transitioning to a point where they know that?
	And they know that we know that and all of the rest of the, you know, Solzhenitsyn, you know, the way you roll that out, they know, we know, we know, they know.
	Are they just saying it doesn't matter that you know?
	It doesn't matter that you, because you people don't matter because, because votes and voting doesn't matter.
	And, and here's the Democratic Party casting aside democracy itself.
	You know, and holding a coup amongst, within its own borders and deciding without so much as a buy your leave, you know, that this person is no longer wanted to be the president, won't be running for next president, and here's the next person that you're going to have.
	And we're going to make her as ridiculous as possible to underline the fact that You know, we know that you know what we're about and it's important that you know what we're about because this is how it's going to be.
	There's a new sheriff in town and he just tells you how it's going to be and if we give you a ridiculous commander-in-chief that's utterly implausible, Well, we know that she's ridiculous and utterly implausible, but we want to see you accept it.
	It's that kind of, it's that doublethink from, you know, that Orwellian doublethink, where they know that people know what they know, but they know that the people won't have the nerve to say it for fear of consequences.
	We've just endured Joe Biden for approaching four years, so it's pretty clear that whatever the ideal is, it bears some resemblance to what you're describing, that they don't really care.
	And over the course of our conversation, Neil, I've started to notice that there's an ongoing and continual attempt to create, it seems, confusion and to rely on the fact that confusion by itself generates division.
	This is the president of the United States.
	He's sharp as a tack.
	Hold on a minute.
	For a couple of years now, we've been watching this guy bewildered.
	He's not president now.
	This person's gonna be your next president.
	Wait a second.
	We've just been watching her.
	No, no, no.
	She never was the Bordasar.
	But we've got loads of footage of people saying and it being publicly acknowledged that she was Bordasar.
	At the Olympic ceremony where you have odd extraordinary spectacles that don't seem to be about the principle of reverence respect and love that all human beings warrant and is included and indeed central to Christianity.
	It seems to be about a kind of mocking and ridicule and I suppose the questions I have when it comes to grassroots movements is I can understand Because it is the community that I grew up in, in fact, why working class communities would have anger in them.
	I have that anger.
	I've never lost it in spite of the years spent being adored and fated, particularly of how that culture is ultimately, how I've interacted with that culture, saying what the, you know, where I currently stand within it.
	Like you, I find it hard even to participate as a spectator now to cultural events because I see the culture as this malign, Disgusting, demonic, unjust, duplicitous, demon, ultimately.
	But what I suppose it becomes the happy task of the likes of you and me to work towards is that some good faith Wouldn't it be good to know that nationalist movements were driven by love?
	That we love this country, and we love the people that built this country, and we are open to inclusivity, but that we would come to consensually between us, not some top-down bleaching sheen shone down from Unreliable centralised forces and resources.
	I really hope, Neil, that the simple and somewhat trite idea of movements fuelled by love can somehow be all good.
	We will.
	I'm very conscious of, and people tell me all the time, that I'm bleak.
	I'm aware of that because I refuse to stop shaking the bone.
	I'm still asking questions for which answers have not come and I won't stop doing it, but in my heart I know that there will be a better evolution.
	We're going through something, and to some extent you've got to be pleased almost.
	What a time to be alive!
	And I don't mean that ironically.
	We're going through a time of great change, apocalypse in that sense of a revealing, and people, so many people in response to so many of the problems are saying, are recognising that anything that seems to come as a global crisis for which only a one-size-fits-all top-down global solution applies, People are seeing that for the nonsense that it is.
	My friend Nick Hudson calls it, he uses Hudson's Razor.
	He says, if it's presented as a global crisis, if they tell you that they're the only purveyors of the top-down solution, and thirdly, that any dissent is to be stamped on like heresy of old, you're dealing with a scam.
	Every time those three things come together, you're dealing with a scam.
	I learned that, and so many people have recognised that this top-down, globalist thing, they've seen it for what it is, and that's a good thing.
	And people talk about, Ralph Schulhammer's another one that talks to me all the time about the necessity for local and for community.
	And for grassroots.
	Those are the words on the lips of more and more people who, like myself, previously did not involve themselves in conversations of this nature because I didn't think that I was required in them.
	But my awakening has been that I have seen that that was a terrible dereliction of duty on my part.
	You know, I am, you know, any man's death diminishes me for I am involved in mankind, you know, therefore never sent to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
	That's right.
	And it's not about rights so much as it's about obligations.
	And people are realising that whether it's onerous or uncomfortable or not, they have not just a right, which is fine, rather they have an obligation to stand up in the face of this kind of tyranny and this kind of nonsense.
	And out of that will come, out of that will come genuine love.
	There's nothing wrong with love of country.
	I sometimes think about the fact that we're all scattered around.
	I lament all the time that some of the people that I most enjoy talking to are nowhere near me.
	You included, although you're only in London, you're only a one hour flight away.
	But I talk to people in South Africa and I talk to people in North America and South America and Australia and New Zealand who are all sharing this.
	And I think it's like we've got a virtual country You know, La Patrie, you know, La Légion est ma Patrie, you know, the cry of the French Foreign Legion.
	You know, it's this brotherhood that's my country.
	It's this legion that's my country.
	I think people are rediscovering that.
	And I think that remembering to love country, not in a way that means hating the neighbours, not in a way that means hating people on the other side of the fence.
	On the contrary, you know, once you come to love your own country and culture and language and heritage, Then you can, you know, a side benefit of that is appreciating everyone else, as you just said a few minutes ago about France.
	The richness of the French culture, and happily, I haven't seen much in the way of people being angry with the French about what happened at the Olympics, which might have happened before.
	Because of course it's got nothing to do with the French, it's got nothing to do with French people.
	Presumably they're still just out there, still enjoying their baguettes and enjoying their strange pop music and doing all the things that French people are, that we love.
	People have learned enough to go, it's the regime.
	It's those bastards at the top.
	They've just done this.
	And we love the French, and we love France, and we love everything that France means.
	So that's an evolution.
	We might have been angry with the French before, but we're not.
	We're saying, no, this is those politicians.
	So you can see it coming.
	People are moving in the right direction.
	And there's a community forming.
	And it's scattered at the moment, but in that way that it will, you know, it's also coalescing.
	It's crystallizing into something and taking form.
	And people are using the right language.
	Be local.
	Talk about community.
	Talk down one size fits all is bad.
	Globalism is bad.
	I'm angry with the French, I've been angry with the French, and I remain angry with the French.
	Neil, thank you so much for those brilliant exclamations, explications, stories, poems, rhymes, and good old-fashioned common sense spun so beautifully, what we always accept and expect from a conversation with Neil Oliver.
	If you want to follow Neil, you can.
	Using the various links that we are posting right now.
	I love you, Neil.
	I hope we get to spend a week together doing a combined week of content.
	How fun would that be?
	I love you too, Russell.
	We'll be together actually breathing the same air, properly conspiring someday soon.
	Let's be conspiracy theorists together, Neil.
	Thanks very much.
	Thanks, everyone, for watching us today.
	That's the end of our show.
	Remember to follow us on Locals, where you get additional content.
	And tomorrow, we'll be back with Adam Carolla.
	Not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.
	Many Switching. Switch on, Switch off. Many Switching.
	Switch on, Switch off. Many Switching. Switch on, Switch off.
	Switch on.

▲