Jan. 26, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:15:49
4291 Will Ireland Survive? A Conversation with John Waters and Stefan Molyneux
The future of Ireland hangs by a thread - what is causing these threats, and how can they be averted?Join Stefan Molyneux and author John Waters on a fascinating and chilling journey into the heart of darkness that threatens the future of the Emerald Isle...▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneuxSources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3EC1_gcr34Video: 1:06:45 threatening an innocent bystander with violence 1:07:40 calls the kids "incest babies" 1:15:20 calls the kids "future school shooters" 1:24:53 is booed when he lets loose with homophobic slurshttps://www.quora.com/Has-there-ever-been-a-black-school-shooter-in-Americahttps://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/01/22/catholic-leaders-refuse-to-retract-slander-of-school-boys-at-march-for-life/https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/an-apology/https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-23/i-cant-say-im-sorry-says-covington-maga-hat-teen-vietnam-vet-indian-outed-fridgehttps://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-videohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/20/it-was-getting-ugly-native-american-drummer-speaks-maga-hat-wearing-teens-who-surrounded-him
I'm here with John Waters, not the director you may be thinking of if you're the Americans, but a journalist from Ireland.
Thank you for taking the time today, John.
Hi, Stephen.
Pleasure.
Can you tell my audience a little bit about yourself?
Well, I'm actually a recovering journalist.
I was a journalist in the Irish Times for 24 years.
I left there about five years ago after a particular series of Events, which I've detailed in a book I've just bought out, which I won't plug, but it's there to be called.
Nah, give us a title.
Give us a title.
It's called, okay, well, here's one you might get, Jeff, and there's a man from Matlow.
It's called Give Us Back the Bad Roads.
Right.
You get it?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So that's kind of, you know, can we have our country back as it was when you arrived?
And just you, there's the airport, okay?
Type of thing.
Right.
So I was a journalist with them for 25 years.
I've written 10 books, mainly about Ireland.
It has to be said, different kinds of aspects of Ireland.
Collections of this and that.
I've written plays.
I've written songs.
I represented my country as a songwriter in the Eurovision Song Contest.
I don't know if you've heard of that over there.
But we came last.
But I'm kind of proud about that now because everybody thinks it's a very uncool contest.
So I suppose if it's that uncool, it must be quite hip to come last in it.
Well, no, but here's the funny thing, right?
So if you're a runner and you come last in the Olympics, you're still in the Olympics!
So you're still a lot better than most others.
So coming last among the first is great.
Yeah, it's quite painful, though.
You know, the funny thing about that, Stefan, is, you know, you sit on the hotel bedroom in the bed in the morning and you're trying to piece together how actually you first of all got into the Eurovision.
How did that happen?
And then how did you actually come last?
I mean, that seems impossible.
It's like it's it's it's like beyond nightmare.
We're distant.
It's a good few years ago now, so I'm kind of recovering from that also.
Right.
So I did a video on Ireland 2040.
It's cruising up around 600,000 views and downloads.
I assume a fair amount from Ireland.
And from what I've heard, the rumble through the grapevine, is it seems to have provoked a fair amount of discussion and back and forth in Ireland, which, you know, is always a good thing.
More discussion, particularly about fairly irreversible changes like demographic replacement.
You know, it seems like a topic that's well worth bringing up from time to time, and my time in Ireland has taught me just how much the Irish like to argue.
So, how has the video been received?
What are the conversations that you've heard occurring?
Okay, well, first of all, I can tell you that the national media didn't mention it at all.
And that would be entirely predictable.
Irish media don't report anything that's important.
Don't talk about, don't permit people to talk about anything that's important.
And that goes for newspapers, radio stations, television stations.
They're there to keep the lid on any possibility of a conversation about anything important.
Well, I did hear a couple of discussions on local radio, which were quite, you know, vibrant.
And I heard an awful lot of references to it in the various places I've been going around in the last couple of weeks since you put it up.
Just people at different kinds of meetings and in, you know, cafes and all over the place, really.
This is pure anecdotal stuff, but I actually tend to go by that because I get the sense that If people are telling me about stuff, they're telling other people as well.
And the same things are happening all over the country.
So on that basis, I would say it actually hit the spot.
I think, you know, and that doesn't surprise me because I watched it and it was like so, so absolutely graphic in its detail and in its directiveness in terms of the gravity of the issue and the urgency of what we face.
And there has been nothing like that in the Irish media, the mainstream media whatsoever, even at any level.
It's as if this question doesn't arise.
It's as if it's verboten to speak about it.
And so it is for most people.
Well, and the terrible thing about this is not only what it reveals about the media as gatekeepers of any valuable conversation, but I would submit that there's no bigger question to the continuation of a particular country, a culture, a history, a civilization than the people who inhabit it.
And certainly in the West as a whole, really since the 1960s, There has been this desperate pushback against mass migration, particularly from the third world, because it has never been tried before.
Where you've had massive amounts of diversity, multiculturalism, and just look at the Middle East, look at Yugoslavia, look at other places, it's generally a disaster.
And the people should be asked.
The people who built the country, the people who pay the taxes, the people who raise the children in the country should be asked if they want it.
And resolutely, to a man, the mainstream media is not only not having that conversation, but anyone who tries to bring up issues around that conversation is almost immediately branded a white supremacist, a racist, a Nazi, and so on.
So, it is a terrible betrayal.
of an entire culture, history and civilization to not only fail to present this information, but to attack anybody who dares bring it up.
That's right.
And then, you know, that's the whole thing is that, you know, does it not occur to people in this industry that what they're doing is actually contrary to the very basis of their professions and of their function, their vocations in society?
You know, the 40th state, its role is to provide society with the capacity to have a conversation about the important questions facing it.
And as you say, they not just fail to do that themselves, but they actually act as a police force to prevent other people, insofar as they can, from speaking about it.
And they, they're okay with that.
You know, all journalists, nobody within the journalistic fraternity in Ireland is raising a fuss about that and saying, hey, why aren't we covering this?
This is actually bizarre.
I mean, because no matter whether you cover it, you know, critically or investigatively or however you do it, you at least have the responsibility to present on a daily basis the facts to the people.
Now, the 2040 thing that you talked about, you know, this manifesto for the next phase of Irish life that the government published last September.
I mean, there was a massive controversy at the time, which erupted.
I don't know to what extent it was accidentally, but it emerged after the fact, when that was published, that the newspapers had been paid by the government.
To present those facts as though it were actually advertising, except not named, not indicated as advertising.
In other words, they were presenting what was in effect advertorial as news.
And of course that that advertorial, that news, whatever you would call it, was totally devoid of any critical analysis or any even profound deep analysis that would have indicated to people the various implications of it, because it wasn't immediately obvious.
Some of the things that you highlighted in your statistics and in your presentation, you know, like things like the fertility rates, the relative fertility rates, for example, that's just off the top of my head, between the indigenous population here in Ireland and the people who will be coming in.
is a red flag for people to say, oh, there's something here that we need to look at.
We need to do some sums around this, which is the function of journalism.
None of this happened.
And so people actually get the sense that nothing to see here, nothing to concern us, you know.
Or that it's a done deal.
And that's one of the things I really wanted to push back was this weird inevitability.
Well, there's just going to be all these extra people in Ireland.
We've got to find some way to handle this.
And it's like, what are you talking about?
You know, it's like you're driving down the road with your wife and you say, well, you know, inevitably we're going to end up with 16 hitchhikers.
So, you know, we've just got to make some room.
We've got to, we got to get some lunch.
We got to figure things out.
We got to put some kids on the roof.
And it's like, wait a minute, isn't it a choice to stop and pick up?
Like, how is it inevitable that you end up with 16 hitchhikers in the car?
But there's this weird, almost like it's physics, you know, like you age, your hair thins, and then a million people come into your tiny island.
And it's like, Yeah, yeah.
And you see, to tease this out, you know, in the broader European context, you know, what's actually going on here is, of course, you know, the model of human existence that has been pursued within the confines of the European Union is so inimical to the quality of human life and the quality of our leadership has been so poor that actually this influx into Europe has occurred
Because European politicians got it into their head that they could actually offset or camouflage the consequences of their inadequate leadership, and indeed, even more specifically, their pilfering of the pension resources, the resources of the people, by actually allowing all of these people in, in order to create a new workforce, which would then theoretically pay taxes, which would then keep the older people
of the aging population of Europe in the comfort to which we had become accustomed for the rest of our lives.
Now, anybody who buys into that is slightly crazy, I would have said.
How that relates to Ireland is a little bit more subtle, because I don't think our politicians even get to thinking that much.
They just do what they're told.
And they were facing a problem, which was that the leaders of Europe, the men particularly, Angela Merkel and Macron in France had a problem because they brought all these people in and now they had a huge problem in that their own people were saying, what?
What's going on?
So they have to offload these people.
And of course, the function of Irish politicians is to simply do what they're told when they're told.
And that's kind of where that's coming from, partly, in part.
There's other aspects of it as well.
But you see, there's a context here which is quite bizarre.
And I'm 63 years old.
I was born in 1955.
And that tells you that, like, since I was born, there have been three major outfluxes of Irish people, three hemorrhages of the Irish population in the 1950s, which continued right into the 1960s, almost to the end of that decade.
1980s again.
And from 2008 to, I would say, it's still going on, actually, to an extent.
So here's a country which has been incapable for the duration of its independence, which is now almost 100 years, of sustaining its own small population within itself.
It has to periodically allow the best and the brightest of particular generations to be scattered to the four winds without compunction, without any great grief.
I actually remember a time way back in the 1980s when this was happening, and the Deputy Prime Minister, the tarnished at the time I think he was, Brian Lenahan, a very amiable man, said, you know, in reaction to people complaining about this new wave of emigration, after the alleged booms of the late 60s and 70s, he said, oh, we can't all expect to live on one small island.
There's too many people!
Right, right.
Yeah, yeah, not even the Irish people.
Now, you know, like 10 years ago, if this started again, it's not as if like this is an historical reality.
This is a continuing reality.
We're still hemorrhaging our people.
And only the other day, I think it was two days ago, there was a demonstration in Sydney in Australia of nurses, Irish nurses, who have been living there, having emigrated there, pleading to come home.
They're still on the steps of Sydney Opera House and with big signs saying, you know, asking their country, is it possible to come back?
And the reason they can't come back here is because they can't live on the wages that are available to nurses in Ireland now.
And that's probably due to the fact that many of the nurses here come from the Philippines and they're prepared to work for significantly less than Irish nurses are able to live on.
Let's pause there for a sec because this issue is really frustrating to anybody who understands basic math and demographics.
If there's a labor shortage in Ireland and there's a huge diaspora of Irish people, I can't even imagine how many millions around the world, some percentage of them, like the nurses in Australia, would like to come home.
So if there's money to lavish, On migrants from the third world, if there's money to lavish on people from Somalia and other places in Africa, and if there's all of this money to lavish on the population, why wouldn't you lavish it to incent people to come back from the Irish diaspora?
Because then you get cultural continuity, you get the history, you get less demographic and racial tension and all that, and you get immediate workers who speak English, who know the History, who are well-educated, who understand the culture, you can plug them right in, get them to work right away, and have them be very productive.
Why is that not being pursued?
And I fear the answer is very sinister.
Well, it is sinister, but it's actually quite simple as well.
What it is, is simply that Irish politicians no longer, to the extent that they did, I think they did at one time, my memory tells me somewhere back in the midst of time, Irish politicians actually represented the Irish people.
That has ceased, for certain.
And it certainly has ceased in the past decade, after the economic crisis of 2008, followed by the reoccupation of Ireland in 2010 by the Troika of the IMF, World Bank and European Commission, who came in basically to tell us how to run our country and stomped around the streets of Dublin showing themselves off.
I think there was a sense that Ireland, the Irish political elite, have nothing to say to the question of the welfare of the Irish people.
They're not interested in it.
It's not on their agenda.
Their agenda is to keep their jobs, to continue working as politicians for as long as they can and build up their own personal pension pots so that they can get away when the going gets rough.
And that's essentially what this is at the back of this.
I think, you know, when you actually drill right down into it, you see there's a cadre of politicians now who are really unsuited to the to the function of leadership at all in any shape.
I think this is a general tendency anyway in the world, certainly in Europe.
And you can see it in Britain, for example, in the Brexit negotiations, all that stuff.
You can see that these people None of them, whether they're on the leave or the remain side, none of them seem to be capable of actually getting up on a Monday morning and saying, I'm going to run the United Kingdom this week without any instruction or assistance from anybody outside this country.
And the same is true of Irish politicians.
They just have no capacity to do anything other than carry messages back from their overlords in Europe and in the corporate into organisations here in Ireland, who are in effect, all of these are a kind of a coalition, EU, UN, corporate, particularly big tech companies.
They're the real government of Ireland.
And the politicians are simply their factorums.
They're just really messenger boys for people who Hold the real power and the real control of the Irish economy and Irish society.
OK, so let me ask you this, because I've heard this theory before that you're going to import a third world workforce to prop up the boomers who are retiring.
But it's fairly obvious to everyone, isn't it, John, that there's no money in the retirement funds, that the supposed retirement funds that were built up during the prime working years of the boomers, well, there's just a bunch of dusty IOUs and maybe some bonds, and so there's no money there.
So, if I were a politician and I were to say, okay, well I've got this aging population, there's no money to pay for them.
The money was stolen and everybody knew that the money was stolen.
Everybody knew that there was no big lockbox with your retirement funds in it, that it was just being pillaged for the general vote-buying spree of late-edge democracy.
As a politician, you have a choice.
You can say, well, I can pretend that there's this third world solution.
Or, I can go to the people and I can say, hey, don't shoot the messenger, but there's no money.
There's no money here, and it's unfair to pillage the young to pay for what has been the richest generation in the history of the world's retirement.
Because the young weren't even born when all this stuff was voted in, and the young didn't have any power or control when the politicians were raiding, and nobody raised much of a fuss, and, you know, actions have consequences.
People say, well, I paid into the system.
It's like, So?
So what?
You can pay into a Ponzi scheme.
That doesn't mean you get your money back.
There's a horrible lesson to be learned, which is don't trust the government with your retirement.
So isn't it to some degree, or I shouldn't say, that's leading the witness, do you think it might be possible that to some degree it has to do with an unwillingness of the older population to look in the mirror and say, yeah, we really put our trust in the wrong people.
We didn't take into account the fact that the money was being stolen.
We wanted all these benefits.
We weren't willing to pay enough to make them solvent.
And now we've got to, you know, take the bitter with the sweet and deal with it.
I think the inability of people to have that conversation is kind of driving a lot of this stuff.
Well, that's part of it.
But I think there's also a sense that people can't quite believe that.
And because they don't hear it said very often, they think it mightn't be true.
You know, so if that's taught into people... Is money under the couch somewhere?
Is that the idea?
Oh, we'll find a pot of gold!
Well, you know, because we do take for granted that these things are there, that they're there for all kinds of people.
And if you've worked all your life in this economy, and contributed for 35, 40, 45 years, you kind of take it for granted.
I'm kind of in that situation myself.
And even though I'm hearing entirely what you say and agree with you completely, Stefan, there's a part of me that is naive.
I need to be naive about this because it's such a horrific idea that actually they could have conned me for all those years, stolen all that money, and now tell me-- - Oh no, they have.
It's not an idea.
I mean, Ireland is horribly in debt, right?
And it's this terrible thing where, throughout history, the mistakes of the elders are revisited on the lives of the young, right?
So you cock up preventing Hitler from expanding into Czechoslovakia and Austria and the Rhineland, and then it's like, oh, sorry, Chamberlain, who's never going to be drafted because he's too old, completely effed things up, so sorry, we now have to draft Five million young men to go and fight and die.
And it's now, it's the same kind of thing.
It's like, well, the mistakes of the elders trusting the government, not policing the government, not voting in people who said, because lots of people were saying, I've been talking about it for decades, there's no money in the retirement fund.
And people just didn't want to have that conversation.
So now the young have to pay.
So now the young have to pay with demographic replacement.
Okay.
Well, what happens here, Stefan, is that there's a kind of a comedy of the European political elites.
They bolster one another in the knowledge of the truth.
And so if these people had to run their countries individually and report to the people as the absolute rulers of their own nations, they probably would fall apart facing these troops.
But because there are so many of them and because they are all kind of in this big club and because they have actually persuaded the media By and large, across Europe, but certainly in Ireland and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom and probably to a lesser extent in other countries, you know, different countries have different qualities of media.
We have by far the worst in Europe.
I think if I have this conversation with anyone in any European country, I might hear the same thing, but you could be wrong.
I don't think, well, they would be wrong, Stefano, because if you look at Italy, for example, which has been brought to its knees also in a different, slightly different way, but nevertheless brought to its knees, they have To some extent, a vibrant press, you know, they have different alternative magazines and different Catholic newspapers, not kind of just theological newspapers, but Catholic newspapers.
And there is a variety of perspectives available in a country like that.
And probably in other countries.
There is zero in Ireland.
Zero.
I don't mean that there's very little.
I mean, there is none.
And so there's almost a sense that the media are in it with the politicians.
However that works, that's the way it is.
Okay, sorry, finish your thought, I'll hold on mine, sorry.
So the thing is that people don't really know for sure.
People have a sense, you see, about a lot of this stuff.
Well, if this were really true, it would be on the front page of the Irish Times every day.
Because it's one of the most important things you could possibly think about.
That, you know, in a context where you have a rapidly aging population, a demographic that's like, you know, really going into the red in terms of people over 60, over retirement age.
That's such a crucial issue that it would have to be talked about.
And the fact that it's not on the radio, it's not on TV, that must mean, ah, if whoever said that, that can't be... But they must know about the national debt.
Yeah, well, they do know about the Basildas, but they don't actually know exactly what that means.
You see, a lot of this time, it's almost like bingo numbers.
They don't know what it means?
Well, they know what it means, but you see, one of the things about Ireland is that it is capable of disguising its reality.
I mean, the nature of the Irish economy is very, very interesting and pretty unique, I would say.
We never had, for a very long time, if ever, had a strong indigenous economy.
Our economy is not, when you see figures presented for the Irish economy, they're not actually about the Irish economy.
They're actually the corporate transnational economy in Ireland.
So that's the Celtic tiger thing, the lower taxes and got a lot of head offices.
Okay.
Got it.
And it's, it's the kind of the, we, we live off the, the, the, the, the pittances that come off the table.
Now, you know, the, the, the payoff for this was supposed to be that we would get massive amounts of employment.
Uh, and on paper, again, that appears to be the case.
But actually, if you look at the corporations themselves and look at the workforces, you find that actually most of their employees are flown in.
A friend of mine is a businessman in a town quite near me here, and he's at the counter every day.
Last week he was telling me a woman came in who works in Google in Ireland, in Dublin, and he's a pretty nosy guy, and he said to her, How many people work in Google Ireland?
And she said, well, about 7,000.
And she was in HR in there.
And he said, oh, and how many of those are Irish?
And she said, oh, 5% to 8%.
So, you see, now that means that the only benefit to the economy is that a certain amount of income tax is paid by these people, and it goes through the Irish.
Well, yeah, money flows from the far-flung empire of Google, it flows to head office, and then it gets spent in the local Irish economy, but it's not quite the same as hiring Irish people.
But a lot of the numbers going through the economy show up in some form or another and make the Irish economy look healthy.
But if you drive around the country, you see in towns, you see the towns are falling apart.
The infrastructure is being closed down beast by beast.
I mean, we've been another wave now of local post offices, which are a crucial part of the infrastructure of rural Ireland or any rural countryside.
They're all being closed down.
And so that means that little parishes all over the country no longer have places where people can go and get their pensions and get their few groceries and meet up, maybe have a chat, go off to the pub for a couple of hours.
That's now gone from like hundreds of communities in all over Ireland in the past couple of months.
That's indicative of the reality of Ireland.
Whereas, you know, what's actually happening in the immigration statistics is like, it appears to be some kind of, you know, dystopia.
It's a fantasy, a very dark fantasy, Ireland, because the two things don't fit together in any way, shape or form.
Okay, so here's the thing that drives me crazy, and you've worked in The media, so you know the habits of the prostitutes, but this is what drives me crazy, John.
So, the left has this belief that you can take someone from Kenya or Somalia or Mozambique or Zimbabwe and you can plop them in Ireland and relatively quickly they're going to be Irish.
You know.
Now, not only does this fly in the face of the entire world's experience all throughout history, but In the newsrooms, if you are a right-winger, let's say, or just not on the left, like you're a libertarian or whatever it is, you put in your application, the odds of you getting hired once they Google you are zero.
So they, in the newsroom, have countrymen that they've grown up side by side with.
They speak the same language, same history, same culture, same educational system.
And they don't say, well, we'll just bring this right-winger in or this libertarian in and we'll just change his mind.
We'll just turn him into one of us.
They won't even hire someone like that because they know that it's going to be hard for that person to change, right?
Because there are some genetic bases to political beliefs.
But by their own ideology, it should be far easier to change the mind of a right-winger who's just like you, like white and Irish and same history.
You should just be able to bring that person into your newsroom and they're going to change because you've got this magic soil in your newsroom and they're going to change.
But they don't do that.
They won't hire people who aren't like themselves because they say, well, They're not going to change!
Why would we want... And it's like, but they somehow think that someone from Somalia is going to change a lot more than somebody with a different political opinion who grew up next door to them for 40 years.
Yeah, well, something like that happened to me.
You know, I went to the Irish Times in 1990 and they spent 20 odd years trying to change me and they failed.
It doesn't work, right?
It doesn't work.
Certainly not.
I mean, having said that, I mean, I do think there's an important distinction to be made Between the idea of one person coming, one theoretical person coming to Ireland, or from anywhere, from Pakistan, from Mozambique, whatever you say, and them fitting in in some way into the society.
That's one question.
That's an entirely different question to 10,000 of the same people coming to Ireland.
Because that creates an entirely different set of circumstances.
Well, they all live together, they move together, and then they get surrounded by this moat of welfare and subsidies and benefits to the point where they can quite comfortably, thank you very much, survive and flourish without ever even learning the local language.
And furthermore, to go back to a point we were talking about there a short time ago, the idea that these people can hold up, immigrants can hold up a social welfare system for others, is actually a myth because in general the experience has shown all over the world that they take out more than they put in.
They have a lot of welfare, they bring in their elderly relatives so you end up with more old people and they have a lot of kids who aren't paying taxes and require a lot of social services and health care services as well.
That's right, that's right.
What we're doing is actually unsustainable.
There are many, many objections to it.
But it's actually economically unsustainable to begin with.
And this is clear.
But none of it is sustainable.
Even if the demographics didn't change at all.
It would still be completely unsustainable because the amount of debt and the population bulge that's going into retirement and so on.
You know as well as I do the numbers that there were like 30 or 40 people working for every retired person when the system first came in.
And then you're gonna end up with, you know, two people working for every one person, three person working for every one person retired.
Completely unsustainable.
And my, I guess, dark read on history, tell me what you think, is that When governments can't pay their debts, they tend to go to war.
Because they don't want to have that conversation and the people are unwilling to have that conversation.
It's so weird.
I can't figure it out.
People, historically, would rather send their children to war than have a conversation about not getting a pension.
Because that is so often what happens when governments run out of money.
They just start a war.
Now, it's really impossible to start a war in Europe now.
Everyone's got nukes and all of this.
And so now I have this concern that they're sort of importing conflict as a way of covering up the lack of solvency in the finances.
Well, that's very possible because, you know, there's something here as well.
You know, Ireland, you know, as you know, as well as I do, Stefan, that Ireland has had a very dark and troubled history.
And that has left an awful lot of people in Ireland with a strong sense of their nationhood, their history and their, you know, the debt they owe to those who died for Ireland and so on.
That kind of patriotic idea.
Now, on the You know, back of an envelope calculation that you might do on the basis of the figures that have been presented to us so far and what the government now projects.
It is not implausible to conclude that the indigenous population of Ireland will be outnumbered in their own country within 20 to 30 years.
And that calculation is on the basis of the numbers of who are coming in.
And they're distorted for sure by all kinds of factors that people numbers that are being made citizens, which disguises the reality of who they are, and so on.
But if you look at the fertility rates, the relative fertility rates between the kind of the categories of people who are coming in and those internally, that present rate, I mean, replacement rate is 2.1.
The current rate of fertility rate in the Irish population is 1.8.
Now, it's From what I understand about this, a fertility rate of 1.8 is, you know, you can sustain, over the next 50 years, possibly 80% of your current population.
And you can automate, and the idea that you need a constantly growing or even maintained population, absent other factors, is, you know, it's fine.
I mean, you can just, more robots, you know, they're doing this in Japan, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of your civilization if your population declines a bit.
I thought that was a big goal for the 60s environmentalist movement.
But there is a danger in that, just to be clear, in that indigenous population, apparently there is a tipping point, somewhere about 1.6, where that 80% disintegrates, and you're looking at perhaps having, within 50 years, Rather than 80% of your existing population, maybe a quarter to a third of your existing population.
Sorry to interrupt.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
But in a free market, that's not how it would work.
The way it works in a free market, and I know that free markets are still a bit of a distant fantasy to a lot of European countries, if not North American countries, but the way it would work is your generation, God bless you, gonna get old, gonna die.
And what that means is that there's a huge glut of housing on the market, which means that housing prices would collapse, right?
And that means it's a whole lot cheaper to buy a house, which means that you can afford to have more children.
So it's just one of these pendulums, you know, like if you have a baby boom, it's followed by a baby bust, which is then followed by a baby boom again.
Fair enough.
Yes, but you do need to change the culture radically in order to achieve that.
And I mean, remember this, Stefan, in the last six months, we introduced abortion into Ireland.
And that's going to be deeply shocking, deeply shocking to those, I guess, within and outside Ireland as well.
If you were talking about a multiplier on those figures, that's it.
And that's going to bring us perilously close to the 1.6 within a very short time indeed.
So we're good.
Now, meanwhile, the people who are coming in, I mean, their fertility rates are upwards of 5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5 is not unusual in the kind of categories of people that are coming in.
Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc, etc.
But the fertility rate in many places in Africa is well north of 5, and that's without a welfare state.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
And that sustains, in certain categories, that sustains.
In some categories of immigrants, that wanes after one or two generations.
In some, it doesn't.
And particularly Muslims.
It doesn't wane in Muslim categories as a rule.
Because they don't, in any way, integrate.
And they're actually a community within, who follow their own culture and their own outlooks.
Well, and there is a category of Islamic, I don't know, displacement, which is to do with migration and having lots of kids.
It is part of a religious commandment to spread the faith.
Yes.
So you see, this is where we pause and say, well, how come these conversations cannot be heard, cannot be had in Irish media?
There is nothing more important than this.
Now, the only thing that would happen arising from what you and I are talking about here, if it gets to the notice of certain of my former colleagues, is they will fill it, everything that we have said in this interview, in this discussion, And try to find one half sentence, which they would then cut out, and they would put it up on Twitter, and that would become Stephen Molyneux or John Waters or both, whatever they can make of it.
And that's what journalism has been reduced to now, in the face of these catastrophes.
And that's why I don't want to be a journalist anymore.
I have told my wife, you know, that if for chance, you know, my obituary
mentions anything about me having been a journalist that she's drilling up and request a clarification or correction for the next morning's paper because it's such a shameful profession now that really I feel ashamed that I wasted 30 years of my life in this cesspit really that is not prepared to serve the people and do the only job that is required of journalism to tell the people the truth and allow them to answer back to power.
Well, it used to be, of course, that journalists took risks.
It used to be that they did deep investigative journalists.
It used to be that they did sting operations.
Now it seems that the large job of journalists is to troll Twitter feeds of their enemies and rewrite government propaganda and pretend that it's news.
That's exactly it.
That's exactly it.
And so we have a real crisis.
I mean, it's beyond really Anything that I've ever seen or indeed anything I ever dreamt about in my country, because for other reasons, you know, we've had a number of events now in the last few years, which we are of a peace with this.
They're in some sense disconnected.
We had what was called a marriage referendum and that was about gay marriage, but it wasn't just about gay marriage in the American sense or in the European sense.
It was actually about making gay marriage equivalent to, equal to, The marriage of a man and a woman.
So now we have in our constitution the principle that two men or two women as a married couple are the same as a man and a woman who can procreate their own children.
And that has created all kinds of implications and potentialities for the future capacity of our constitution to protect biological families And the normative relationships are rising out of that.
So that's one thing.
Then, of course, we had the referendum last year on the Eighth Amendment, which was the protection of the right to life of the child, which was actually an illicit referendum in the sense that it has never happened before in the world anywhere.
This is, I don't think, is generally understood outside of Ireland, that a people voted on the question of whether they were prepared to kill a section of their own number.
No other country has had a referendum of that nature.
They've had referendums maybe to do with certain technical aspects of, you know, I mean, like these questions are usually fudged.
Abortion is always fudged, really.
America, for example, in the Roe versus Wade, I mean, that was based on privacy, which was an evasion, a sidetrack.
We confronted the core question, do you want baby X to live or die?
And we said, die.
Now, that's what we did.
And those referendums were not won, they were actually stolen by a corrupt media, a political establishment which refused to offer opposition of any kind to these proposals, and an entire... Let's break that down a little more.
Corrupt media and the politicians, I just want to make sure I understand... Well, okay, let me spell it out then.
I mean, you know, A parliament is supposed to work on the basis that the government and its backers put forward ideas for legislation.
And the opposition is supposed to oppose that in order to test that legislation, to test whether it's of sound quality, whether it's well-baked, well-founded and so on.
That is not happening now in relation to any major issue in Irish life.
In those two referendums, and indeed in the previous one on so-called children's rights, all the parties took the same side.
You ended up with three or four independent representatives who opposed.
That was it.
And when I put this in a debate with the leader of the opposition during the marriage equality so-called referendum, I said, you have abdicated your responsibility to oppose the government.
He said, we don't oppose for the sake of opposing.
Well, I said, well, I think you have to, because, you know, if, you know, if I'm your lawyer, Stefan, and we go into court and I hear the prosecution case and about what you're supposed to have done.
And I set up and I said, well, I'm representing Stefan here, but I've heard the case against him and I think it's irrefutable.
So I'm not going to say any more.
You know, And that's what it amounts to, because that's the role of opposition in democracy.
So what it does for that is that it's left to me, people like me, who are not in any sense, you know, I'm not even in any sense a professional anymore.
I'm not in any sense in this for anything other than because I'm seeing my country being destroyed in front of my eyes.
I'm doing this totally pro bono.
There are quite a number of other people, thank God, a lot of people now are beginning to emerge and take their places, you know, just as there are in France in the yellow vests and In Italy and all over Europe, this is happening.
And I, you know, but it is shameful to watch people who call themselves journalists, you know, just waiting in the in the undergrowth to try and catch out somebody who will say something untoward or a slip of the tongue or, you know, a misstatement or, you know, having a conversation, which we used to be able to do, by the way, Stefan, you know, like we are having now or trying to have, although, you know, both of us, I bet you are being careful because you have to be.
But once upon a time, you know, you could have conversations in public where you were saying things for the first time and, you know, you hadn't said them before.
You were trying them out.
You were teasing things out.
So I might say something to you and you would say, well, John, no, you're a little bit off on that.
That's wrong.
You're misinformed.
Are you?
No, you shouldn't.
I wouldn't put it like that.
And I'd say, oh, OK.
Yes.
Good point.
Let me rephrase.
That's no longer possible because they will snip out the first statement you made and that will become what you said.
So the possibility of conversation in every sense is being closed in upon.
And the result is that there is actually no democracy.
You can't have a democracy if people are not able to talk.
And you can see the effects of this all the time, I think, in the demeanor of people in the street.
You know, like I've never before in my life as a journalist, when I was a journalist, you know, this was a very vibrant country for discussion and debate.
And I have to speak a lot around country.
And, you know, people, you know, you'd make a speech and there would be people jumping up all over the room, like with sheafs of paper, reading things out and going at you and demanding answers and giving their own opinions and speeches and so on.
Now, people are more inclined to kind of just politely clap if they do, if they look around the room first to see if it's OK.
And, you know, you might get a polite question or two, but that's it.
Because people are being terrified by a combination of corrupt media and the Twitter You know, which I think Twitter is demonic, in my opinion, but that's just my own... I think it is a de-civilizing instrument which is actually imposing a grotesque censorship on modern society that will actually cause the death of that society.
Well, I know what you mean.
I have, since I did my documentary on Poland, I'm somewhat throwing caution to the winds and recognizing the urgency of these issues and being as frank as I think it's possible to be.
Sure.
But no, it is a huge challenge and this amazing, terrifying, horrible censorship that is occurring from the media.
A lot of it comes from the media.
Some of it comes from overzealous hate speech laws and all this other kind of nonsense, which is just one of these hysterical, subjective terms that people use to shut down potential debate.
But this is one of the problems, of course, of when you have a multicultural, multiracial society.
is that it becomes very hard to have frank discussions about racial issues if you're white.
It becomes virtually impossible because, of course, if you point out anything, any problems, any difference, any crime rates, any difference in intelligence levels, any difference in religious beliefs, anything like that, boom!
Racist, racist, racist, racist!
And you're shut out of discussion, you are an un-person, you are shunned, you are a leper, a pariah, and it's like, that's not...
That's not a good advertisement for multicultural societies, which is basically shut up about anything important.
Like, how is that supposed to help societies do anything other than slide into chaos?
Well, I mean, I formed the view quite a few years ago from going over and back to London and, you know, this is interesting because, you know, when you're younger, the idea of this multiculturalism, when you don't have responsibility, it seems attractive.
You know, it's only when you have children of your own or grandchildren and you look into their eyes and you see what's happened.
You see the irresponsibility of politicians and their inability to actually.
care about the consequences of what they do, that you start to.
So when you're young, you know, reggae music, man, you know, and all that stuff.
And you go to London, you go to the Notting Hill Carnival, and that's a great day out.
It's really, it seems to be a multicultural event.
And it is in a certain sense.
But when you go around, I noticed a long time ago, going around London, when I spent quite a time there, when my daughter was very young, and she was over there.
And I noticed that It came to me that the idea of coexistence that is at the core of multiculturalism was achieved by the avoidance of eye contact.
People were walking past each other, but nobody was looking into the other's eyes because there is a fear there all the time.
The fear of the stranger is what it is, fundamentally.
You know, this, because cultures work on all kinds of signals that are bred into people from the beginning of their lives.
They're there and you pick them up from your parents and you understand, you read people.
It's not even, it's a different language.
All that is missing when you have masses of people coming in from outside.
You can see it in Ireland now.
There used to be all kinds of kind of, I won't call them cultures as such, but there were aspects of culture that, you know, Minor things maybe that you felt.
You go into a shop and you didn't have enough change.
You didn't have enough money to pay for something.
You might be like 10 cents or 15 cents or 20 cents.
And you'd be counting out short and you'd be counting out your money.
And when the person behind the counter would say, oh, you're all right, just give me that.
And scoop the whole lot up and throw it in the tail, right?
That doesn't happen anymore.
Because the people who come in don't have a sense of proprietorship in relation to any aspect of Irish society.
And if they're working in a bar or shop, they do everything by the letter.
They can't not do that.
So you've lost that kind of fluidity that belonged to Irish culture, which people came here for.
That was part of the personality of Ireland, or the ability to make jokes with people.
You know, American tourists or whoever, that the guy behind the reception in the hotel or the porter would make, you know, maybe even quite risque jokes.
Knowing where the lines were.
Now it's very dangerous to make any kind of joke.
And so all of the quality of the things, again, and this is an economic question as much as it is a cultural one, because this is a resource that we actually are offering the world for trade, tourism.
It's now being diluted, because if you go into an Irish bar, an Irish hotel, the chances are that you're being served by people from abroad.
Not Irish people at all.
Very rarely will you actually come across Irish people in those positions anymore.
Except that there's a particular policy on the part of a particular management of a particular hotel.
Otherwise... So all that's been drained away from the everyday culture of Irish existence.
But there's also a terrible slowing down of the world as it becomes more multicultural in the West.
I'll just sort of...
So if you have a mono-ethnic society, like you have in Japan, or to a large degree in China, or South Korea, or other places, when it comes to hiring, You simply choose the best man or woman for the job.
Yes.
And you don't have any issues with affirmative action or having to meet quotas or having to meet racial demographics and worries about lawsuits and anything.
You simply hire the best person for the job.
Now, the problem is, of course, when you start to get a multi-ethnic society, then some cultures are going to do well relative to other cultures.
So if you look at Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans and so on, they do very well in What are still somewhat white countries, right?
They have higher per capita incomes in America, where there's a meritocracy, and it's because their IQ is generally higher than the white population, so they do very well.
Where you have groups and populations where the IQ is generally lower than the white population, they do badly.
And because we can't talk about any of these differences, it's all ascribed to white racism, and therefore you have to hire more and more people who otherwise you may not hire.
And what this does is it takes a little while to work its way through.
But, you know, we've all had that experience.
You call up about some technical issue and it's somebody with a heavy accent who doesn't quite follow what you're saying and it's just everything kind of like people don't return calls very well and everything just kind of gums up and slows down because the meritocracy, which is so essential to keep the economy humming and growing, is kind of getting gummed up by hiring criteria that aren't simply around competence and excellence.
And that kind of syndrome in those telephone calls is actually signalled in advance by the warning, this call is being monitored or recorded for trading purposes.
That's to tell you, you watch your lip, Sonny, you know, don't get angry, be nice, whatever else.
So everything is being, you know, flattened out.
But you see, there's a very interesting dimension of all this as well.
I mean, you know, Which is in the history of Ireland.
And this is something which we don't ever talk about very much in Ireland at all.
It's never acknowledged because of actually what it is.
I mean, Ireland is essentially a post-colonial country.
Now, I know that's a very loaded term in modern context for all kinds of very good reason.
But there is actually something to the idea that having had a colonial experience, such as we had for hundreds of years, It has a profound psychic effect on people and psychological effect.
For example, it makes you tend to imitate the occupier.
That's your sense of what civilization means.
So you tend to try to be like that person, that model.
You tend towards self-hatred, towards self-denigration.
And the great theorists of this, these ideas are to be found in the writings, to some extent, in the writings of Porrick Pearce, who was the leader of the 1916 Rising, which was the great revolution that led to Irish freedom and independence.
But some 50 years after that, there was a psychiatrist from the Caribbean, from Martinique, called Frantz Fanon, who worked in Algeria during the Civil War.
He was a black man and a very smart guy, very, very smart guy.
And he wrote two great books.
One was called The Wretched of the Earth, and the other was Black Skin, White Masks.
And it was about this condition that in Africa, in Algeria, he observed, and he was a psychiatrist, so he did this clinically, observing the effects of this process in the people he treated.
Now, when you read The Wretched of the Earth, and when I read it like 20 odd years ago, I was astonished that it actually might have been written about Ireland, the kind of conditions he's writing about, you know, that self-hatred, the tendency towards mimicry.
You can see it like in the things I was talking about a short time ago, you know, that when we go to bring in gay marriage, we just don't bring in gay marriage.
We bring in the best gay marriage in the whole world.
And then when we do abortion, we try to make it even more extreme than every other country.
And when we have laws for transgenders, which we are working on now, I think, even as we speak, the same people are working on these.
We bring them in so their under 16s can actually get transgender without the permission of their parents and so on.
So we have to push everything to the absolute extremes.
And these are postcolonial tendencies, symptoms.
And it's very interesting that we Almost uniquely, not entirely uniquely in Europe, there are other countries which had somewhat similar experiences.
And you could say that some of the Eastern Bloc countries had similar experiences as a result of their having the presence of the Soviet Union bearing down on them.
But it's very interesting that we therefore share certain experiences with the people who are coming in.
Now, there's a lot of issues about this, because it's very interesting, you know, this whole guilt thing, which is at the back of Europe's you know, capitulation to this influx, this tsunami of migration into it, really is based in guilt, in a kind of a post-imperial guilt.
And, you know, in theory you would say, well, the Irish ought to have no reason to have any guilt about anything, because we were on the other side of history.
Like, we were the hare rather than the hound, you know?
It's very interesting that in this context we're actually behaving as if we were Germans, or as if we were English, or as if we were... But that's because it's a white thing, right?
I mean, there is this fundamental question that is plaguing the world as a whole, which is why are some countries successful and some countries are not?
Why are some cultures successful?
Why are some races successful and some are not?
And there are two answers, and one I'm battling for as manfully as I can.
One answer is the leftist answer, which says that whites are wealthier and have freer countries and better countries, better economies.
Why is that?
Because we invaded, we pillaged, we stole, we enslaved, we are the receivers of stolen goods.
And that is the reason why Sub-Saharan Africa is doing badly, or other parts in Africa are doing badly, that's why the Middle East is doing badly, because we just went in and we stole everything.
And, you know, if I'm a kid and I go steal some other kid's bike and the other kid comes and wants it back, is it really just for me to say, uh, no, you can't have it back, right?
So, if we are in receipt, of stolen goods, then it is very tough to mount a case that we should keep everything that we have so unjustly pillaged from the innocent lambs of the world.
That is one answer, and it is a false answer.
It is not only false, it is incredibly destructive.
The general answer, and I think Garrett Jones wrote a whole book about this, I had him on the show, is that the success or failure of a country in the long run has to do with two things.
One is the level of IQ within that country, and the second is, is there any kind of free market meritocracy that allows the great geniuses and productivity to rise to the top and create wealth for everyone else?
And so, it is not that Europeans stole from everyone, because the Theft has been going on throughout history.
You had Genghis Khan pillaging his way around Asia and he killed 10% of the world's population.
That did not make Mongolia, Singapore, or Hong Kong.
And none of that was true.
You have in North America You have the Comanches virtually genociding the Apaches, you had cannibalism, you had slavery, you had rape as a weapon of war that the African tribes have been fighting from day one, and they actually collected all the slaves that a few Europeans sailed across to the New World.
Slavery, pillaging, war, imperialism has all occurred.
Throughout history, but only one particular community and group managed to break through human limitations, break the Malthusian cycle, come up with an industrial revolution, and rescue mankind from a life of pretty much eternal poverty, want, degradation, disease, and death.
And that was white Western European Christians.
And...
There's a lot that has to do with it, but the idea that everything is just stolen, that all the wealth that's in the West was just scattered around the world, is absolutely completely and totally false.
Everybody was starving, everybody was broke.
But this answer, that whites stole everything, is not only false, it means that whites can't protect their own countries because we feel that we're in possession of stolen goods.
But most importantly, I think, most vividly and powerfully, is it's going to play out over the next few years.
Is that if you say to a group of people, let's say blacks or people from the Middle East or people from India and so on, and you say to them, by God, those white people, they just came in and they raped and pillaged and stole and destroyed and they were imperialists and colonizers and so on.
What mindset does that give people who are coming into the West and looking at white people?
It's one thing to be a colonial power.
It's another thing to say that colonialist exploitation continues to this day.
White people are the evil privileged racists.
Now, why don't you come into white countries?
That is such a recipe for disaster.
I don't think we'll ever know whether multiracial societies could work because the leftists are goading everyone with all of this racial hatred, well, against whites in general.
How could this possibly work?
And I go along with a lot of what you say there, Stefan, but not entirely.
I mean, I think there, for me, there, there's, there are different questions that arise and, and, and they take me to a different place in the sense that I think we actually know, I think we come to the same conclusion in one sense.
And I would say that there is some truth in the idea that the poor nations of the world were pillaged.
I mean, Ireland is a case in point.
I mean, you know, the the idea that, for example, that there is there was one best way of civilization and that it was the English way.
You know, I don't believe that that was true.
I mean, you know, there's a line in a in a Tom Murphy play and a great Irish playwright, Tom Murphy, you know, and he was an English character.
And there's the Irishman and the Irishman at some points and say, you know, he says, we were making little gold crosses while you were living in holes in the ground.
And that is true of Ireland.
Ireland was an ancient civilization, which was wiped out.
Its language, its culture, everything was wiped out by colonization.
And, you know, people say, oh, I mean, because this is a big mentality in Dublin in particular, you know, that, you know, they say, well, We'd have no decent buildings in Dublin, only pretty English.
Well, we would have, but they would have been our buildings.
Now listen, I promise not to interrupt your train of thought.
I just want to say where we agree.
I agree that colonialism transferred resources, but it did not create wealth as a whole.
Okay, okay, yeah, sure.
Like, you can go to South America, you can steal all the gold you want from the Aztecs and the Incans, and you can ship it all to Queen Isabella in Spain, but then what happened, as we know, is Spain entered into a 400-year recession because the currency got destroyed because there was an excess of gold.
So you can go and take stuff from people, and you may end up with more stuff, but you're not generating wealth as a whole in the world.
And I think also that we would agree, would we, that there was a lot of gratuitous brutality Associated with those projects of colonialism as well.
And yes, but I'm not sure it would have been it was more than would have occurred Otherwise, you know when the British went to India and and prevented the city right the bride burning and so on I'm not convinced that Western rule created additional violence because it did also suppress a lot of violence by uniting countries and and having a judicial system and a system of Armies and so on that tended to suppress local conflicts.
We'll never know because there's no control group, but I'm not sure There was violence, but I'm not convinced that it's... Look at Libya now, without a government.
It's crazy, right?
Yeah, it's very interesting.
I mean, the question is, you know, had history not happened the way it did, what would it be like now?
And that's unanswerable, I guess, you know.
But where would you stand then, insofar as I've given a fair or a decent representation of Fanon's positions, that essentially that the colonized subject Is the victim becomes a victim of a host of complexes, psychological, psychic complexes, which affect his capacity to live in the world thereafter, and that these conditions can be handed on.
And there was a famous quote of Fallon's where he said that the first thing that the colonizer does when he arrives in a new territory.
is impressed upon the consciousness of the native, the idea that before the advent of colonialism, there was nothing but savagery.
So in other words, the culture was completely bereft of any value.
And that was certainly done in Ireland.
And you can see the traces of that in Ireland now in the attitudes of a lot of Irish people towards their own music, which is one of the great musics of the world, in my opinion.
And that opinion is shared by lots of people across Europe.
Italians love Irish music.
They love it far more than the average Irish person.
And Germans love it for years.
So there is some truth.
And I think that book is an amazing book, Wretched of the Earth.
And it tells us a lot, I think, about this moment.
But before you answer that, Stefan, I just want to go to the point that I would have ended up on, which is that in a certain sense, we would definitely converge, I think, on this point, that really, whether the morality of all of this is this or that, the facts are we are where we are.
You know, it's like that line of De Niro's in The Deer Hunters.
This is this.
It's not something else.
We're here now and we're facing a grave threat.
We have responsibilities to our children, to our grandchildren, to posterity.
If there's going to be fighting, we're going to have to stand up.
It doesn't matter what's right or wrong.
This idea that we can knock down statues and that we can then stand by and allow the throats of our children to be cut.
It's not a runner, in my mind.
Ultimately, I don't really care what the rights and wrongs are.
We can talk about them all now.
But ultimately, the people of Europe will defend themselves in the end.
The guilt will wear out, the cowardice will wear out, the political correctness will wear out, and they will stand up and fight like they have always done.
Let us hope so.
Worst outcome, which is complete capitulation, which I think is, well, it's the worst conceivable outcome because it will be the end of everything.
But I would say, John, that we are all in the West occupied and colonized by hardcore leftists in positions of power.
We are all subjugated.
We are all controlled.
We are all bullied.
We are all programmed into self-hatred and capitulation and cowardice and fear and resentment.
And we are all occupied at the moment.
Because there is not one major outlet in the media or in the educational system that is triumphing and praising Western values, which are to some degree universal values.
We are all colonized and subjugated by the hardcore leftists that are running the media and running the major educational institutions.
And until we recognize that and begin pushing back against that, I don't see any way forward.
100%.
You're 100% right.
This concept that has come to be called cultural Marxism, which is essentially the leveraging of victimhood.
So it's actually imperialism via victimhood.
Colonialism using the vulnerable people, the people who have suffered in history.
So what you basically do is you take these victims and you push them out in front of you as human shields and you conquer your own people and other peoples using those people as stooges in your imperial adventuring.
And you're dead right.
It is the same thing.
But the result of it is an ironic reversal of the original model of colonialism, where it was that the English were in Kenya or the French were in Algeria, now the Algerians are in France and the Kenyans are in England.
Well, yes, but of course remember, you know as well as I do, it's essential to not confuse the government for the people.
Most British people loathed and hated colonialism.
They were taxed to support it, they were conscripted to support it, they died of scurvy on the high seas, starvation, sweat, malaria, tuberculosis, you name it, it was a disaster.
for the English people as a whole.
It is the British government that wanted to paint the map red and they did it often with the blood of the British citizens.
So the idea that somehow the British won in colonialism or the Germans won or the Dutch won, I mean, it's not how things played out historically.
The average person in England had far more in common with the subjugated serfs in Ireland than they did with their local British aristocracy who were doing all the pillaging.
Totally agreed.
It's very akin to the trick feminism, Paul, implying that all men had all power for all time.
How on earth would you organize a society where women got exempt from the draft and men got drafted en masse if you were a man who had anything to say about it?
If there was all this white privilege, why would whites face becoming despised minorities in the countries their ancestors built?
This is a completely insane idea.
Yes, and by the way, lest it be seen that I'm Whitewashing the Irish history, Irish history of all traces of imperialism or colonialism.
Let me just add this footnote that actually, whereas in all of those contexts, all of those categories, military and political and so on, we were perhaps innocent.
But actually, there is a case to be made that we did send our missionaries to these colonies and that in those colonies they function to make it easier, you know, to put in a gracing aspect on the colonial project.
Well, I'm of the opinion that a lot of the world could use a lot more Christianity, so I'm, you know, if it's going to be you or the local imam, I'm pretty sure I know which side of the coin flip I would like that to land on.
What I'm saying is that, you know, I mean, sometimes you have to kind of set out the full picture.
This is a hugely complicated picture, as you know, and we don't know exactly, we can't know what would have happened if certain other things didn't happen.
Okay, this is the thing.
That also drives me crazy, which is, I don't know why it is.
That I am supposed to care about every piece of suffering that every other group has gone through, but nobody's supposed to care about the suffering that my ancestors went through.
And we all know this, right?
I mean, the British were invaded by the Muslims, which provoked the Crusades.
They were dominated by the Roman Empire.
More than a million of them were taken into slavery in the Muslim countries.
Far more than were ever brought as blacks to North America, or to America for sure.
And there were serfs, there was the Black Death, there was two giant world wars, I mean, endless catastrophes, cold wars.
And so this idea is like, well, I've really got to be concerned about what happened to the natives in Algeria.
But nobody's sitting there saying, boy, you poor white people, yeah, you were pillaged and enslaved and sent to war, and some terrible things happened to you throughout history.
It's such a one-way street, and I'm really tired of it.
People start complaining to me, it's like, You show me on the internet were you ever shown a shred of concern for the suffering that whites went through throughout history and if they can't show me that it's like I don't care about the suffering of your ancestors because you don't care about the suffering of mine.
Well indeed, and I mean, something you see very strongly, and it's very interesting now, you can see traces of this, like for example in the whole Brexit debate, a trope in the Irish commentary on that in the media here is, you know, that attacking the Leavers as being kind of remnants of British imperialism, you know, the English imperialism rather, that it's a hankering after the Empire and so on, which is about as daft an idea as you could possibly Come up with.
But this is ironically and interestingly always comes from people who in the context of Ireland's relationship with England never want to discuss the question of English imperialism at all.
It didn't happen.
You know, that's that's just Irish victimology.
And, you know, they have this phrase, they use Mope, M-O-P-E, the most oppressed people ever.
That's the kind of thing to dismiss any attempt.
But that's a good acronym.
Yeah, that's used to put down any attempt to raise the true history.
And I mean, I love English people.
I you know, this is we come to the whole question of racism here in a certain way.
I love English people and I love England.
And in a certain sense, I would say imaginatively, I now regard London as my capital in a weird kind of way.
I have for a very long time, because if you want to go and get involved in theatre or in literature, that's where you have to go ultimately.
To, you know, be part of a broader culture and a more interesting culture, frankly, than Ireland has now become in these conditions that we're talking about, this left liberal kind of craziness that has descended in the last couple of decades.
And so, you know, this is how complicated it is.
You know, these things are hugely complicated.
And, you know, at any given moment, you know, there are so many different variables that, you know, sometimes we make bad calls.
I, for example, There was a referendum here in 2004, which was about the question, now this was before this, this was literally on the cusp of all this beginning, because we now have in Ireland something like 18% non-nationals.
That's more than they have in the United Kingdom after 60 years.
We have after, what, 14 years, something like that, 15 years.
So in this referendum, which is at the beginning of this, and we were all kind of I was certainly naive.
The government proposed a referendum to deal with a question that they saw as problematic, which was that quite a number, significant number, not vast numbers, but a significant number of African women in particular were coming to Dublin and having their babies in Irish hospitals because the law at the time allowed their babies to become citizens of Ireland by virtue of being born here.
And allowed their parents to join them here then, and to look after them.
Now I actually opposed that amendment.
I thought that it was, I won't say that I thought it was racist.
That wasn't the point.
I thought it was inhumane in a certain way.
That if you leave your borders open to the extent that anybody is able to get in, and you don't police your borders adequately, and then they come in, I don't think you should, you know, point a finger at them and blame them and say, now you're not entitled to this particular benefit that everybody else has had.
Something like that was my, and there were other aspects.
Now, I didn't, if I had known what was coming down the track, I possibly might have taken a different view of that.
And in fact, I've been, you know, having those discussions with people who were on the other side of that battle.
And it's very interesting that at that time, 14 years ago, the political establishment, the government, And everybody around them was of the same mind, that basically we should keep our borders relatively closed.
There's never been a referendum on immigration.
Well, that was the nearest one we had.
And they're now thinking of actually having one, I think, to reverse that again.
Now that one was passed by... I thought, you know, I was on the wrong side of that referendum in the sense I was on the losing side.
It was passed by 79% to 21%, something like that.
Whenever people are asked fundamental immigration questions, they always want little to no immigration.
This is true in America, in Canada here, Canadians are as a whole desperate to reduce the massive immigration that is occurring because everybody understands, particularly people from the third world, the statistics are very clear.
If you're black, if you're from India or other places, the odds of you supporting things like free speech, the odds of you supporting separation of church and state, the odds of you supporting the free market are all very, very, very low.
And they say, well, you can't treat people as different.
It's like, well, if they stopped acting differently, that would be a whole lot easier now, wouldn't it?
Yeah.
Well, the reason I tell that story is that 79%, that's a lot of people.
That's a lot of the population.
And what I'm kind of thinking is that, you know, given the kind of number of people who are now calling me a racist because I raised these questions at all, there must be a number, at least, of those voters who voted against that, in favor of that amendment.
who now call me a racist.
And I was on the other side of that.
It is one of these.
It's one of these push button conversation detonators.
When people can't handle information, they just jump out.
It's like these emergency blowout things in Top Gun movies, you know, like eject buttons.
Unfortunately, it's a way of shutting down conversation, and when you shut down conversation, you shut down civilization, because civilization is nothing but our desire to have conversations.
I also think of Estefan as a kind of a metaphor, you know, that people were being hypnotized.
And I was talking to a friend of mine who's actually a hypnotherapist and he said, you know, we had a general conversation about these things in the recent referendums and the use of these words like homophobic and racist and so on.
And I was saying it's a little bit like the way that the, you know, hypnotists would, you know, particularly the entertainment type hypnotists would give different words to different subjects.
And these words would trigger them into doing crazy things like turning into chickens and searching for leprechauns and so on.
And he said, you know, that's not a metaphor.
That's actually what happens.
Yeah, people are programmed with emotional responses to particular facts, and it is terrible.
When I think of the unbelievable suffering of the West from prehistoric times through Ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and so on.
When I think of the amount of suffering that it took to build the basic building blocks of human civilization, of Western civilization, and how extraordinarily rapidly, in a matter of a few decades, it could all vanish.
It is really astonishing.
It is like watching a sandcastle that people spent an all-day building, and either the bully or the elements just come along and smash it.
Right down.
And we really have to have conversations about this.
We don't have to go to war, but we do have to engage in some pretty intense verbal sparring.
That's really the best hope we have.
Yeah, well, it's kind of like, you know, I guess when we get old and weak and tired, there comes a time when we're ready to die.
You know, you hear about that.
It hasn't quite happened to me yet, but you hear that, you know, I'm ready to go now type of thing.
And it's almost as if our society, our civilization, is at that moment when it's saying, oh, we've had a good innings.
Let's just slip away.
Let's go gentle into that good night.
That's Douglas Murray's argument, right?
The strange death of Europe.
Well, I do not want to go gently into that goodnight, and you have children, I have a child.
I have a child, yes.
So, let's close it off here.
I really, really appreciate the conversation, and I hope that we can stimulate more people into having honest discussions.
There's no need to explode into questions of racism and phobias and so on.
Just look at the data.
Look at the data and it's very easy to figure out which way Western countries are going and what the outcome is going to be.
It's not complicated.
You can look at the map of the election of Donald Trump and you can say, okay, well, if only people of color voted, if only women voted, if only white males voted, and the map is entirely different.
