Speaker 1: It's not just that his world has been torn apart.
It's not just that he is hungry and alone, and
it's not just that he's only seven years old. Right now,
children like Sammy are being forced to live through unimaginable
horrors around the world, and it's not just this Christmas.
Your support can make all the difference to children caught
in conflict. Visit Trokra dot org or call one eight
hundred four O eight four O eight Trocra Together for
a just world.
Speaker 2: Say hello to the all electric Kia EVI five s
u V. Based on one of Ireland's most popular models,
the Kia Sportage, but completely reimagined for the electric Age
with best in class boot space, advanced technology and unrivaled comfort.
It's a consistent evolution that adds a new perspective to
every drive. Unlock a world of adventure. Book your EVI
five test drive at Kia dot Com. Kia Movement that inspires.
Speaker 1: So he was like messaging me all night and then
he just ghasted me. No way.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: He was like you're so hot, I want to come over, okay,
And I was like cool, and he was like I'm
on my way driving over right now. And then nothing.
Speaker 2: Phone use while driving can be deadly. Your phone. It
won't kill you to put it away from the road
Safety Authority visit r S A dot I E.
Speaker 4: Meaning a man like this, man letting butterfly flapping his way,
big down in the forest. Man gonna cause the tree fall,
letting five thousand miles away.
Speaker 3: Man nobody say nobody, you know, no.
Speaker 1: Man like you.
Speaker 3: A little story and he got back.
Speaker 5: That's the man got back and down on the pin.
Speaker 2: You don't do.
Speaker 3: This is an episode.
Speaker 5: I'm very excited I have Harrison Pitt. He's an academic
writer and policy fellow at Restore UK. Really excited to
have him on. Man Harrison, how are you doing?
Speaker 3: Thank you sir. It's good to finally get this working.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's it's the holidays are always difficult. And I
sort of quipped to you, you know, it's a good
thing that our guys are very difficult to schedule. You know,
if we were all the stereotype of the you know,
the lonely young man with nothing going on you could
just record at the drop of a hat, it would
always be more worrisome. Even if it is, you know,
sort of difficult to you know, to schedule around. So
my audience is predominantly American. So, Harrison, who are you
and what do you do?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 4: Yeah, so I'm a writer, academic and my main job
day to day at the moment is to serve as
a policy fellow at restore Britain, not restore UK, because
the term UK cannot be used with a straight face
anymore from Americans who aren't to where where of it.
The UK has become a bit of a meme in
British politics, spelt yok ay to denote the sort of
third World defying, post national Britain that we increasingly see
as Britain's on the streets today. And so you get
these sort of incongruous dynamics where on the one hand
you see this magnificent Georgian facade at the top, but
then underneath it there will be like a vape shop,
or there will be a Turkish barbers And so the
uk ification of Britain is supposed to signify the way
in which you have all of these sort of conflicting, chaotic,
multicultural vernaculars alienating the host population of these islands. And
the reason why people have gone from the word UK
is because it sounds a little bit like her.
Speaker 3: It sounds a.
Speaker 4: Little bit like her, a sort of like a regional
branch of some sort of globalist management structure. And because
the kind of multicultural London patois will sort of emphasis
was like UK, like UK, like that, and so it's
supposed to be a kind of a joke on that.
Speaker 3: So yeah, Restore Britain.
Speaker 4: We're very keen on maintaining that branding given the current
meaning of the words UK British politics. But yes, so
we are a movement and a think tank founded by
the independent MP Rupert Lowe, who Americas is no doubt
know who Tucker Carson is. Rupert low was actually on
Tucker's show the other day, so people want to get
a better sense of what Rupert low is about, they
should watch Tucker Carson's interview with him, and he earlier
this year fell out with Nigel Farag, much better known
in your country.
Speaker 3: Of Restore of Reform UK. They actually are called Reform UK.
Speaker 4: Because well, people speculate about it, but we're basically of
the view that Faraj was a little bit was getting
a little bit jealous of the rising popularity that Rupert
Low was enjoying. Both in America among figures like Elon Musk,
but also in Britain itself among the more politically energetic,
well informed sections of the so called online right. Rupert
Low was gaining in popularity and people think that Farage
basically defenestrated him for that reason.
Speaker 3: There were some.
Speaker 4: Trumped up charges of bullying and all the rest of it,
and they even reported him to the police and after
invest after an investigation commenced, no charges were brought. But
this part of things in Rupert Low set up Restore
Britain independent think tank and movement and we are now
doing all sorts of things, from producing audio visual content
to producing reports. Our first ever report is this one
mass deportations, just me see legality and logistics. Being a
policy fellow, I had a big hand in writing this
and we're working on another one about how to bring
an end to an arco tyranny in British politics, So
trying to put practical meat on the policy bone rather
than just lamenting about the state of Britain all the time,
which is very fashionable and important to do, but not
enough on its own. So that's our main function, I
suppose in the British political scene at the moment, and
I'm honored to have been given the role of senior
policies at Restore Bastions so that I can be a
part of the solution rather than just being part of
the chorus of discontent.
Speaker 5: It's actually I think it's a very important thing because
it's become fashionable among a certain segment of the American right.
And I would say it is related to the American right,
but there isn't nearly as much crossover, which is this
kind of jeering attitude, particularly in you know, Trump two
point zero towards England.
Speaker 3: You guys have it so bad.
Speaker 5: And look, it's certainly true, right, there are very bad
things going on there, even the idea that a politician
would be criminally referred for bullying, which is sort of comedic.
But there are several things that I think are important
to mention there. Right, Why that attitude is incorrect. One,
We don't have it that much better, right, there are
meaningful changes, but all so the way that these and
when I say globalists don't read Alex Jones, people of
that sort of persuasion ideas tend to catch on, right,
the many of the same we saw this during you know,
the pandemic in particular, that there is a transatlantic trade
and horrible ideas about how to run a state. These
are coming. And also, I mean, look like there is
a major cultural affinity, right, We're cousins as far as
nations go. And so the idea that you can simply
you know, discard that and kind of jeer at it
as like super California, like the it's sort of it's in.
It's both in poor taste and I think very short sighted.
So you mentioned the fact that Nigel Farage is relatively
speaking well known in America, and in America there's sort
of two views on him, which is either he is
Britain's Trump, They're just the same guy you know across
the ocean. Or alternately, you get he is mister Brexit.
He's the guy who got Brexit done. So how accurate
are either one of those characterizations. I'm not trying to
get you to talk bad about the man, but I'm
looking for context. You know, what role does he play,
especially as his party is gaining prominence.
Speaker 4: Yes, so this is a very good question. He is
on the Trump thing, there are sort of two things
you could mean by the British Trump Trump obviously being
an insurgent figure in American life who takes over the
Republican Party and completely refashions it, particularly along the lines
as you know, of immigration, trade, and I guess the
third would be foreign policies. So sort of America first
on all of those things in a way that the
neo carn establishment had not been. So if we think
of those that way of thinking about it, he's not
really a Trump. He's not really Trumpion in terms of
his character. I mean, he's a little bit bombastic, but
he's bombastic in a sort of like British sort of
striped city boy type of way.
Speaker 3: He was.
Speaker 4: He worked in the city for which for us means
that sort of financial district of London in the nineteen eighties,
which is all about, you know, but wearing pinstriped suits
I think Wolf of Wall Street in British context in
a way. But but you're at so you're you're you're
very much part of that kind of financialization of the
economy and you're sort of availing yourself of all the
personal benefits of that, which I think was what Farah
was doing in the eighties. But you go to the
cricket on the Sunday and you sing the national anthem.
So it's just it's it's this sort of mixture of
like sort of pinstriped pinstripe being a pinstriped yuppy but
also being a bit of a bulldog nationalist who likes
the battle of Britain and Church at the same time.
So like Nigel Faract is actually very similar to Trump
in my view in those in those ways as a personality.
But of course our Trump, before we're ever going to
have a Trump in British politics who has the same
sort of impact that Trump has in yours, would have
to be sort of characteristically British. It can't just be
an American copy and paste job, because though we are
cousins both culturally and indeed genetically, we have in the
intervening three hundred years or so developed recognizably different national
character traits. And I do think that it's important that Brits,
in trying to avail themselves of all the benefits of
the Trumpian Revolution in our own context, don't just try
and transpose all of the features into the British context.
For instance, I mean, this didn't even go down very
well in America, but when Trump came out with that
tasteless remark about the death of Rob Rainer. That was
tasteless enough in an American context, but if someone were
to do that in a British context, it would be
considered even more tasteless, given that we are a little
bit more upperty about the importance of respectability and all
the rest of it that I think you are. There's
a sort of brashness to the American spirit, which has
its downsides, and no doubt has its virtues as well.
So those are sort of the personal ways in which
I would compare them on Brexit. I think that that
is just a complete misunderstanding. What Nigel Faraanch does deserve
immense credit for is raising the salience of our membership
of the europe Union in the mind of the ordinary
British voter.
Speaker 3: He definitely did do that.
Speaker 4: But the guy who got Brexit done is a little
bit misleading, given the fact that when we did have
the referendum in twenty sixteen, Farat was not in a
position to be actually delivering the goods. That just delivered
a result, and then the Tory government as it then was,
was tasked with, you know, working out all of the
details of our departure from the European Union. And this
was particularly self satirizing and absurd given the fact that
many of the people within the Tory cabinet had advocated
Fremaine and yet they were trying to hammer out a
kind of Brexit settlement. This was one of the absurdities
of Brexit that we had at the time. In many ways,
it was like it was a sort of poke in
the eye of our political establishment, and it did. I
suppose it can be viewed as having as being a
sort of Trumpian like moment in terms of its significance
and scale. But we had an absurd situation where the
parliamentary sovereignty and referendum direct democratic style sovereignty were in
conflict with each other because parliament all, like in something
like eighty five percent of parliamentarians didn't want to leave
the European Union, and yet they were the ones who
were going to have to vote on the dr and
make sure that it was okay and all the rest
of it. And by that point fararch had actually just
left the picture. But in the nineteen nineties, this is
maybe something I can give for the American context wanting
to leave the European Union was a minority interest among
a small number of quite dorky conservative politicians, people you
won't have heard of, like Bill Cash and people like
John Redwood. You I'm sure you haven't heard of these people,
and they made a very dry, dusty constitutionalist case for Brexit,
which wasn't very sexy. Farage was very good at connecting
Brexit to more ordinary, salient concerns like immigration, and by
doing that he was able to raise awareness around the
issue in a way that someone like Bill Cash talking
about the need to restore our Victorian antique constitution was
just never going to cut through to people in the
way that Farage did. So he does deserve credit for that,
but in my view, his powers, of his powers when
it comes to reshaping the mold of British politics and
remaking the mold of British politics and breaking the frame
of British politics, does seem to be waning of late.
He seems to be playing a much safer risk averse game,
and no doubt that has a lot to do with
the fact that whereas when he was running the ostentatious
pro Brexit pressure campaign, it was just that a pressure campaign.
Now he's wanting to enter government, and given that the
rest of the political establishment finds itself an incredibly low water,
he is not inclined to play the riskiest of all strategies.
So he's actually playing it quite safe and in my view,
not being as radical as he could or indeed should be.
Speaker 5: Being you mentioned that you both parties find themselves in
dire straits. If you could provide a little bit of
should we say, like electoral context, Uh, obviously, you know
you have this sort of explosive success of you know,
Boris Johnson, you know flipping you know a number of
seats in the so called I think the term was
the blue wall.
Speaker 3: I think they're the red wall. The colors are switch
to knock on text.
Speaker 5: Yes, something that will always trip me up, but yes,
the kind of legacy you know, labor seats in the North.
And at least it was geez, I guess it was
seven or eight years ago. Which yeah, which, which feels
kind of crazy to say now, but it seems as
if right the Conservative Party was massively empowered. Now they
are facing an even more historic collapse after their most
recent defeat. Can you explain that, like what happened between
those two points, and how did we get to a
situation where it seems as if the oldest political party
in the world is effectively dissolving right before our eyes.
Speaker 4: Yes, I think the In short, what happened was roughly
millions of Indians, Nigerians and Bangladeshis were imported en mass
in a way that dwarfs anything that Britain has experienced
in its history. And that was very much the doing
of Boris Johnson, who, far from tightening restrictions on immigration
in the way that his sort of national populist campaign
of twenty nineteen would have indicated that he was going
to do, and he did say.
Speaker 3: Oh he said.
Speaker 4: But in the Conservative Party's election manifesto twenty nineteen it
was said that I think something along the lines of
quote overall numbers will come down. Not only did those
numbers not go down, they went up significantly. I've taken
to calling Boris Johnson the worst demographic vandal in the
history of the British Isles. And not only did the
numbers go up, but they were coming from the most
culturally incompatible parts of the world. It used to be
the case when we were members of the European Union,
and this is actually one of the slight paradoxes of.
Speaker 3: Our time. On the one hand, you could actually make
the case.
Speaker 4: That continued membership of the European Union would have actually,
even though all of the people who were open pro
open borders were pro remaining at the European Union, it
probably would have been more consistent with the intuitions of
restrictionists for us to remain members of the European Union,
because when we were members of the European Union, the
overwhelming majority of immigrants taking advantage of the freedom of
movement rules that govern membership of the European Union were
from culturally compatible countries, who were who were net contributors
to the treasury because they were professional and then they worked.
Speaker 3: They had who had no.
Speaker 4: Incentive to support anti white identity politics because they were
themselves Europeans and were also most likely to return home
after a given period of time. Anyway, we've now we've
now not only upped immigration in quantitative terms, but made
it much more hazards hazardous in qualitative terms, because now
most of our immigrants are coming from countries where, thanks
to Boris Johnson, those three sort of saving graces if
you like, when it comes to European immigration don't apply,
there is an incentive to support anti white identity politics.
We're talking about very indolent the third world immigrant populations
who bring their dependence with them and who suck off
the public teat and the third they're very unlikely to
return home because why would they when they are benefiting
from this sort of the parasitic relationship they have to
the British people. So in a way you could argue
that in the short term, at least hopingy in the
long term term, we can make good on this. But
in the short term Brexit incidentally had a very deleterious
effect on Britain's demographics, and Boris Johnson has rightly been
identified at last by the British electorate as the man
culpable for that, and the Tory Party has been identified
as the as the vehicle that is responsible for that
in institutional terms. And so they could come out with
the most radical, frothing at the mouth rhetoric, powerlite record
rhetoric about how they're going to reverse for this point,
but it's unlikely unless there's a significant personnel change, that
they're ever going.
Speaker 3: To be believed on that front.
Speaker 4: And because Farage in the intervening period wasn't anywhere near
the levers of power and has been talking about immigration
for some time in my view and substandard terms, but nevertheless,
in sort of like vaguely healthy center right restrictionist terms,
he is seen as the person to set it right.
And so I think there is just an intuition on
the parts of Bridges people in the pub at the
moment to Nigel Farage is benefiting from this sort of
Nigel he sound. You can have a pint with Nigel
and he'll sort the boats out. There's just this sort
of rough calculation that people are making, and so he's
the beneficiary of that. And Labor is not trusted at
all immigration because they're not sorting out the illegal immigrant
crisis that we've got at the moment, despite promising to
do so and smash the gangs and all the rest
of it. The numbers of illegal entrances have only gone
up since Labor came in in twenty twenty four. And
indeed it was Labor themselves in nineteen ninety seven under
Tony Blair who initiated the whole mass immigration to experiment
in the first place.
Speaker 3: And so I think that it's mainly on immigration.
Speaker 4: It's mainly due to perceived failure and a perceived unwillingness
in fact to control Britain's borders and to maintain our
very blessed homogeneous demographics that people are flocking to farage
as they seem to be doing at the moment.
Speaker 5: So one more thing, and I'm doing all of this
to provide context. Again, there's sort of a similar trend
happening on the left. The Labor Party is losing even
within the broader left wing coalition. I know much less
about this, I will be honest. I find American progressives
irritating enough. And then if I listen to you Ash
sarkar Ash, I can't say her name. It's a Star
Wars name, it doesn't exist in my language, or Owen Jones,
I will have a stroke. So I just can't do it.
But I don't necessarily understand why that coalition is splintering.
Do you have any insight there?
Speaker 3: I think I do. I could be wrong.
Speaker 4: I'm less attentive to what the left is doing than
I am to what the right is doing. But I mean, obviously,
the left in my country, as in yours, is completely
riven apart by the whole Israel Palestine the blood feud.
Pistama finds himself in an awkward position where on the
one hand, he wants to detach himself from the period
in Labour's history when Jeremy Corbyn, who you may have
heard of, was leader of the Labor Party and he
had a sort of rap sheet of statements in the
past where he said our friends in Hamas and Hezbollah
and meeting with suspicious Islamist characters and all the rest
of it, and so he received accusations of anti Semitism
from within the Labor Party. I think on the one hand,
Kistama is very desperate to distinguish himself from the kind
of legacy of Corbyn. So he very sort of performatively
got rid of Corbyn when he became a leader of
the Labor Party because he wanted to sort of cleanse
Labor of that of that awkward period. So on the
one hand he feels a serious need to brandish his
credentials with the Zionist labor factions. But then on the
other hand they're hemorrhaging support to increasingly explicitly Islamu's candidates
in parts of the country. In constituencies in Britain where
Muslims do enjoy a critical mass, and so that they
no longer need to go through the middle man of
the Labor Party in order to in order to air
their agrievances in Parliament. They can just set up their
own candidates and count on the fact that they will
win elections. So I think that that partly explains why
it's in many ways a function of Britain's ethnic fractionalization
that the Labor Party feels riven between it's sort of
pro pally leftist tradition and it's sort of pro Zionist
labor tradition, so that.
Speaker 3: It's partly that.
Speaker 4: But then I think it's also the fact that Kirstama,
though he is a in in many ways a very
blinkered sort of ideologue, a sort of human rights radical
for who to whom the idea of politics is actually
quite frightening. The idea that people actually have to make
political decisions is terrifying. He would rather outsource it to
a sort of to a kind of priestly caste of
left wing human rights lawyers who, in their wisdom, are
able to preclude the need for any kind of political
wrangling whatsoever. So he's very wedded to that sort of
post war human rights framework. So he is an ideologue.
I'm not saying that he's purely a pragmatic creature, but
he's an ideologue who does find himself in power and
who therefore is aware of the fact that reformer surging
in the poll. So occasionally he will make these sort
of pragmatic concessions to the right, and for that he's
seen as being a bit of a letdown to many
people who are more sort of dogmatically and doggedly left wing.
So you can think of Kiss Starmer at the moment,
I've taken to describing him as sort of kind of
a kind of left liberal human creature of human rights law,
but with some pragmatic constraints. And I think a lot
of the what we're seeing with the Green Party, with
zak Planski, for instance, is someone who is rising in
popularity in many ways because he signals to the most
sort of di Diehart activists on the left in Britain
not only his sort of anti Zionist credentials, which matters
to that faction, but also his disregard for any kind
of pragmatic constraints whatsoever. So it means zak Planski literally
visited Calais the other day, which is the part of
France from.
Speaker 3: Which these.
Speaker 4: Illegal immigrants DeCamp in order to get into Britain, and
he was handing out water and you know, doing a
photo op to show how much more prohurb and borders
he was than Kiss Starmer, whereas Kiss Starmer has in
fact got himself into a bit of a pickle where
occasionally he'll make speeches talking about how Britain is descending
into an island of strangers, and it sounds like sort
of powerlite rhetoric, but then he upsets his back benches
on the on the on the labor side, and then
has to has to has to explain how he didn't
really mean that, and he didn't he wasn't trying to
beg any parallel with the power and all the rest
of us. So I just think he finds himself in
him up like buffeted to and fro. And so you've
got this kind of left wing faction that is much
happier just to say exactly what it's about. And I
think that's partly what explains that.
Speaker 3: Well. I think those two factors are what explains that
the division.
Speaker 5: Well, and you brought up something there that's interesting because
speaking of of trends that we saw, you know, first
in euro politics and then in ours. Uh, this is
this sort of ethnic jostling within an existing party structure.
Obviously it's slightly different because we have a two party system,
right there is no viable third party, so it sort
of happens within the system of power. So, for instance,
this has already happened in California where you have you know,
these aging you know, boomer white and Jewish liberals who
represent heavily Hispanic districts. Who are they being primaried by,
who are being challenged by? Well, it's not you know,
Nancy Pelosi sixty years younger. It is Hispanic nationalists. Hispanic
nationalists is kind of a misnumber, but you understand what.
Speaker 3: I mean, Chicano nationalists, didn't they?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I believe so. Or even in you know, Minnesota
more recently, you know, Jacob Bry narrowly won out over
a Somali interest candidate. You know, he may have you know,
exploited some tribal politics there, which is sort of amusing
to read about. But nonetheless, right that that you were
starting to see that. See that happen here.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 5: One other thing I think is interesting that you mentioned, right,
is the is this sort of fight between those constrained
or those who make some sort of concessions to practical
politics and those who sort of, you know, go for
you know, the sort of red meat, right what the
bass really wants. And I think that's been an interesting
thing because in my own party politics, there was sort
of an open question for a while, which are our
Democrats going to moderie? Are they going to you know,
make the correct electoral decision sort of run to the center.
They did that some places, like in my state. You know,
they had a candidate who's successfully able to paint herself
as moderate, and yes, she won partially dude to having
a very poor opponent, you know, just do the kind
of pendulum nature of electoral politics. But also what's interesting
is that it seems like there is a part of
the base unwilling to accept that as an answer. So,
for instance, you know, Zohan Mandani, who I've never written
so many irid excuse me, so many stupid articles about someone,
you know, the idea that this man is some sort
of you know, like insane, you know, jihadist is kind
of absurd. He really is sort of an analog to
you know, city econ more than anything else, right, a
globalist with you know, awfully convenient skin tone, but nonetheless right,
you see what is promised there, and he is promising
you know, out and out racial redistribution, you know, more
taxes on white people. And you see like that is
not going away, right, even though you know there is
the what would be the sensible position tacked towards the center,
you know, make concessions on certain issues that may well
be the correct answer, but it does not get you
elected in you know, these sort of intramural conflicts where
it is your base voting in a place like New
York City, there is no Republican challenger, we understand this, right. Similarly,
you know what is within your own party, you're selecting
for certain things. So, and forgive me if this is
a provocative question, but if in the state in your
nation is grim, right, do you have this problem with immigration?
Is problem with you know, this sort of explosion of violence?
Why are you hi? Are you not a part of
reform UK? Surely that is you know, the the rising star.
So what are the issues with that? Group.
Speaker 4: Well, I suppose the major problem with the Reform UK
is that they are very good at noticing and drawing
attention to and wanting to rectify, third, fourth, sometimes even
fifth order consequences of the operating system that has brought
us to this point, but they don't seem particularly keen
on wondering where that has come from. So, for instance,
they are still out and out about civic nationalists who
are inclined to reduce what it means to be British
to a set of Burgush moral propositions. This is particularly
I believe that this is incoherent in every possible national context,
but it's particularly incoherent in the British one, given that
British values something that only really entered are shared political
lexicon in the two thousands, when Gordon Brown Tony Blair
started realizing, oh gosh, there are an awful lot of
indigestible subcultures in this country who are you know, rather
fly in the ointments of our globalist experiment that we
need in order to in order to sort of tackle
alienated in order to in order to tackle the problem
of alienated Muslims, turning to the to the most uncompromising
forms of cell aphism.
Speaker 3: We need a whole new.
Speaker 4: Sort of national values program, a counter terror program that
tries to center national values. But because that would have
seemed it would have seemed overly, it would have seemed
very suspicious by their lights only to focus on the
Muslim problem all of a sudden, British values are not
only weapon weaponized against unassimilated Muslim populations, but they're weaponized
against right wingers who are always against going down this
avenue in the first place. And so we're often told
that at one time during the Southport the riots that
followed the Southport slaughter in July of last year, one
of the sort of fashionable multi cultural creatures. He's actually
written some good reports before. A black chap living in
Britain called Trevor Phillips actually wrote, but this was awful.
He wrote an essay an article in The Times where
he says it's the far right that needs to assimilate
into modern Britain, not immigrants, because once you have a
values based model of belonging, it's not actually unreasonable to say, well,
we should test people on whether they're well drilled on
these values, and if it turns out that they're not
well drilled on these values. Then people who can trace
their lineage back in Britain hundreds of years. So well,
if you don't sign up to the correct points on
the hymnsheet, then you're not British at all. And in
fact said he can't is more British than you because
he has a better hold on British values. And Reform
is very very guilty of not speaking in those terms,
but of using the rhetoric at British values. And once
you're doing that, you've already conceded massively. So I think
that Reform UK And of course I mean there have
also been incidents where well, firstly I should mentioned they
tried to throw my new boss in prison. I sort
of mentioned that earlier. But you cannot reason advertise yourself
as a movement that is going to restore Britain's finest traditions,
not least around free speech if you're trying to if
you're reporting people to the police for allegedly hurty words
said in meetings. Nigel Farage has also said on record
that he is indifferent to the demographs, the demographic dissolution
of the white British population in Britain. He said, it's
something that doesn't trouble him in the least. He's also
said that if we alienate Islam in Britain, if we
alienate the rising Muslim population in Britain, we are going
to lose by the middle of this century. So he
on both the kind of religious front and on the
and on the demographic front, he's he's giving off a
posture of surrender about all of these things rather than
wanting to tackle the problems from root. And then, last
of all, I would say that he plays into minoritarian
games when it suits him. So, for instance, it's very
noticeable that the two people who have actually not found
themselves alienated from reform in the last two years are
two individuals who've been overpromoted in my view, clearly because
of their ethnic background. You have Leela Cunningham, who is
whatever reform the councilor who's on all of the airwaves
giving all of the interviews Nigel Farahar seems to think
that she can do no wrong, and she is a
part Egyptian heritage. And then you also have Zia Yusuf, who,
despite making all sorts of mistakes and kafuffles and embarrassing
the leader on multiple occasions. There was one time where
he attacked one of the Reform's own MPs, Sarah Poachin,
for making a comment about the burker in Britain. He
said it was a tasteless remark and he got very
cross about it, clearly embarrassing the party, airing dirty laundry
in public, the sort of thing that would have seen
Rupert Low thrown out like that. I mean, if fake
bullying allegations were enough to get rid of him, then
they certainly would have got rid of him for attacking
a fellow MP. But Zia used to and getting any
trouble for this. And as you can tell from the
Yusuf's name, he is a man of Muslim background, from
the from the subcontinent. So at every turn it seems
to me Reform are constantly bemoaning certain like the consequences
of the worldview without wanting to grapple with the fundamentals
of that worldview at all, and indeed, in many ways
exhibiting the worst features of that worldview. And we could
roughly call that worldview kind of the left liberal pieties
of civic nationalisms. So they're constantly wedded to fighting on
the terms of their enemies, and of course if you're
even if you're winning on the terms of your enemies,
you're not really winning in any ultimate sense at all.
And so there's been a lack of serious political ambition
on that front and understanding that no key like once
we've like once we've gone through as we have in
britsn a kind of silent revolution. You can't treat the
norms and the pasterns and the ways of speaking that
are that owe their power to that revolution authoritative. And
this is the odd situation in which conservatives find themselves.
Conservatives conservatism is a psychological modality is inclined to think
that that's what has been inherited is in some sense good.
But once once you are not threatened with revolution but
have already experienced it, you can't really be a conservative anymore.
If your conservative, if your conservatism is solely devoted to
preserving the gains, even unwittingly, of the revolution, you're not
really doing much good. And so I think they find
themselves in an awkward place like this. For instance, let
me just say quickly, the last thing I'll say is
that there are occasions when if you read new labor
speeches like Tony blair speech is from the early two thousands,
after nine eleven. It actually sounds a little bit spicier
than the sort of speech that someone like Nigel Paragh
would write today. And that's because, of course, we've been
on a sort of worldview conveyor belt where the Overton
window has been yanked pretty effectively to the left. So
all of a sudden, being on the right side of
that of that over And window which has been yanked
to the left left in a in a meta sense,
is actually still quite left wing, because you're not actually
trying to yank it back, you're just being right wing
within where it's been taken. And so I think, I
think that is the major the cardinal flaw of a
form UK and at restore Brest and we are we
we are avowedly against fighting on the terms of our enemies,
because we realize that if that's what we're going to do,
we there's what Just concede and we'll go home.
Speaker 5: I'm glad you said that, because there's a similar fight
happening on the American right, and it's been waging, it's
been raging for a long time. It is Christmas Diamond
recording this, and it seems it is time for Ohio,
Ohio gubernatorial hopeful Feverck Ramashwami to make his yearly crash out,
you know, attacking you know, effectively American white people. And
there were events sort of you know, presaging this. There
were things, you know, that led up to this. But
the question comes around, you know, what is it to
be an American? Is there at a sort of objective,
definable thing.
Speaker 3: I am an.
Speaker 5: American because my parents or my ancestors have been here
since you know, the seventeenth century. Or is it simply
creedle right that you can stand on the magic dirt,
say the magic words, and you too can run for
governor of Ohio. And it's interesting to see the breakdown
there because, as you've said, even people who are by
the standards of wider culture considered quite conservative. Ben Shapiro
is one say things like, oh no, of course, anyone
can be an American. Anyone. It is simply a set
of propositions, and once you have you submitted to yourself
to those, you have just the same rights to this
country as anyone else. And look, the history of American
immigration is much longer and much different than your country.
I do appreciate you giving us all of your convicts.
They are you know, they do quite well here. But
in all seriousness, right, it is sort of the worst
import of America. The idea that you know a nation
is simply you know, an intellectual an intellectual conclusion. You
know something you can sort of sign off on, right,
like you sign up for a loan or something like that.
It becomes commercialized. And it's been especially distressing to see
this from the nominal Maga movement because there are strains
of nativism, and when you talk to the people who
are putting these men in power, they are nativists largely speaking.
And it's sort of a stupid throwaway thing. But even
you know Trump's idea of I can't remember what you
call it, like the gold card or something like that,
where you pay a million dollars and you're an American citizen.
It's like, okay, well, maybe on a balance sheet that
makes sense. You know you're you're taking in more than
you're you know you're outlaying. The problem is you have,
as you've said, you've accepted the core premise that citizenship,
the idea of being a part of this nation is
ultimately fungible, it's transferable, it can be given to anyone.
And again, if that is the values which we are defending,
we were accomplishing our enemy's goal. For them, we are
making their system more perfect, making it more efficient, so
that it can do what it was already doing better.
And that's not what I or I assume you want.
And it's especially distressing because again you mentioned the sort
of cancelation, the kind of internac knife fighting. We're in
this sort of odd echo of what happened to the
American right in the nineties, where the neo conservatives purged
the paleo conservatives. Albeit the issues have slightly shifted, and
let's be honest, the relative power of both of those
blocks have shifted. The kind of true right and the
neo conservatives I'll use that in place of a nastyr word,
but you see the exact same thing happening is, you know,
we have snatched a modicum of power, and the first
thing they do is reaffirm the values of their enemies
and push out anyone who's not on side. And part
of the reason why many people, you know, especially among
the kind of younger cohort, are incredibly down on the
Republican Party is exactly that, the same thing you have
identified with Nigel Fraj and I'm glad you mentioned as
well the kind of over promotion of these DEI hires. Look. Look,
the fact that Vivek Ramashwami is is on track to
lose a state that voted for Trump by over almost
ten points is notable because you would assume if this
for a company, if this were a normal institution, good
performance would be rewarded and negative performance would be punished.
In fact, we've been assured this is what's wrong with
the woke left with DEI. It's that they don't pay
enough attention to meritocracy. Well, when it's our diverse city,
you know, when it's the guy that we want, even
if he is representative of a group that votes against
our interests sixty forty at best seventy thirty and most
other elections, well he gets to stick around forever. He
gets to denigrate on you know, Christmas, you know, the
fairly significant day in the culture of the country you're
living in. He gets to denigrate the core voter base
of his party. You say that they're incompetent, say that
they're lazy two years running and seemingly faces no consequences.
And again, look like I understand that you know I
have benefited from, you know, the second Trump administration. I'm
not saying I want Kamala Harris in his place, But similarly,
you were not eternally entitled to loyalty simply because one
time you were a better alternative. Politics is ultimately transactional,
and you know, in a time where both of our
nations are relatively speaking in decline. Sure it's better than
you know, Nairobi or you know, rural Pakistan, that's sort
of damning by faint praise. But the idea that you
know you can simply ignore all you know, material and
political conditions and just say I was better at one time,
support me forever. Very clearly, that idea is not holding water.
And this sort of behavior, you know, the eternal cancelation
and the eternal adoption of their enemy's values. This is
why conservatives are losers, genuinely, Sam Francis is you know,
beautiful losers. Thesis remains ultimately undefeated. Sorry, Harrison, I threw
a bunch of you. This is something I'm passionate about
because you know, when You've seen this pattern happen over
and over again in the face of mounting consequences. You know,
both of our nations have been swept by violence. Mine
has been hit with left wing political violence, yours violence
committed by people brought in by the political left, which
you know arguably is the same thing. And you sort
of want to grab these people and shake them and say, like,
do you not realize what the consequences are? Do you
not realize that this is a very serious, dire situation
and playing out the same sort of playbook, the same
sort of set of strategies that led us to this
situation just a hazard. I guess it might produce the
same result. You know, I'm no scientist, but that seems
to be a logical conclusion.
Speaker 3: I think so too.
Speaker 4: And yes, So the major problem with performing in this context,
and you're very usefully bringing in analogues in your own
American context, is that they are a reform can at
best be counted upon to slow down the dispossession and
eventual erasure of the host population of Britain.
Speaker 3: But I don't regard that as victory, because you're not.
Speaker 4: If that is all you're committed to, then you're you're
you're you're happy to see the problem jeck through.
Speaker 3: You're just a stickler for the pace at which it happens.
Speaker 4: And if you're happy to see through something an outcome
as final as that, why does why does the pace
really matter anyway? I mean, I suppose you could argue
that when the pace is slower, you can make a
pragmatic argument that it's a it's a sort of it's
a less troubled, less vexed process. But really, at this point,
were we're you know, splitting hairs and yes, in the
in the American context too, I do, I do.
Speaker 3: I'm not one of these.
Speaker 4: European right wingers who wants to blame American exports for
everything going wrong in the West today. Did the export
in this case being sort of propositional nationalism? Because I
don't even view propositional nationalism as an authentic American tradition.
It's one that was basically invented in the nineteen sixties
at the urging of people like well, institutions like the ADL,
and we're people like John F. Kennedy acting as a figurehead.
But it's remarkable as a sort of as it's remarkable
how long this sort of sort of congenital cowardice has
been afflicting the right, because I'm happy to wage. I
mean Calvin Coolidge, who I believe was a Republican president
who passed the nineteen twenty four Immigration Act. He would
never in a million years have said that America is
a nation of immigrants, or that anyone can be an
American or anything like this perpart fromthing else. He passed
the nineteen twenty four Immigration Act, with its explicit sort
of national quota system, aimed not at not at being
sort of absolute about according greater importance to certain ethnic
groups over others, but it was more just saying, we
like America as it is, We're happy with its present
demographic balance and immigration yearly. Immigration flowers need to reflect
that in terms of their ratios. So it wasn't even
a complete shut door, but it was just, I think,
a very pragmatic and he would never have said that
anyone can be in American or America as a nation
of immigrants. But once jeffk starts saying that in the
nineteen sixties and the political left in America runs with that,
all of a sudden, by the nineteen eighties, you've got
Ronald Reagan faithfully reproducing these same slogans as if they
go back to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and other
iconic figures in the American founding. So I don't view
it as an authentically American progeny either. And if it's so,
if it isn't authentically American progeny, then it's definitely not
authentically English or British progeny. But yes, people like Faraj,
they just sort of download that operating system. They run
with it because to do otherwise is believed to be
leaked to lead it by some secuitous route to the
Third or Ike and Auschwitz. This is the rough calculation
that has made. The rough calculation that has made is
that unless you have a kind of impeccably artificial values
based understanding of national identity, the only possible alternative is
a sort of demented, biomistical, blood based form of national
identity of the kind that someone like in my view
Hitler more than Hitler represents in a pretty good esque
way that is not logical. But nevertheless, that is that
is where we find ourselves. And I think that partly
explains the fact that many not only on the kind
of liberal IDW liberal IDW centrist types, but also many
self described right wingers. They are genuinely more afraid of
experimenting with potential remedies to our problems than they are
of the disease itself, but they're able to notice symptoms,
so occasionally there seem sound. I think this is roughly
where where we find ourselves.
Speaker 5: Well, and I think it's it's neatly encapsulated. I can't
remember who he was quoting, but you know David French,
who is sort of like the perfect good conservative, you know,
a man who has really no conservative values at all
but is sort of kept on is the like the
house rate or at the New York Times. He quoted
this other author saying, you know, sort of contesting this
idea that you know, America is in a bad way
and it's this profoundly kind of spineless idea. And he says, well,
you know, we may have drag queens, but at least
we don't have slavery anymore. And okay, it's it's an
absurd quote, but the idea is similarly our national original sin,
the thing for which we must apologize forever. Anything that
is an alternative to the excesses of yesterday's progressive regime.
Those are the only two options you can either, you know,
you can either reaffirm the values of now just Joe Biden, right,
we haven't even gone that far back. It's not even
you know, Bill Clinton. You know, it's someone who is
in power, you know, a year and a half ago.
Anything other than that, according to this kind of contained
conservative worldview, is slavery. You know, it is the the
ultimate ill. And okay, sure you can say, well, is
David French representative of the conservative movement? Well, yes, and no,
because the specifics of that argument, you know, the average
you know, even the kind of worst rhino would say,
oh that's ridiculous, that's absurd. But you change the variable slightly,
and it's basically the same formulation. It is either the
progressive left, which we pretend to hate, but the alternative
is too scary, it's too awful. It's the third ranch.
And this is an argument set explicitly by you know,
odious kind of IDW's interests, you know, Constantine Kissen, you know,
James Lindsay and others. The idea that the real issue
is not the excesses of the woke left, the excesses
of you know, the globalist system. It is the idea
that these you know, these excesses will promote the rise
of a true radical right. And that's the worst thing
in the world. That is the sort of re emergence
of Satan on the world stage. And one I think
that's very clearly it's a false dichotomy, it's a false diet.
There are other options. There are you know, if we
contend that the only two options are slavery and drag
Queen story hour, I would point to I don't know
America fifteen years ago, which you had neither one of
those social ills. You know, you don't even have to
reach particularly far and clearly this argument, and again this
is an American context, but that same idea you find everywhere.
If you really examined it and you pulled it apart
like you would an argument in an essay, it doesn't
stand up. That's not why it's there. It's not really
there to be the best argument ever. It exists as
a combination of a scare tactic and justification after the fact.
And because ultimately these people aren't actually interested in saving
the country, they aren't really interested in reforming the UK deeply,
and really they're not progressive explicitly, but you know, you
scratch a conservative, then you find a progressive. It's just
under the skin there.
Speaker 4: I think this is really crucial and I think it's
an excellent point you make that this is a kind
of performative what this is what in philosophy would be
called much more a performative utterance than it is a
kind of a tightly argued case. Because let's just probe
the case a little bit, but on two things. Civic
nationalism or proposition that's for this for the cop for
the purpose of this conversation, let's call it propositional nationalism,
or it's basically the same thing as trans I'm concerned,
and meritocracy. When people like Ben Sjapiro say that America
is a creedile nation, in otherwise, it is a nation
defined by its creed and the propositions that feed into
that creed, all of a sudden we are forced to ask, Okay,
let's test citizens on how well they measure up to
this standard that you were instituting, not just as ideal,
like we want people in America to think this. You
can say that if you like, but no, he's not
saying we want people in America to believe in the
rule of law, jury, charals, free markets.
Speaker 3: He's saying that.
Speaker 4: He's not just saying that he wants America to believe
these things. He's saying being an American is defined by
belief those things. Okay, great, let's look at some of
the polling. Then on this criteria, you would have to
denaturalize and potentially even deport half of the American population overall,
because America is deeply divided on these questions, and rather
more disconcertingly, given people's sensibilities in the post war era,
a majority of African Americans and a majority of Hispanics,
because these populations in America are the ones that measure
up at least to the creedal values that Ben Shapiro
is sort of articulating as sort of definitive aspects of
American identity. Is he willing to do that, is the
daily Why willing to endorse those sorts of policies? I
would suspect not so. I think that they know deep
down that this isn't really a sustainable account of the
boundaries of national belonging, because they're not willing to embrace
what the consequence is, the very draconian consequences of that
supposedly liberating model of national identity would involve in practical
policy terms. So again it's a performative utterance. It is
not a tightly argued case. And then on meritocracy, again,
if you're actually going to argue for meritocracy within the
American university system, you're going to have to accept some
pretty volatile consequences. When it comes to what the ratios
of black attendance at Harvard will be. I think it's
stumped at the moment, given that there are these affirmative
action based racial preferences that have been in institution. I
think in America since the nineteen seventies. It's not my country,
so I don't know it as well, but I believe
in the nineteen seventies there has been affirmative action has
been as put its thumb on the scale a bit
when it comes to affecting how many African Americans go
to a lead universities in the United States. I think
that's Harvard when they were being sued by Asian students
because Asians actually banded together and try and get address
of grievances on these sorts of things. Harvard admitted that
if they were admitting without these affirmative action racial preferences
on the basis of purely democratic test based criteria, the
black student population at Harvard would go from being fourteen percent,
which is roughly proportionate with the number of African Americans
in the United States, to something like zero point six percent.
So you can like bleed about meritocracy or you like,
but unless you're willing to accept that as an overwhelmingly
likely result of meritocracy, it is again just a performative
utterance and a way of containing the right far more
than it is the real right than it is a
good faith attempt at advancing a cogent worldview. And I
think that you are absolutely right that we need to
expose those tactics much more often because they're very skin deep.
Speaker 5: Well and you know, particularly relevant to you know Shapiro
and you know others with similar beliefs. It's especially during
when you see that you know, they may be civic
nationalists for our country, but they seem to be blood
and soil for theirs. Another example, I'm not just picking on,
you know, Ben Shapiro is you know ill Omar, who
in her native language says, I am here as a
representative of you know, your interests, speaking to her true constituents.
You know, she says, you know, my primary interest in
Congress is making sure that Ethiopia doesn't take any more
territorial waters of Somolia. And you know, a rational person say, well,
you live very far away from that on the map,
not only just your nation, but your state in particular.
You know, it's almost about as far away as you
could get. But nonetheless right that it is the civic values,
you know, this kind of you know, weak rule for
you and I, but for them, for her, for you
know another shall we say, far off small country. It
is you know, the full blood and soil, full strength,
you know, brew. And when you combine that, you again
understand why there is a large amount of discontent because
it seems plainly unfair.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 5: This is, you know, off something we saw with you
know Vveck as well, right, this kind of like burning
resentment towards the legacy population of the country that he
lives in. And many people who are you know, and
I posit that American conservatives are genuinely the least racist
people in America, those who have bought into the civic
nationalism the most. That's a slap in the face because
it's well, you know, we have, you know, put you
up on a pedestal. You know, we championed you, We've
advanced you well above what you probably would be doing
if you were not named vivek Ramashwami. And in turn
that has been repaid with this sort of incredible scorn,
you know, a way that even as someone who's not
particularly sensitive to progressive moral sensibilities, would not talk about anyone,
let alone publicly, you know, as an elected official. And
I think that that's sort of an interesting, you know,
element to it. My friend James Kirkpatrick has this great line,
it's like, well everyone is a you know, a blood
and soil nationalists for what they really care about. And
that's that's sort of the dissonance about it that many
of these figures in the media and in politics and
again across the political spectrum, right you know, you know,
Ben Shapiro kissing ilen Omar. I'm sure they're domestic versions,
you know, for you know, the Brits, but seemingly out
of one side of their mouth advocate the same values
that led us to this place, the same values of
the allegedly horrible you know, woke left. The biggest scare,
the thing we have to attack. They advocate them when
it is in their own interest, but when it's their people,
they say things that would get you thrown in jail.
And you start to wonder, like, wait a minute, like
what is the deal being offered to the legacy population?
And when you really strip down to it, effectively the
deal offered to Americans offered to you know, the English
is effectively you're a battery. You exist to fund this
patronage network. And if you complain about it too much,
if you complain about the fact that your country is
no longer yours or is no longer ruled by people
who are like you, well that's the real threat. Despite
all the you know, the wailing and screaming and gnashing
of teeth about every time I say the wolf left,
you can put scare quotes around it, you know, because
that term is sort of passe. But that all goes away,
and that's the real issue, the fact that you object
to that relationship. And I will say to sort of
put a quoto on this, and I'll throw it back
to you. It's why I am. I've been very much
encouraged by what I have seen on the of the
true right in both of our countries, because there is
clearly some sort of resistance to this, and I love
talking to sort of our our elder statesman. When then
within this, you know the guys who've been here for
thirty and forty years, because yeah, sure demographics are way worse,
you know, the ourco tyranny is way worse. But the
resistance then was nominal.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 5: My putty Thomas always says, if you had a newsletter
with one hundred people on it, you were the biggest
deal in the world. And now, I mean, look like
we could take substack as a direct analogy. If you
have the one hundred subscribers on substack, that's nothing. You
can do that in an afternoon in a particularly pointed essay, right,
if you're really you know, put your.
Speaker 3: Mind to it.
Speaker 5: And I think that that is a sort of a
small silver lining to this cloud. Anyway, Herrison, No, I.
Speaker 4: Very strongly agree, and I think that Frankly, while I
understand why there is a lot of frustration with Trump
at the moment, he cannot be thanked enough for just
blowing things open in this way. Could you imagine if
that it had been Jeb Bush versus Henry Clinton.
Speaker 5: We would still be pleased clapping to this day.
Speaker 4: You know, illegal immigration is an act of love. Anyone
could it would be all this sort of stuff. And
while Trump does because he's a he's fool. Yes, he's
a boomer, and he does fall into a lot of
these self defeating premises himself at times. But because his
rough attitude to the overreach of the left, or perhaps
better said, the logical conclusion of sort of left liberal
orthdoxies was to hit back twice as hard and to
really kind of shatter the mold of not just American politics,
but but Western politics. He has enabled other people that
he was he was a pretty clumsy weapon himself for
blowing open the castle doors. But now sort of you
know now that now that they have been now that
the gates have been rooted, as it were, nimble actors
are more. Nimble actors are able to uh make gains
in a way that they wouldn't have done but for
the big sort of stampeding or in Durrangutang, who had
smashed through things in the first place, and so yes,
this definitely does exist now, and it's very encouraging both
in your context and in mind.
Speaker 5: Well one point, and then I have another question, because
this is something I genuinely don't understand. I should have
brought it up earlier. But I think when we look
back on the Trump era, and this does feel like
the Trump era, shifting the Overton window is a huge
part of it. Definitely. I think that the other sort
of more unsung detail here is sort of shifting the
conceptual landscape what is perceived to be possible, because very
quickly we realized, for all of his faults, you actually
can't just stop a legal immigration is a choice, and sure,
and that is separate from the issue of mass deportations.
It's separate from the issue of h one B's But
I was told for my entire life that was an impossibility.
There was simply no way to do it. It was
the inevitable consequence. And this was something our politicians learned
from Blair, which is the ability to sort of set
yourself as the null hype apothesis. So you know, when
when Tony Blair, uh, you know, and I don't remember
the name of it, but in the nineties, you know,
it got rid of firearms in your country. Largely the
framing was the conversation has been had and we've all
arrived at this, And similarly, that's how illegal immigration was portrayed.
We've already, we've already, we are all the adults understand
that you can't make this go away. It's simply a
part and parcel of having a country. And once you
find out like, oh no, you can, you can say no,
this can go away, well that completely shifts the conceptual landscape.
I mean another one, and you know, this issue was
sort of faded from public prominence. But getting rid of
roe versus weight, right, this issue that conservatives have been
arguing for since before my parents were born, turned out like,
oh no, that was something you could do away with.
And you know, do abortion still happen? Is there's still
you know, this this fight about one hundred percent. But
this this huge impediment which was seen as being unassailable,
this idea that the progressives just get what they want forever. Well,
that idea, that facade has been blown apart. And I
think that that is conceptually massively important because now you
have young guys confidently saying things that simply could not
be said five ten years ago. I won't, you know,
say the most radical, but I'm sure you're filling it
in your own place. I think this is a complete
Oh sorry.
Speaker 4: Well, I was just gonna say, I think and I
think that that fact and I couldn't agree with you.
I couldn't possibly agree with you more. I think that
that has also done another I had another inadvertent, but
in my view, very welcome side effect of making the
left declare what they're really about. Because when they were
constantly winning, because the ride was only ever pyrroically scoring
victories itself, things like replacement migration could be could be
sort of presented as the null hypothesis, as just an
inexorable fact of living in a global world, all this
sort of all all this sort of thing, and they could,
they could, they were able to market it like like
candy floss, you know, in a way that and what.
But once the rights starts scoring victories, people start saying
what they're really about. And only the other day if
what's the name of that, oh, I forget is he this?
There's a there's an American in your country, some Indian
guy who only the other day was saying, you shouldn't
have let us into your country. He's like a he's
he's a big name. I can't remember who he is,
but I can't remember Harrison.
Speaker 5: Some Indian guy in your country does not narrow it
down in these days.
Speaker 3: That's true.
Speaker 4: But he was I forget what he's called, but he
from the subcontinents, and he was saying, do you know
what the real problem is. You shouldn't have let a
single one of us into your country in the first place,
because now there are too many of us here and
we're just going to take it over and its conquest,
whether you like it or not. All of a sudden,
they enter sinister mode or they enter the gloating mode.
And that's very helpful because it clarifies the battle lines.
And one of the reasons why we have been ill
equis it to resist this process of replacement migration that
is afflicting all of our countries, with America and Britain
certainly it is afflixing.
Speaker 3: It's because it has.
Speaker 4: Been it has been a kind of it's been unarmed
conquest rather than armed conquest. And when you're when you're
being you know, invaded by a by a national army
with sort of quaint uniforms and all the rest of it.
It's it's easier to muster the stomach for resistance because
the threat is so apparent. But when it's invisible, when
it's procedural, when it's you know, when it's like, when
it's effects are for the moment just sort of bureaucratic
and insidious and all the rest of it, and it's
what and when it's marketed as just to sort of
part and parcel the natural process and peaceful, it's harder
to resist. And now that it's becoming clearer what the
motivations of our colonizers, if you like, really are, it's
easier to mobilize the appetite for a serious resistance because
the worst things get, and they are getting very bad,
and the more obvious the costs of this experience, of
this sort of reckless experiment with diversity gets, the more
people start thinking, oh, well, it seems like I face
a choice between losing my country, sorry, between keeping a country,
keeping my country and getting called racist, or losing my country,
my country and still getting called racist. Well, in that case,
I choose to keep my country. And I think that
like that like the fact that that really is the
binary of this century is just coming into sharper focus.
Speaker 3: And one of the reasons it's coming.
Speaker 4: Into sharper focus is because the rights score initial victories,
the left start hyperventilating in ways that reveal their true motives,
and people then realize, oh gosh, we need to keep winning.
We can't just score some victories. We need to score serious,
long term, ultimate victories. Otherwise we know what these people
really think about us.
Speaker 5: Now, yeah, there's a great essay from a guy I
don't particularly like catgirl cool Uck on Substack. The name
is enough of a reason, but I have others as well.
And anyway, he made the great argument where he compared
he compared Donald Trump to a peanut butter sandwich, and
he said, the US government is going into anaphylactic shock. Right,
the immune system has incorrectly assumed that this these peanuts
are toxic, that they're going to kill it. So they're
freaking out right, They're they're activating all of the you know,
all of the switches available to them. And it's not
it's completely innocuous, but that reaction can kill it. And look,
you know, I think that we're sort of witnessing a
moment where Trump is sort of being absorbed, at least
partially or co opted by, you know, kind of the
Neocon establishment, which is a separate discussion, but nonetheless, I
think that that sort of supervillain monologue, you know, that's
sort of something that you'd roll your eyes at in
a movie. The fact that that is being produced, the
fact that you have people saying like, oh, well, we
should just throw all these people in jail, you know,
send them to the Hague. The idea that you know,
we're going to come back and stomp on you forever.
I mean, that's not a good move politically. But this,
you know, as you said, this orange orangutan has sort
of produced that response, and we sort of allowed them
to self sabotage in a way that I think is
is interesting. So maybe this is the going through the
you know, the stages of grief, right, and it's sort
of you know, reaching acceptance with it. But I do
think that that's sort of, you know, an interesting way
to look at it. That you know, he could have
been normalized, he could have been brought in and we
could have just you know, made some concessions and the
you know, the horrible globalist project would have you know,
slowed down slightly. And as you said, you know, this
sort of replacement would have resumed its kind of role
as like a you know, just a bureaucratic inevitability. But
because they couldn't, they have now created an awareness. A
great example of this, and I was talking to a
trucker about this last night, is the kind of state
of uh, you know, horrific uh you know, attacked or
horrific crashes, accidents, And now I learned you're not supposed
to say accident. You're supposed to say a crash because
it was it could have been prevented. But point is,
he said, like, this is an issue that's been going
on for decades, but because of one the climate around
immigration and two the fact that people were essentially stoked
up into a rage all of a sudden, this has
become an issue that is no longer simply you know,
one of the many things that you know, a minority
of people is upset about to a major issue. And
so I think that you know, the the kind of
insane reaction of the left has sort of produced a
much healthier right wing resistance. It's still nation, it's not
done yet. It's not in power. But again, if we
look at that trend line, it's ultimately positive. But Harrison,
we're overtime men. It was great to have you on.
I really enjoyed this conversation. But where can people find you?
Speaker 3: Man? Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: I enjoyed it too, very stimulating. We should be and
we should make sure to have another one in the
in the not too distant future.
Speaker 3: People can find me. I think my handle on Twitter
is Harry Underscroll Pitt p I T T.
Speaker 4: I do a monthly show for the European conservative magazine
called The Forge, where I've interviewed and had lively exchanges
and debates with all sorts of interesting figures and of course,
most importantly of all, at Restore Britain. My workload at
Restore Britain is a little bit more periodic in that
it takes a long time to write, you know, sort
of long comprehensive reports about trying to embark on a
policy of mass deportations on our next one is going
to be on coming out next month hopefully, and it's
going to be on restoring England and indeed, indeed by
extension Britain's but primarily England's find common law traditions around
self defense and the integrity of the home in an
age of a Narco tyranny. So bringing back ordered freedom
as the sort of the corrective to an Arco tyranny
in the British context, because we in Britain have been
much less protective in a paradox school way of our
common law traditions than you have in the United States.
I know things are bad there, you still have some
pretty good, like practical wisdom embedded into your legal tradition.
We've been busily justicing jettisoning that over the last one
hundred years, and it's high time that it will restored,
and so that will be our next paper. So if
you're on the Restore Britson website and follow Rupert Low
on Twitter and follow the Restore Briton page on x
you will get a good sense of what we're trying
to do to set things right here in the mother country.
Speaker 3: Well good.
Speaker 5: There are a few issues that I get obviously my
own nation, of course, but there are a few things
that affect me more emotionally than what goes on in
your nation. You know. Obviously, as we've said, there's a
great degree of cultural and genetic overlap. But man, I
hope you win. The politicians in your country are the
crime cannot be overstated. This is something where I have
to be careful. I will say very radical things.
Speaker 3: But careful, caful for careful for my sake given that.
Speaker 5: Well that's what I'm thinking of, of course, But genuinely,
I hope you win. You're doing the Lord's work. So
everyone you know, as much as you can, support this
endeavor and follow them on social media. As far as
my stuff Jay Burton Show, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, if you
want to pay me a few bucks a month, get
the episodes early and ad free comes up to fifteen
cents an hour right for the content. It's really it's
a pretty good deal by do you say so myself?
And it's what I do, so I appreciate your support.
Check out our sponsor, Axios Remote Fitness Coaching. I think
they're doing some sort of Christmas special, so if you're interested,
maybe check it out. Either they are or I made
that up, in which case JD will be forced to
do it because I've now said it on air, which
is ultimately the same thing. But yeah, Harrison, I'll have
to have you on again. This was a great conversation
and everyone at home keep your head up. I can't
last forever. Good Night,