Transcript of #2524 - Rupert Lowe

Joe Rogan Podcast, check it out!

The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night.

All day!

Thank you for being here, really appreciate it.

No, it's my pleasure.

And thank you to Brett Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, and Elon Musk for helping connect us.

Well, we are going to see Elon on Sunday, so he's been an incredible support for us. Yeah. So I don't know how you want to play the— I'm totally in your hands, I'll follow your lead. But I mean, he's been helping us because Britain's in bad shape.

And, uh, yeah, and that's why you're here. And this is what we're talking about.

We're talking with the Rape Gang. We've, we've done— this is a— we've crowdfunded this.

Okay.

Uh, which I'm very happy to, to talk to you about, which I think—

just this title of that Rape Gang report.

Yeah.

The idea that there's rape— there's actual rape gangs in the UK in 2026. And it's— is it being ignored? Is it being downplayed? Like, how is it being received by the media and by the politicians over there?

Well, the history of it is that basically, as you probably know, Britain after the war decided they were going to play a part in Europe, a bigger part in Europe. Well, our elite did, the British elite. And to do that, they had to basically diminish the power of the nation-state and they had to head towards this European superstate which is the EU, the genesis of which was obviously in the—

Why did they have to diminish the power of the nation to do that?

Because I think Britain was a proud nation state. We, with the American help, we'd won the war and we hadn't been invaded or conquered which most of Europe had been. So you'd had mass dislocation in Europe. Huge numbers of people had been dislocated and pushed all over Europe. And I think the socialists— I was in the European Parliament, so I spent a brief time as an MEP, a member of the European Parliament. When we finally achieved Bre— well, a kind of Brexit, we can talk about that, but it wasn't a proper Brexit. So I think the genesis of the rape gangs, going back to this, was the fact that multiculturalism was the order of the day. They wanted open borders. They wanted a multicultural society. They basically felt the nation state had been the cause of world wars, effectively starting with Napoleon. Then obviously we had the Kaiser, then we had Hitler. And I think they saw it that way, the Monets, the Spinellis, and the people who constructed the European Union. So to the rape gang report, which was your question, ultimately the genesis of that is this multicultural invasion almost of Europe.

Can I pause you for a second? So what you think is that the multicultural invasion, the way it was set up was on purpose and it was on purpose to sort of diminish the idea of nationalism?

Yes. I think that— well, I'm—

And so this was like a long plan. So this was something that they must have had to sit down and like, who would be involved in this sort of a discussion where you would be willing to diminish patriotism, diminish this idea that Britain by itself is exceptional and the people are exceptional?

It was a long, deceitful plan. So I always say—

Who implemented it?

The European elites in league with our elite who effectively, if you remember in 1975, we joined what was called the European Economic Community. It wasn't effectively anything other than an economic union. But that very quickly changed and effectively they tried to politically integrate Europe. That failed and then in '97, they tried to force it through with the introduction of the euro. So having failed politically, they tried to do it financially. That was my first foray into standing as a member of parliament to fight to save the British pound because once you lose your currency, effectively you lose your— you your sovereignty and your national identity. And our gold reserves were going to be shipped out to Germany, to Frankfurt. And we would have become a vassal state, part of the European Union. It would have been irreversible. But in the event, we— thanks to Sir James Goldsmith, we secured enough votes. We forced the establishment to promise a referendum before they surrendered to the euro. And we ended up saving the pound, which in the end resulted in the referendum in 2016 where the British people voted to take back their sovereignty, which ultimately I think the establishment always knew that the core, the body of Britain or body of England in particular wanted its own accountable parliament in Westminster.

It didn't want to be part of an unaccountable European socialist protectionist superstate.

So the quote-unquote elites in Britain and the elites in the United States, it's coordinated with both of them.

I think less so in America, Joe. I, I, I can't speak for America, although when you look at what the Democrats did with USAID and all the stuff that was going on on Joe Biden, you have to wonder whether they began with the World Economic Forum to play a part in this. But I, I think the post-war plan for Europe was founded on a socialist principle, whereas I think America has always been a, a very sound, uh, politically based structure based on obviously, you know, the founding fathers and your constitution, which I always think returns power to the individual and has always understood that the dangers are status dangers, not individual dangers. So I'm very much in the camp, I like the individual and a minimal state. And I think that's much more in your DNA than it is in the European DNA, which tends to be more statist.

Right. So they did this on purpose and they brought in people from what country specifically?

Well, initially you got in Britain, you got people from Africa. You got the Windrush generation. So you've got a lot of Africans came ostensibly to fill jobs that they always say the British people don't want to do. And it gathered momentum. It was relatively slow to start with. So you had an influx of people coming to the UK. You had open borders in Europe. So one of the absolute embedded rules they have is this freedom of movement concept. So they don't have effectively national borders. But we still obviously had the channel, but we embraced this and we started this immigration. What happened is it gradually happened, and I think these rape gangs have been going on, or we know they have, for 30, 40, probably 50 years to a lesser extent. But when Tony Blair got in and he undermined a lot of constitutional sort of historical law, you got an acceleration of immigration from other parts of the world. Not, not just from Europe, but also from other countries, South Asian countries in particular. Who came to the UK. And the genesis of the rape gangs really is, I think, the cultural oil and water mix of these people coming from what I call clannish societies in South Asia and joint— coming to very high-trust societies such as the one we had and the one you have here, which have taken thousands of years to develop.

So they're high-trust societies where And you know, Lee Kuan Yew based Singapore on post-war Britain where you could— you had honesty boxes for newspapers in London and you had a country that was completely at peace with itself. So it won the war, it respected peace, it respected freedom and people were building, rebuilding their lives having fought a Second World War to free Europe from sort of, in this case, Germany. Previously, we'd done it at Waterloo when we relieved Europe of the French with Napoleon. So it's— it really accelerated after '97 when a lot of the legislation that Tony Blair and his cohorts passed, such as the Human Rights Act, which embeds within it the ECHR. He created the Supreme Court. He— they passed laws like the Equalities Act, and there are a raft of other legal acts they passed which effectively empowered a multicultural society. Which in some ways I think damaged the interests of the British people. So—

And you think this is on purpose? And this is my point, is what is the benefit for them to be joined up with the rest of Europe? Is it just purely financial? Is it a power-based strategy where if you can diminish the quality of life for people and institute more laws and put more restrictions on them, you can control them easier and it's— less pushback for the politicians, less pushback for the people that are in charge. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace, the home of my website, joerogan.com. If you want to level up your business, you got to improve your website. Squarespace gives you everything you need to get a fully custom website, offer services, sell products, and get paid all all in one place. Go to squarespace.com/rogan for a free trial, and when you are ready to launch, use code ROGAN to get 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Denk an den 31. Juli. Wieso?

Last call für deine Steuer.

Oh no, ich weiß gar nicht, wo ich anfangen soll. Bei Wieso Steuer? Das ist wie Steuererklärung, nur ohne Stress. Ist das einfach? Klar, macht fast alles automatisch.

Dauert das lange? Nö, einfach per App. Na dann. Hol dir jetzt dein Geld zurück mit Wieso Steuer. Bis zum 31. Juli abgeben. Basically, yes, I think it's the age-old battle between individualism and collectivism. So I think the EU is a collectivist construct, whereas I think Britain as it was under our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, which as you probably know, our Bill of Rights in 1689, a lot of that was lifted to— by your founding fathers who embedded it within the US Constitution. So, and that embeds freedom of speech, it embeds the individual, embeds all of the rights that I think make the Anglo-Saxon world great.

And so how did it deteriorate to the point where they're arresting 12,000 people a year for social media posts?

It's, Joe, it's shocking. And this is why I have got involved in politics. I've been involved in politics since I fought the Maastricht Treaty and then stood, as I said, in '97. I did a a lot for Business for Sterling, a lot for Vote Leave, then I stood for the Brexit Party and I was elected there. So I've been fighting this march towards an unaccountable state which effectively rewards collectivism and punishes individualism to the extent that now I find myself at the age of 68 as an MP running a party called Restore Britain to try and reverse this tide. To re-empower the individual, to return to our original constitution, and to protect the interests above all else of the British people, to whom I think government should be accountable.

Do they still have that kind of unchecked immigration? Is it currently ongoing?

We still have illegal migrants arriving by boat. They can't be under the current laws and treaties that we're part of. They are not being deported. The judges, thanks to the creation of the Supreme Court, They are now a quango, a woke quango. I think a lot of our judiciary is corrupt. So the answer to your question is we still have illegal migration and we have people living in Britain illegally. We have a lot of foreign prisoners in our prisons and we have people who've come in under various waves of immigration, one of which, the biggest of which was probably under Boris Johnson, who was actually a Conservative prime minister. Who allowed thousands, hundreds of thousands of people to come into Britain. And basically they are now a burden to the British taxpayer. So the answer to your question is they're arriving illegally still, they're living here illegally, or living in Britain illegally still. We've got foreign criminals in our prisons and we've got, we've still got the legacy of this huge amount of immigration which took place.

And are a large percentage of these people receiving welfare from the British government?

Yes.

What percentage?

Well, most of the people who arrive, they're all supported, Joe. I mean, they're put in hotels.

So immediately, as soon as you get there?

In Parliament, I see the contracts. Thanks to my parliamentary questions, I'm allowed to ask questions and scrutinize the contracts for, for instance, the Bibby Stockholm, as it was, a boat which cost the British taxpayer £1.5 billion. It's actually now lying redundant and not being used. But I've seen the contracts for these illegal migrants in terms of the laundry services they get, in terms of the— Laundry services? —taxi services they get, in terms of the food they require. I mean, literally, it is like— it's like staying in a very comfortable hotel. And we've now got these people being settled all across our country. How many? In hotels. Well, I don't think the government knows, Joe, to answer your question. I don't think they know how many people are living in Britain illegally.

Was it the similar situation that America had over the last 4 years where the— on the low number, they think it was 10 million people came in, which is insane. It's an insane amount of people to come in in 4 years.

We think there's enough work to do initially to detain and deport people who are arriving illegally. I mean, to my mind, illegal means illegal. Right. So it's fairly straightforward. To the people who are arriving illegally, people living here illegally, the foreign criminals, there's plenty of work to do to remove them from Britain. And then I think we need to turn our attention, and that's in our mass deportation document, I've given you a copy of that, which effectively sets out the constitutional reasons why we have a problem, how we correct those constitutional issues, and how we then practically detain and deport the people who aren't supposed to be here. And once we've done that, we will then turn our attention to people who are living in Britain, to your point, who are on welfare, who are going to cost the taxpayer a fortune for the rest of their lives probably, who aren't working, who are culturally different to us, who have a different view of their religion to the Christian religion, and are increasingly living in small groups of people who haven't integrated. Who are living under Sharia law and who have their own courts. They have their own courts?

They have their own courts, Sharia courts, yes. A parallel legal system.

Okay, so it's an unrecognized by the British government parallel legal system that exists inside of England. It's tolerated. Tolerated. So they're aware of it? Yes. And they're aware of the punishments that this court dishes out?

It's rather like they're policing their own people under their own laws. And they're just allowing that? They are allowing that. Yeah. Whoa. Now, I believe, I don't know about you, but I believe if you come to our country, you should live under our laws.

Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, the idea of, well, the United States in particular is a melting pot and, you know, people come from all over the place and it's one of the cool things. It is all these different cultures, but there's certain cultures that if you allow them to come into your community and then they institute the laws of the country where they came from, you're going to have a real problem. Like, they don't live the way you live. They don't have the same respect for women that you have. They don't treat them the same way. They don't allow dogs. Like, there's a lot of, like— That's right. —stuff that a lot of people might not even be aware that come with that problem. It's like, the idea is supposed to be that Western society is inclusive and progressive because we're intelligent and educated and we care. But you can care so much that you let in criminals, and then you give those criminals all your money, and then the criminals can take over your country slowly but surely. So— and this is the— no one thinks that's a possible thing. No, people look at the Colosseum, you look at ancient Greece, and they think, wow, wonder what happened to those guys.

What do you think happened? Probably the same shit that's happening right now to England, the same shit that could have happened to America. It's Civilizations fall apart for various reasons and one great way to get them to fall apart is to bring in a bunch of people and they don't have to follow your laws and they bring the laws of, you know, wherever they're from, whatever fundamentalist religion country they're from where they have a bunch of crazy laws that are kind of archaic.

Well, this is Sharia law, Islamic law as you probably know. I mean again to your point, I think the best example I can give people of What happens if you do that is when Lebanon got its independence in 1948, they were a Christian country and they were a very confident country. They were, you know, they had the best universities. They had a very open society. I never went to Beirut. I don't know if you went to Beirut, but Beirut in the '60s was meant to be the best place on earth to be. Great wine, freedom, very enlightened. It was a great— lots of people were there. The minute that the Muslim population went over about 15%, you started to get a problem with a civil war. You got the Druze and Maronite Christians in a civil war with the Muslims. And now Lebanon is a Muslim country and Hezbollah backed by Iran is effectively running the show. So, to your point, I couldn't agree more. The Rape Gang report, which we've written, was crowdfunded by 20,000 concerned English people who— we raised not a huge amount of money. We raised about £600,000 in varying quantities people gave.

And we did it because the government will not have a statutory inquiry. So our government, and particularly the Labor Labor Party have been presiding over this because it goes to the Muslim bloc vote. So we have in the UK a system of postal voting and in a lot of the inner cities and the places where these Islamic populations live, they are or have historically voted Labor. That's beginning to change. They're beginning to vote for Muslim independents now and I sit with some of them at the back of Parliament. So effectively, this inquiry we did, we set out with a completely unbiased view of what we would find. And we did it because we were pushing the government to have a statutory inquiry. And a lot of the reason I got involved in it was I think it was Elon Musk who triggered— he talked about it because a lot of people in the UK I don't think know the extent to which this has been happening and the length of time it's been happening for.

This episode is brought to you by OnX Off-Road. Ever wonder how to reach these epic mountain lakes or tucked away dispersed campsites? With OnX Off-Road, you'll find legal open trails around you and even better guided trails mapped by real off-roaders. Each one includes photos, terrain descriptions, and difficulty ratings so you'll know if your vehicle's capable before you go. Unlike other OnX gives you turn-by-turn directions on the trail, and their new dispersed camping layer shows where you can legally set up camp. You also get private land boundaries, public land overlays, and the ability to download maps for offline use so that you're never guessing even when you're off the grid. It's a powerful tool built for serious off-roaders. Try OnX Off-Road for 50% off. Go to Onxmaps.com/jorogan. Why is that? What is that, a failure of your media? Is it a failure of the politicians? Like, why don't people know about this?

It's a total failure of the media because the media are supposed to be an independent body that holds to account failures of the state. And it's basically because this block vote through the postal voting system, which needs to be changed, is effectively, or has been, keeping the Labor Party in power. So they've put power ahead of principle. And in the report we cover this. We've covered the reasons why it's so serious. And to your point, we even cover, as you quite rightly say, the fact that dogs are not liked by the Islamic faith largely because Muhammad liked cats. He didn't like dogs. And we— what we wanted to do was interview victims, which we did. We did it properly. It took us over a year. We had a rape gang victim, Sammy Woodhouse, who led it. She's got a child by her rapist. And we had a team of people. And we literally produced the witness bundles. And we listened to the witnesses. And then we had a 2-week hearing in London. Where people gave evidence and we had a proper barrister who effectively presided over it and then helped us write the report. It's effectively Graham Smith, the barrister, did a fantastic job.

And we didn't start out with any preconceived ideas. It started because we read some court transcripts of some of the people who've been found guilty of this, which the government, by the way, has tried to keep quiet. Some of the historical court transcripts disappear. So we've been calling for these transcripts to be kept now. We've actually tried to make a noise about that. And the more we read this and the more we carried on with the rape gang inquiry, the more it became clear to us that obviously there's a link between this, this power and the abuse and grooming and, if you like, damage that was done to white working-class English girls. And it does go— and in the report we've looked at the reasons why, to your point, there is a cultural difference of opinion between an open, high-trust Christian view of women particularly and the Islamic view of women, which is all in the report. So, for instance, the As you probably know, if a woman accuses somebody of rape— and a lot of these Muslims come from Pakistan, Joe, they're predominantly Pakistan and they're predominantly from one part of Pakistan called Mirpur.

There are some from Bangladesh, there are some from Somalia, there are some from Eritrea, there are other Muslim countries that perpetrate some of this and of course there are white people who perpetrate rape as well, but nothing on the scale of this. This is, this is quite horrific. And our report has effectively uncovered this. I think we've played a part with this report in the government saying that they're going to have now a statutory inquiry, because we didn't have any statutory powers to be able to force people to appear at our hearing. They all appeared voluntarily. The government can actually force people legally to appear. They can actually make it a legal requirement that people attend. We, we couldn't do that. But there had been reports in the past. There was the J report in, in, in, in 2014, and there's been the Casey report, all of which confirmed that this was happening, and the state still continued to try and pretend it was just happening in a small number of siloed areas where you obviously had a high Islamic population. The state has equally failed to collect data on the crimes that are perpetrated, so the ethnicity of the people who are perpetrating the crimes, and from there you can extrapolate once you've got the data as to whether or not you've got an extraordinary problem in one particular section of society.

And again, using my parliamentary questions, I've been forcing as much disclosure as I can get. And this is how we've discovered that a lot of the data that should be being collected by the police, particularly by the National Health Service, by social services, a lot of the data has not been properly collected. Possibly because the state does, I think, know that this is happening, but they don't want to admit that their multicultural experiment, which, as you probably know, famously Enoch Powell warned would fail, with his speech, the Rivers of Blood speech, for which he was heavily criticized. So I think they do know, but they don't want to admit it. They don't want to be called racist. They don't want to— and this has permeated the whole of British society since Tony Blair. People are frightened to be accused of effectively being biased and white. And we're taught about things you probably— I don't know what you have it here— unconscious bias and all of the other sort of what I call woke, DEI-driven rubbish, which, which has permeated Britain in the same way. I think it may have originally come from, from you guys, but it's— yeah, it's, it's certainly had a huge effect on us.

I think it had a great grip on us for a few years, and it's lessened its hold.

Well, thanks to the Donald.

Yeah, yeah, that helped a lot. And I think a big part of it was Elon buying Twitter. Yeah, where you got legitimate free speech. And which is again back to this 12,000 people getting arrested each year for social media posts recently. That is— how is that tolerated? I just don't understand how people aren't— I was about to say up in arms, but that's also part of the problem, is that no one's armed over there.

We are. Well, I have actually got some guns, Joe, because I have a farm. So when you come to the UK, I hope you'll come and shoot some pheasants with me. Oh. But if you don't have a farm— Well, if you don't have a farm, you'll find it very difficult to get a gun of any kind, and even if you have a farm. So Reform tried to politically assassinate me in '25, early '25, and made false accusations about me threatening to hit one of the— Zia Yousaf in a meeting, and somebody was saying I went around Parliament saying I was a very good shot and I was going to shoot Zia Yousaf. I mean, as if you believe that. I've got a completely clean record. I employ lots of people. I have lots of businesses, and I've never had an issue. But listen, 4 armed police turned up, took all my guns away. I mean, and I'm a member of parliament. I said to them, guys, you could have just called me up and we could have talked about it, but no. Wow. They turned up. Just from an accusation. 9:30 at night, left at quarter to 12.

We got them on the cameras. Took all my guns, all my ammo, and it took me 5 or 6 months to get them all back. But look, so, They don't want the public to have guns, and they are doing their very best to damage the shooters who perfectly legitimately like to go and shoot clay pigeons, who like to go and shoot game, who like to go and hunt. Effectively, they're trying to make that very difficult through the licensing laws for guns. As you probably know, they banned handguns— The '90s, right? In the late '90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane. One murder. One murder. So, so everybody— my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University, and he had— he's dead now, bless him— but he had all his pistols were taken away, the gun, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University. I mean, I mean, we now have a society which needs radical change, and, and we need to release the individual. And to your point on social media posts, there was a lovely lady, Lucy Conley, who was locked up for something for 32 months for just a very emotional social media post, which she deleted after 4 hours, about the Southport killings where this chap, Axel Ruddock Obama, went and knifed 3 young girls and killed them.

Despite the fact that the British state through Prevent was aware of this, And we've had a similar case recently with Henry Novak where again, it was actually, I think on this occasion, a Sikh stabbed him and the police, despite the fact when they arrived at the scene, he told them he'd been stabbed, the police didn't believe him and they tried to handcuff him. And as a result of that, it's arguable that they opened up the wound, the stab wound, and he drowned in his own blood. Meanwhile, his murderer was never handcuffed. So this is, this is where the British state's gone completely wrong. So instead of one law for everybody and one policing for everybody, this, this sort of view that the, the white population is racist, which I don't personally believe them to be— I think Britain is, is a very tolerant country.

Do you think that this perspective that society sort of adopted in the UK about white people being bad. Do you think this was— there was architecture to it? This was by design that this was done? Or is this just a natural response to people being called racist? Because of course in the past there was more racism than there is today, and people always want to point to that racism as you know, evidence of colonialism, evidence of whatever it is that happened in days past. But why in England do you think that narrative took hold so well?

Because I think, Joe, to your point, that this post-war plan for multiculturalism, I think they realized that they've got a—

So it was by design? They've got a problem. So part of it was probably infiltrating the universities and promoting these kind of ideas.

It's almost as if with the World Economic Forum, there's this view that the Anglo-Saxon nations have commanded and dominated too much of the world's resources. And there's almost like this misguided altruistic view that we should become more concerned with global welfare rather than the welfare of our own citizens, which I totally disagree with.

Well, there's also the "you will own nothing and you will be happy." This is, this is your Klaus Schwab, uh, which is hilarious. Someone would even say that out loud. I know. You own nothing and you'll be happy. Like, is this a part of an Orwell book? Because this doesn't seem like a real person would say something like that, because who the fuck is gonna listen to that? It doesn't make any sense.

Well, George Orwell has been rather accurate in terms of—

he's dead on. He was actually pretty optimistic. Like, his views, his version of the world was, uh,— you know, a little bit more palatable than what we're dealing with right now.

Interesting man, Old Etonian, fought in the Spanish Civil War. I mean, he was a very quirky Englishman who clearly had a hugely prescient foresight and I think probably like— certainly like me, he had a healthy disrespect for what I call collectivist statism and he was very much an individual.

A believer in the individual. It's really interesting because when I first read that book was in high school, and I kept thinking like, what a crazy— this would never happen, this is not even possible, but what a crazy world this guy's created in his imagination. Yeah, things going completely haywire. And then you realize as time goes on, oh, that's totally possible. It's totally possible that things can get that ridiculous. I mean, when you're dealing with, you know, Male, biologically male athletes that can compete against women because they identify as a woman and use women's locker rooms. All the craziness that we deal with today, the open border situation. No one's illegal on stolen land. Hey, fuck off. Like, what are we— what are we doing? Like, what is this?

Well, it's almost as if we're— if we're subverting all the things that made us great. Yeah.

And, you know, there's nothing wrong with immigration. But there's— it's probably a good idea to make sure no one— someone's not a fucking murderer before you let them in. Like, the idea that there should be no border at all is like, if the world was perfect, that sounds wonderful. If the world was perfect, everybody paid their taxes and everybody followed the laws, why have borders? Clearly it's not perfect, you know. Go to— go to Pakistan, go to Karachi, go hang out, go— go down Go out to the street as a woman in a miniskirt and see how that works out. Go to some place—

Again, Joe, this is— you're quite right. This is— I mean, Pakistan is, I think, the example of a rogue state, basically. And I think their view of, as you say, women who dress in ways other than the ways of Sharia, i.e., totally covered. And again, it's all in various of the Hadiths, which we quote in the Rape Gang Report. They are considered to be meat and this is something I've never understood. How do you square this circle of this sort of clannish backward-looking culture which comes to a highly open, high-trust society and then embeds itself within that society and undermines everything that we've achieved over 1,000 years?

And acknowledging that is somehow or another racist. Acknowledging that some cultures are superior is somehow or another racist. Just understanding human rights, understanding the rights of individuals to be free, to not be subjected to other people's archaic laws. And this is— look, these— a lot of cultures in this world live as people lived thousands of years ago. No one in the United States wants to live as people lived thousands of years ago. No one. And this is not a racist thing. Like, you should be able to come over here and practice whatever religion you want. But if your religion has rules that violate the laws that we've all agreed are just and fair, then you're not integrating and if you take over a whole town and now that town is subject to these archaic laws, we've got a problem and if you let that problem get bigger and bigger, they take over the country and that's an actual possibility for certain countries and we have to recognize that civilization is not as sturdy as we like to think it is. It's kind of, kind of flimsy in a lot of ways. A few bad things can happen and things can go sideways quite quickly.

Well, I think liberty is very fragile, isn't it? Ultimately, if you don't protect liberty, you lose it, right? It was Margaret Thatcher who was very strong on this.

And you have to have laws.

You have to have laws. You have— but what you also have to have is everyone should be equal under the law. Yes. And to your point, I couldn't agree more. I mean, Britain used to be a very tolerant society. So for instance, Europe was very anti-Semitic. Britain was never anti-Semitic. We used to welcome a lot of, uh, Jews and Protestants from Europe who were being persecuted, particularly in France with the Protestants. So we were a very tolerant society, but the people who came integrated and they contributed. And that is the essence, I think, of sensible immigration. So it should be limited, targeted, and it should be only people who accept your religion and your culture and your—

but what do you do though if someone comes over here and then they they're not violating laws, they're not violating any laws, they achieve citizenship, but then they start bringing over more and more people and then start instituting Sharia law. What do you do? Do you deport them all? Like, how do you— like, this idea of having all these people recognizing how many people got in illegally, deporting them, mass deportations, deporting criminals, it all sounds great until you talk about actually implementing it. Like, how do you do that? How are you doing that? Are you gonna knock on people's doors and pull them out of their homes and ship them back to where they came from? Like, how do you do that?

I think the first thing you do is you stop them coming across the channel.

Okay, well, how many—

They shouldn't be coming anywhere under international law because they're traveling across safe countries, so they shouldn't be coming.

What's the estimate of the amount of illegal immigration that you have in Britain?

It's almost impossible to say how many people are living there illegally or living with us illegally, but in our paper, I mean, we think it's sort of 1.8 to 2 million people, probably. That's our estimate. But people arriving, we know how many are arriving. There's a lot arriving every day, particularly when the sea is calm.

How many arrive every day?

They're coming, it can vary. I mean, you can get 1,000 in a day. You can get, if the sea's rough, you get none, 'cause obviously they suffer if they try and cross in little overcrowded dinghies. They can't get across. But we're paying the French over half a billion pounds a year to try and stop it. That I think is not happening. And as a result of that, you know, our border patrol picks them up, gives them bottles of water, brings them in and settles them in hotels and pays them welfare. They become— and then they apply for residency and they say they're asylum seekers. I argue most of them are economic migrants. But you know, our woke culture is, is not protecting the interests of the British people.

And it's also a massive incentive. If you live in a terribly poor country and you can just get to England and then instantaneously you will get money and housing— that's right— why would you not do that?

Well, not only that, you go to the top of the waiting list for dental treatment, which, which British people don't get. The NHS— why is the top of the way?

Wait a minute, they get They get access to dental treatment that the British people don't get? Correct. Correct. Why?

Why do immigrants get access to it? This, Joe, is the mystery of what our leaders— I don't know what they think they're doing, but they have this misguided view that these people are— actually, they call them asylum seekers. They say they need to be looked after and protected. They're not. They're economic migrants. And to your point, if they know there's welfare when they reach Britain, they'll travel across multiple safe countries to get to the the welfare, the free housing.

Yeah, of course.

And all the other stuff. So, and then, unless you deal with issues like the rape gangs and you force them to adhere to UK law and respect our laws, our culture, and our religion, they gradually set up their own cultures and with their own laws, as I said, and there are large tracts of the country now where we've got these Islamic settlements which which effectively operate almost as a sort of parallel society. I don't know whether it's quite the same here, whether you've got the similar thing with the Somalis in Minnesota. I don't—

You do in Dearborn, Michigan. Dearborn, Michigan just had a gigantic Islamic parade where you just see tens of thousands of people holding flags and walking on the street and it's kind of crazy. It's crazy that— and they've also— one of the things that's funny about Dearborn is all the progressives, it's a very liberal place, they're like, "Welcome, welcome." Welcome, everyone's welcome for all cultures. And as soon as they got into power, they banned the pride flag. That was the first thing they did.

Well, I'm afraid they have quite strong views on that sort of thing.

Oh yeah, that's why, yeah, Queers for Palestine is always hilarious. Like, and then you see the meme Palestine for Queers and it's throwing people off roofs.

It's like the chap who runs our Green Party is a gay Jew. So I mean, he, you know, again, he's going to have a problem if these guys get anywhere near power. But that doesn't seem to put the progressives off. They still seem to—

But this is what's crazy is that their society is complete— like Islamic society is completely patriarchal. The women are absolutely second-class citizens. They have completely different laws for how the women can dress. What happens to the woman if someone has sex with— if someone has First of all, if they commit adultery, they could be killed.

Stoned.

Stoned to death. Yeah, and I— It's in our wiki. I watched a horrible video where a father did it to his daughter.

Yes, you do get these killings. Honor killings.

Honor killings, yeah. Or brothers, the brother will kill the daughter if the daughter shames the family. It's like, hey guys, how are you progressive when you're supporting this? And it's because the concept of not being racist, not being called racist, the fear of that is so strong They're willing to adopt all sorts of things that are the complete antithesis of everything they believe in.

Well, in the UK, I don't know if you have it here, but the #MeToo movement, it always fascinates me that they never seem to say anything about these, what I call, clannish tribal cultures who have a completely different view of women. Yeah. And to your point, you know, again, in our report, a woman, if she accuses in Pakistan a man of rape, uh, she has to have 4 male witnesses who actually have to witness and swear that they've seen her being penetrated by the rapist. And you've actually got women in prison because if she can't prove that she's been raped under those rules, then she can be sent to prison. And there are many women languishing in Pakistani prisons for that very reason. And this is the sort of extraordinary cultural oil and water which just doesn't mix.

It's also the mental gymnastics that you have to have to accept that as a part of Britain, and because you're progressive, is really crazy. It just shows how these ideologies, these cult-like ideologies, can completely defy logic, completely defy common sense, and just You have a set of rules that you're supposed to adhere to. You— if you deviate from those rules, you're a racist. You don't want to be a racist, right? Then everyone's welcome.

As you say, it's, it's honor killings. It's tribal. Yeah, your first loyalty is to your, your tribe and your family, not your host country who's, who's actually got their own laws. There are all sorts of Hadith rulings which they can, they can use to justify it. I mean, for instance, if they rape a, a white girl, that doesn't count in their, in their view of life as adultery. So they are effectively taught that a girl who doesn't dress as they would dress is, is meat to be abused. And, and they have these, they have these extraordinary sort of cultural views. You see— That are completely incompatible in my view with a society like ours where, you know, we are a matriarchal society which respects women. I think we have grown to respect women. Obviously, they had— they've now got an omnipotent position within our society, certainly in the UK. I'm sure it's true here too and quite right. They play a part in our society. They're a very, very important part of everything. But again, under, you know, the Islamic code, I think that the Muslims are frightened of female sexuality. It's all there. And as you know, you get FGM, female genital mutilation.

So these cultures, I think, Joe, and to your point, are just incompatible unless you have a very strong government which basically protects its electorate from any subversive behavior which is not compatible with our values.

You keep using the term meat. Is that how they actually refer to it?

That's how they consider it, yeah. What do they say? Like, how are they— That's— it's in our report that that's— that there was actually, I think it was— I think it was—

Is it a translation?

I think Thomas Jefferson, actually, it's in our report, asked the Barbary pirates about the way in which they treated their slaves and their women. That was particularly— they just also slavery is accepted within Islamic countries. So I think they have their own codes, they have their own terms of reference. And there is a quote in there, I'd have to look at the report to give it to you, but where one of them does liken white girls not dressing as Muslim girls dress, and he does liken it to meat. Jesus. And, you know, that is an analogy he used. So I mean, yeah, I think that's what they think.

So this rape gang inquiry report that you have just released, the number— I want you to say it because it sounds so crazy. If I say it, people, it's going to sound wrong. What the number of people that were victims, the estimate?

Well, we've estimated that a minimum of a quarter of a million rapes have taken place. It's probably much, much more, Joe. Much, much more. Because we published in here, I think it's a list of 147 parts of the UK where this is happening. Now, the government tries to tell you it's happening in Rochdale, Oldham, you know, one or two, Bradford, one or two centers, and that's why their statutory inquiry, the terms of reference of that have now been downgraded. So they make it look as if it's not a systemic problem, but just a little local problem, which it isn't. So we've, we've listed here, and they're all in here, the places where we know it's happening from our Rape Gang Inquiry. But every time we publish this, Joe, I get people emailing us or sending us messages on social media to say, what about Redruth in Cornwall? What about— it's happening here, it's happening here, it's happening here. So I think it's incredibly widespread. And there's, you know, other people who've corroborated that quarter of a million figure. That's an incredibly conservative figure. You can't be exact because the state is not collecting the data, which it should be doing.

And we've been lobbying in Parliament to make sure that the state's collection of the data improves. And then we can actually see the extent of the problem and you can actually pinpoint it. In the same way that we've done it in this report. So this is— I think it's linked to organized crime. I think it's linked to the drug trade. I'm pretty sure it's linked to drug trade, and obviously it's linked to prostitution. So as usual with an evil like this, and you've got girls who are transported around in the back of pickups and in cages And at our rape gang inquiry, we had examples of girls who were raped by dogs and filmed, either anally raped or vaginally raped, and literally watched, filmed. And a lot of it's about servitude and about, you know, there's other stories in here about women having to lick the face, the feet of their rapists. It's about power. It's about servitude and it's about the fact that Muslim men are taught to believe that they are superior, not only to women, but they're superior to people like yourself and myself who are considered to be, if you like, the infidels.

And their job is to effectively spread Islam and effectively punish the infidel. And as you probably know, in the Crusades, if you lost to Saladin and you were a Knights Templar, a Crusader, you had two choices. You either converted to Islam or they killed you. And in the case of a lot of these girls, a lot of them were made pregnant. They were impregnated and they then had to convert to Islam. Some of them were trafficked to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, other parts of the world. So look, I mean, this, this is a massive national scandal, and I, I'm hoping— now I'm an MP, we've written this report, and this should stimulate debate. I've— we sent a copy of this on a PDF to every MP, and we're going to send this printed copy to all of them as well. You— because everybody in power should look at this and they should start to correct it immediately.

You, you use the term— the term is used rape gang. Why, why are you saying gang? And this is an organized practice?

Yes, yes.

So it's not as simple as Islamic men are raping poor white girls. It's that they go out in gangs specifically for this purpose.

They— these are properly organized gangs who are grooming and abusing young girls as young as 10 or 11, and then literally trafficking them around the country. We know that from, from, from, from the testimonies we've had. So originally, when I went into Parliament, I was, I was late elected, late. So I was elected in, in July '24, uh, so at the tender age of 67. So I, so I I— we, we heard them being referred to as Asian grooming gangs, which I think is a misnomer because it's unfair on, for instance, the Japanese or other, other, other Asian cultures who don't do this. So when we— thanks to Elon Musk, we actually did. And as you're quite right, thanks to him giving us a free speech platform, and Facebook's thankfully followed as well. So he's led the charge. Through his purchase of what was Twitter. So when I got into— I gave a speech in Parliament, uh, where I didn't— I said they're not Asian grooming gangs, I'm going to call them what they are, they're Pakistani Muslim rape gangs. So I said this in Parliament, so, uh, Jamie will be able to drag it up if he goes on to the, you know, because everything goes into Hansard, uh, and I gave this speech and it caused shock in the House of Commons.

Now, look, I'm not the smartest kid on the block, but what I do in Parliament is I tell the truth. So, you know, I'm only interested in telling the truth and getting to the truth and changing the way in which we govern. That's what I've gone into Parliament for. You know, I haven't gone into this— I give my parliamentary salary to charity. You know, I'm a reasonably successful person who's lived his life. I've been chairman of a football club. I don't know if you're interested in Premier League football, but I was chairman of Southampton, so I built the stadium for Southampton. I used to play competitive hockey and I built up the youth academy at Southampton. I loved— the best day of my life was when we got to the Cup Final in 2003. We lost 1-0 to Arsenal, but it was the most amazing experience for everybody. So look, I'm not doing this because I want necessarily to be doing it. I'm doing it because somebody's got to do it. And if we're going to change Britain, we've got to get the public to buy into what we're doing. And as I say, I'm not a classic politician.

I'm not saying you've got to vote for me. I'm saying that we've got to change Britain by '29 or I think the country, from what I can see, is in terminal decline. So I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. I see the waste. I see the unaccountability. I see the way in which the civil service does not serve the people which it's supposed to serve. I see our debt rising to nearly 100% of GDP. I see massive, misallocation of procurement on our weapons. I see fraud in the judiciary. I see all the things that—

Sounds like you're talking about America.

Well, I'm talking about Britain at the moment, Joe.

It seems like it's a widespread problem.

Well, I actually think America under Joe Biden probably was as bad as that. And if you look at what, you know, Elon and the boys uncovered with with USAID and, and all of the misallocation of taxpayer funds all over the world, a lot of it to England. Some of it came to woke, woke causes in England. So look, whoever the architects of this are, whether it's the World Economic Forum, whoever they are, whether it's the Bilderbergers, whether it's the Council on Foreign Relations, whether it's whatever malign influence is trying to do this, we, we have to collectively try and reverse it. So I'm saying to people, if you want, I will do my damnedest to reverse it. You know, I've run multiple businesses. I was in the City of London for 20 years, so I know about finance, and I will commit to doing whatever I can to reverse this for the British people. But they've got to buy into it, Joe. They've got to buy into it.

Are there people that are in denial that this is happening, that this rape gang problem is real?

Oh, without a shadow of a doubt.

Labour— And what do they say?

Well, Labor just tries to look the other way.

But when confronted, when confronted by the numbers, what is their response?

Well, we've been demanding a statutory inquiry, and in the end, we crowdfunded this.

Right. What is their response to that?

Well, their response to this has been pretty muted, to be frank. I mean, the BBC haven't covered it at all. Really? A national monopolistic broadcaster paid for by a compulsory fee, have not covered this as a matter of public interest. Nor have Sky, nor properly have the Daily Telegraph. GB News have covered a tiny— Patrick Christys covered one evening of it. Now this is a massive national scandal that deserves complete, a complete and utter airing.

How does the BBC justify not discussing this?

Well, the BBC is part of our problem, Joe. So to your point about, you know, the Democrats, the BBC is a deeply malign organization. So it was set up to inform, educate, and entertain. And it was set up by a man called Reith. And Reith was a highly principled man. And I think at the time it was set up in the '20s, it was— it probably did have a role. But in the digital age, where most of the young people no longer watch their news on the BBC, they get their news from whatever their favorite news channel is, whether it's Breitbart, whoever they go and get it from, they get it from somewhere else. But if you wanna watch sport, or you wanna, you know, basically have your TV, you have to pay the TV license.

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Summer is great, isn't it? It's the perfect season for adventures, but it can also be pretty exhausting juggling chaotic schedules and trying to make the most of summer. That's why it's important to take a moment for you. Go out for a weekend without planning anything and just have fun, or relax at home. Or if you're really struggling, try therapy with BetterHelp. With a network of over 30,000 quality therapists, they can connect you with the right one, just like they have for millions already across the globe. Together you could work out what you need and how you can enjoy summer to the fullest. You don't have to say yes to everything this summer. Find support in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com/jre. That's betterhelp.com/jre. There's still a problem that I'm sure exists in England just as it exists in America. There's a certain subset of our society, a large percentage of our society, particularly older people, that things are not legitimate unless they're discussed in corporate media and that if it's not in the New York Times, if it's not on CNN, if it's not— you know, fill in the blank— then it can't be completely legitimate.

It has to be a fringe thing. It has to be a conspiracy thing. They still need these sort of legacy establishments to give them the news because that has been the way they grew up. That has been how they were trained. Yeah. And in their mind, they don't understand the internet completely. They don't go on Twitter. And so all that stuff to them is just— it's just too fringe. So that's always going to be a problem. And if someone like the BBC doesn't cover this stuff, it— for a lot of people that are woefully ignorant, they can still kind of claim that ignorance and dismiss it because the BBC isn't covering it.

That's exactly right. I mean, that's a, that's a very good summary because the BBC historically was totally trusted and, and their news bulletins were designed, as I say, to be impartial completely. And, and being a public sector broadcaster, their job was to cover matters like this and create debate. But as we know, monopolies go bad. I mean, monopolies in my view are generally a bad thing, particularly in the digital age where You know, thanks to Elon Musk and what he did with X, I think he has released free speech. I think he has returned some sort of semblance of people's ability to be able to force debate without being bullied by a monopoly like the BBC. So, so if I ever get near power, I will responsibly defund the BBC as one of the first things I do. I think the BBC is, is dripping poison. Into the veins of Britain every day.

What other examples of what the BBC is doing do you think is dripping poison?

Well, I think a lot of their coverage is, is, is not objective. It's woke. I mean, they're into all this DEI, they're into, uh, obviously the LGBTQ+, they're into all of the, all of the things which I think, as we said earlier, probably came from this, uh, Democrat period, but it's been happening for a long time. I think if you look at the Labor Party again, I don't know if you've ever heard of the Fabian Society. No. So the Fabian Society is— was set up in the, in the 1880s, and it was basically most of the Labor frontbench and most of the Labor Party are members of the Fabian Society. So the Fabian Society— George Bernard Shaw was a member of the Fabian Society. You'll have heard George Bernard Shaw. So he It's the most extraordinary organization that their emblem is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As if, as if, as if that doesn't tell you what they're doing.

That's their emblem. So can I see what that looks like?

That's their emblem.

It's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Fabian Society.

The Fabian Society. I need to see that. You should have a look at that.

I might have to get a t-shirt.

Should I tell you what else they were?

I need a t-shirt.

Should I tell you what else they were? They were eugenicists originally. Whoa. Yes. When? Well, how far back? Bernard Shaw, George Bernard Shaw.

Look at that. That is damn crazy.

Well, everyone should look at the Fabian Society because that runs deep through the veins of—

that is damn crazy. What do you think of that? That is damn crazy. So ladies and gentlemen, if you're just listening to this, this Fabian Society coat of arms is really a black wolf that has a sheep's body strapped on top of its back. And it's like covering its butt. This is insane. That's crazy. That— what a, what a complete disdain for anybody else's intelligence. Like, they're not even trying to hide it. They're just like—

they're all members. The front bench are all members of Fabian Society. So, so that, that coat of arms— Keir Starmer is also a member. I need a t-shirt, Jamie. Please order it. You want, you want, you want to hold anything? You want a Fabian Society t-shirt? Yeah.

Just for a goof. I think it'd be hilarious.

But no, so that runs through the Labor Party. So that's all part of it. So I think the agenda has been, to your point, they infiltrated our education system. And, you know, I'm proud of our history. I mean, Britain stopped the slave trade. It cost us a fortune. We did it almost unilaterally. And, you know, we, I think, on the whole have been a force for good in the world, not bad. I'm proud to say that. I've studied a lot of history. I think there are many other cultures, probably the Belgians and the French who are far more brutal than us with their colonies. So I think we've tended to leave a legacy where we've tried to instill the rule of law. Look at India. Look at a lot of the other countries that we were involved with. They're now flourishing because of the, I think, the structures that we left in place. And it's very sad to watch us almost turning in on ourselves. And having left the legacy in other countries, we ourselves have lost sight of what we should be doing.

It's just— it's really extraordinary seeing the perspective of a lot of young people that are very impressionable that come out of universities and have an utter complete disdain for these successful societies. And instead of looking at these successful societies and saying, 'Well, yeah, people were really terrible in the past, but this is a pretty good example of how people should be treated equally today. No, it's not perfect, but it's progressing in a better direction than it was in the past,' right? Instead, they look to the past and everything is built on this horrible history of outrageous, atrocious acts, and therefore it must be punished currently. And all of the people that benefited from it, specifically white people, need to be cast out, they need to be silenced, multiculturalism is the only way to go, complete open borders. Like, the way they look at things is like, how do you think these countries got so good? Like, what do you think is about America or about England, about any of these countries that leads them to be where they are today? Well, it's a long history of progress, a long history. And along the way, yeah, like, especially when you go back hundreds of years ago, people were fucking terrible.

They were terrible everywhere. You know, humans are just getting better at being people, like, pretty recently. But to throw it all out and abandon it and to think that socialism is going to fix you, like, do you guys read anything? There's not a single example of that not turning to tyranny. And their, their take on it is always it hasn't been done correctly. And that is so wild that people are still willing to swallow that. And the only thing that makes sense is they've been indoctrinated through universities to think this way, because nowhere in the real world do you think that equality of outcome ever makes any sense, because everybody realizes somewhere along the line when you get your first job, when you're a kid, when you're going through school, when you're playing sports, there's not equality of effort. There's never equality of effort. And there's always some people that want to put in more effort, and they're putting more thought and more focus, and they get further. And, you know, oh well, they're fucking over all these other people. Are you sure that's everything? Because it seems like it's not. And it seems like as soon as you remove any incentive to succeed, then you don't have any of the amazing stuff that you have around you all the time.

The reason why you have beautiful televisions and Starlink and all that, it's Capitalism. It's that you have to incentivize people to create these things. Yeah, it doesn't mean the only way to do it is to fuck other people over. That's not correct. It can be done correctly. It could be done humanely. It can be done wisely. You could vote with your dollars. You could, you know, boycott companies that do things that you don't think are ethical. There's all sorts of wonderful ways that capitalism could be used, and you can sort of influence things in the right direction, but the throw it all out and say we've got to go socialism. Like, oh boy, I can't believe people are buying that. I just— that to me is one of the real problems with not allowing conservative voices in universities, and that these universities, especially in the United States, are a lot of— especially like in sociology, psychology— overwhelmingly liberal. Like, Surely there's got to be some historians out there that are conservative, and they would have a different perspective, and it might be good to have diversity of opinion as well as diversity of national origin as well as diversity of gender as well as diversity of sexual orientation.

Yeah, all that stuff's great, but also diversity of opinion. Yeah. Like, the only way to know whether or not this person's making sense is to have someone who completely disagrees that has a better point. Go up against them, and you watch them duke it out. And as soon as you silence all that because students don't feel safe, or because, you know, this is promoting X, Y, and Z, this person's a Nazi, oh, they're a Nazi, we can't let them on there. As soon as you do that, you ruin the whole thing that a university is supposed to be doing. It's supposed to be preparing young minds for discourse and for communicating and for figuring out the world on their own. They're eventually going to be independent. And dependent entirely on their own actions and decisions and go out there in the world, figure out your way. Arm them correctly, and the way to do that is to expose them to all sorts of different competing ideas. The idea that that was ever accepted to be shut down in this country, especially in America, is a massive failure of the education system. Just massive. If you think that someone has bad points, come up with better points and let them duke it out, and don't pull fire alarms and don't silence them and don't scream and protest and throw things at them.

Communicate. This is what— and anybody who doesn't do that should be shunned. I agree. If you, if you're one of those people that says, no, you can't talk to Nazis, like, shun them. Shun— they are the enemy of thinking. They are the enemy of progress. They are the enemy of finding out what's right and what's wrong. And the only way we find that out is we communicate. Free speech.

Free speech. Well, free speech and a degree of Darwinism. You have to have a— what we have in the UK now is, I would say, reverse Darwinian theory. And again, at schools now, in my day I was lucky, we liked to win. To win was good. To win fairly in a proper game of hockey or rugby or whatever was great. But now in schools, winning is considered to be bad. So everybody needs to have an opportunity to be treated the same. In sports? Often. Often in sport, to win, to be seen as a competitive winner. You guys don't have wrestling over there, do you? We don't have wrestling. I know you do. You do. It's a real problem. Cage fighting and stuff, don't you? No, but I mean wrestling.

Wrestling, just wrestling as a sport, just wrestling for high school and college, it's like wrestlers understand meritocracy as good as any human being alive because there's no way to make it unless you work hard.

But isn't this the battle, Joe, the age-old battle between individualism and collectivism? Yes. Because the collective likes to curb the individual. I like to foster the individual and I think what the state fears most is highly successful, independent-minded people who are capable of putting their point of view and discussing it with each other. So what they try and do through the taxation in the UK, what they're doing is they're taxing, to your point, people who contribute, who work hard. And there are still a lot of people who fight very hard to feed their families. They're proud. They don't want to be part of this welfarism. You know, they want to provide and they work hard, but the state puts everything in their way, all the regulations, the rules, the taxes. Everything is— the force is not with them. And that's got to be wrong. I mean, what I think what you need is a lot of successful individual family businesses, communities which are self-sufficient, communities that respect each other and effectively can have this debate with each other, you get at the truth. And I think as a result of that, most of the best inventions have come from, you know, the UK, the US, from the Anglo-Saxon world, where individualism, when it's allowed to flourish, does a lot of good for mankind.

Right. And to your point, I think this is what's been undermined by these, what I call, central planners.

And a lot of these great inventions in America have come from people that emigrated legally from other countries because they appreciated what America stood for and they really They wanted to make something happen, and they couldn't do it wherever they were.

Well, the extraordinary thing in the UK is we've got a lot of support from people who are immigrants into the UK. They came to Britain because they respected our structures, and what they want is they want structure. They don't want to see the country descend into chaos.

Yes, legally immigrants in America have the same perspective. Same. Legal immigrants in America are pretty overwhelmingly against the whole open border idea, because it took— it was so hard for them to become an American citizen. It's a very proud moment for them to do it. A lot of young people?

Yeah. A lot of support from young people who are— Again, I— Young people are online.

See, this is the thing. So young people are much more— I want to say informed, but at least aware of the issue. They're much more aware of things than older people that are just, again, reading the newspaper and watching television.

But don't you think, as it may be the same here in Britain, a lot of the wealth is tied up in what I call the baby boomers? So I'm a sort of tail-end boomer because I'm 68, but the sort of bulk of them are probably 70 to 90. And a lot of the pension wealth is held there. And a lot of the damage that's been done to our financial markets has come from aversion to risk. Risk is a good thing, in my opinion. So people need to take risk. Risk, you know, the entrepreneur takes risk and he gets reward if he gets it right. But if you tax him into oblivion, he doesn't take the risk. And what's happened in Britain is the baby boomers, the wealth's all locked up there. They want to see their retirement through safely and not enough money is cascading down to the young people to be able to build their lives in the same way that the boomers were given a chance to make money in this very—

When you say not enough money is cascading down, like how so? What's the bottleneck?

Well, the money's all locked up with these old baby boomers and they're more concerned with their pensions and their retirement than they are with generating an ongoing wealth chain which gives an opportunity for the young to be involved.

So you're meaning they're not starting businesses?

No, very much not.

They're just holding on to their money?

They're holding on to their money. So that's just— that's an England thing? In England, definitely. I mean, I think it's a big issue. I don't know whether it's an issue here. Is it an issue here?

Well, there's certainly an issue here with young people feeling like the system is completely rigged. Cost of housing is through the roof. Rent is through the roof. Groceries are more expensive. Inflation here is a giant problem. It's a giant problem for people that are struggling. We were just looking at something the other day on the internet where it was talking about a number, a number from— was it like 2007 or 2008 or something like that? There was like $225,000 and it's $450,000 in today. Mm. I'm like, that's crazy. Yeah. That's like 20 years ago. Like, to have something double in 20 years, and you just think about how many people that are coming up that just feel like AI is gonna take all their jobs, so they don't know what to do, and now they're in student debt because you guys have free education over there, which is a wonderful thing. I mean, I completely support that idea, but in America, These kids get saddled down with debt that they can't escape from. Well, we don't—

in England, we don't have free education. In England— in Scotland they do. Scotland has free education. We did used to have it, you're quite right. When did it go away? Well, now students have to take out loans, and this is another shocking—

I thought you guys had free healthcare and free education.

We have— we have— what do you call it— free healthcare, assuming you can get a doctor now, because you, you know, most people now are having to source their own medical treatment because it takes you so long to get an operation or to get a doctor's appointment. It's— although the sort of health service was set up post-war to provide free healthcare, when it becomes incredibly inefficient, people have to seek their own care. Otherwise, they don't get treated. But I— look, I think with student debt now—

Where does it change?

Where university education— It's changed. So now— What year was this? Well, it's been changed for a long time. So yeah, yeah, yeah. So my oldest son is 35, so he took out a student loan. It was less then, and then the fees shot up. So my—

like, for Oxford, what's a typical— what, how much?

Well, they run up— students will run up debt of— in the UK now, it's not uncommon to run up a debt of £60,000. So it's very similar to what's going on, £60,000, and they're charged the most hideous rate of interest on it.

Do you have the same laws in terms of bankruptcy over there?

We do have bankruptcy laws, yeah. But do you have bankruptcy— Student debt, you won't be bankrupted over student debt though, because the student debt, they just accrue the interest. If you go and work in a foreign country, often you don't have to pay the student debt back. I think it's a 30-year liability. But once you start working, then the student debt organization will take interest and principal out of your salary. In America, you— they—

for— if you go bankrupt, they'll forgive credit card debt, all sorts of other debt, but not student loan. It's the one loan that you cannot ever be forgiven from. In fact, people who have Social Security in America, their Social Security gets docked because they owe student loans. Is that right? I didn't know that. Yeah, it's crazy. Imagine you're at the end of your life, you're living on Social Security, and they're taking pieces of it for an education that clearly didn't help you out.

Well, I don't know about you, but in England we've got these ridiculous courses in sort of humanities and sort of things that are completely obscure. Yeah. And, and these, these, these kids go and do the, these, these what I call bullshit degrees, and at the end of the day they come out of it with a load of debt, right, and no real skills.

No skills in a completely ideologically captured mind. Very much so. Yeah, it's, um, that's It's— and there's not a lot of other alternatives. It's like most universities are left-leaning, you know? And that's the issue that these kids have. Even if you're from a conservative family or if your kids grow up a certain way, send them off to college and they're very impressionable and they're going to get talked down to by a professor who's a communist, who's never had a real job in his life and he seems so smart and he's very smug and he insults you if you disagree with him, and he is the ruler of the classroom, and everybody like, like little kids, they just give in to this guy's ideas. The next thing you know, you're, you're organizing on school grounds, and you're doing all the same things the other communists are doing, and you're, you're part of the team. Hey, we're a nice— we're gonna fix the world. And you don't realize how ridiculous it is until like maybe you're 35 and you have a job, and then you have a family, and you're like, what the The fuck are we doing?

Like, what is this? It does change, doesn't it? Oh, 100%. But often for the worse.

It's the old expression, show me a young man— who quoted that? Who was that quote from? Show me a young man who's not a lib— was it liberal or is it progressive or whatever it is? Show me a young man who's not liberal and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old man who's not conservative and I'll show you a man without a brain.

Yeah. No, I don't know who said that, but it's a common saying. What's the final— it's, it's a truism. Churchill. Was it Churchill?

There you go, one of your people. Yeah, yeah, brilliant and accurate. And it doesn't— being conservative doesn't mean you're not kind. Silly. It's just recognition of human nature. And you can't, you can't reward people for not putting in effort because then they will find ways to not put in effort. You can't reward people for being a quote-unquote victim, and I don't mean a real victim of a crime. I mean victimized by society, victimized by circumstance, victimized— you can't weaponize that because people will cling to it. They're— people love excuses. Anybody who does sports, you played hockey, people love excuses. Not today, my back hurts. Today I don't feel up to it. Today I'm a little tired, I can't do the final lap. People love excuses. And when you weaponize that and you give people incentives to be— you give excuses and then you put people on their heels like, "Whoa, I don't want to appear that I'm insensitive. Let's help you out." And then all of a sudden, you've got a whole swath of society that has carte blanche over your tax dollars for nonsense. Well, this is obviously what's happened in the UK.

When I was brought up, again, competition was a good thing. You know, if you If you felt a bit rough, you just carried on. You didn't whinge, you didn't moan. You expected to fight for things. If you had a setback, you didn't immediately go and cry into your beer. You basically got on with it.

We need to teach people that. That's character building. Like, you're gonna have rough days, and you should cherish those rough days, 'cause from them you will grow. You will grow from your rough days. The downtimes are the good ones. Because those downtimes really give you the motivation and the, the real firepower to get out of whatever situation you're in and improve your life.

And from adversity comes, comes success. Yes, I think comes character for sure. And success. Yeah, character for sure.

I mean, it doesn't exist without some sort of adversity.

But I do think, I think the young were also badly affected by the COVID by the response to COVID. Joe, and I think you and I share something in common. I'm a pureblood. I haven't— I didn't have— Pureblood's hilarious. I didn't have those injections. I wouldn't go anywhere near them.

How did you get away with that in the UK?

Well, I used to go to Australia a lot, so I— because I have some businesses in Perth in Western Australia. I love those old rocks in Western Australia, you know, the mining, the sort of Wild West and Kalgoorlie and places like that, you know, which have got a huge historical connection to sort of gold prospecting and stuff. So I stopped going, I stopped traveling because it was very difficult to travel. But I, I don't know about you, I found the lockdown profoundly concerning. I thought, I thought things that I thought were not the norm, I was losing everything that made sense. Yeah. And, you know, there were things happening that I didn't think could ever happen in Britain. You know, the state literally took over and it frightened people into submission. Same as America. And the young people suffered most because they didn't have the opportunity to socialize and to, to your point, discuss ideas and get at the truth. They were literally locked up. Everything was online. It wasn't It wasn't right. The whole thing was completely wrong.

Yeah, imagine if you're in high school in America and you're in California, your entire senior year you're at home. You graduate, you can't even go to a graduation because it's too dangerous. Yeah. The whole thing was madness.

Well, Sweden got it right. Anders Tegnell in Sweden, he was a great man, very brave man, and he got that right.

And boy, was there a lot of pushback. It was amazing how many people were willing to do the work of the government. How many citizens were willing to enforce these ideas. It was really shocking. It was shocking to watch how many people became lemmings, how many people just stepped in line.

We had people ratting on each other.

Yeah, oh, we did it. It's because people— awarding people in Los Angeles. Yeah, yeah, we're giving them financial rewards for telling on their neighbors that were having parties.

That's what happened in England. I have a tennis court in the middle of nowhere, so I used to used to say, come up and play tennis, because it's ridiculous to stop you playing tennis outside. I mean, absolutely mad. Anyway, they used to come up and play tennis, uh, and nobody can see, see it. But if they played it in the village, then people would report each other.

Yeah, in California we had people report on us because this desk is not 6 feet wide. Seriously? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. And then they also said we were talking close to each other without masks. 'cause there was a bunch of people that saw people walk into the studio and we shook their hand, so they were ratting on us. And so we had to put a sign up in the front door of the studio and we had to have a bag of masks, a whole bag of masks. Did we have to have hand sanitizer too? Did we have that too? Probably. I think so. I think we had to have hand sanitizer for a while at least. But we were getting ratted on because this desk is too close. So it's not— this desk's only 5 feet wide, so it's no social distancing. It's pathetic, Joe, isn't it? It was nonsense.— it was so crazy. The whole thing made no sense. And it completely changed a lot of people's ideas about trusting experts and trusting authority. So many people thought that the health experts in this country were literally just trying to make people healthy. And you didn't realize, like, oh, no, no, no, no, no, they're trying to prop up the pharmaceutical drug cartel, and they're trying to make as much money as humanly possible And the only way to do that is to force compliance.

And so they will do whatever they can. They will keep you from flying. They'll keep you from driving. They'll keep you from going to school. You can't work if you have more than 100 employees. Everyone has to get vaccinated. They were doing crazy shit where you're like, you guys are really going for it. And it worked. It worked for quite a while. But boy, did it ruin young people's perspective of authority. Completely. They don't trust anybody anymore. And with good reason.

Well, I think it damaged them most. Again, it's another negative for them. Yeah. I mean, our National Health Service was forcing people to have the inject— you had to work in the National Health Service, you had to have the jabs. Yeah. And it didn't work.

It didn't work. That's what's crazy.

Actually worse than that, Joe. It didn't work. It created major medical problems. Right. And I don't personally think we've seen the end of it yet. So I've got a lot of friends who are fit. They ended up having myocarditis. Yeah. Having strokes. Yeah. Having heart attacks.

And at the end of the day, everybody knows somebody that has a horrible reaction to it. Yeah, everyone. And to people that say they don't— I've had conversations with people, I don't know anybody had a side effect. I'm like, fuck you for lying. There's no way that's possible unless you are the luckiest person in the world and you have an extremely small social circle, and out of that social circle no one had a bad reaction, which is very unlikely. Unless that's true, like, you're just lying. And you're lying because you probably were supportive of the vaccine initially and you don't want to seem like you were on the wrong side of things.

Well, I lost friends. I don't know about you, because I— people said I hadn't been vaccinated and therefore I was a risk to their mom or their dad or their granny.

Yeah, I lost a bunch of people.

And I lost friends like that. But I mean, in countries like India, you know, they didn't have the jab. They had it. They used ivermectin to a far, far greater extent. And that was just as effective. I know. I think I used to treat my— it's a wormer, it's ivermectin. I used to treat my cattle with ivermectin. But it worked, it worked well. And there were other, I think, treatments which worked far better.

Do you know what happened to me in America over ivermectin? Are you aware of that? No, no. CNN, like for days, was running this hit piece on me saying that I was taking horse dewormer. For COVID.

It is, it is. Yeah, it is.

But it's also, you know, it's great for river blindness and dengue fever. And yeah, I mean, it's won the Nobel Prize for use in human beings. And they were, they were claiming on CNN that I was taking veterinary medicine. And they not only that, but they changed the color of my face. So they took a video. I was supposed to do a concert with Dave Chappelle that weekend in Nashville. And I had to make a video saying I'm sorry, but we have to cancel it because I got COVID. So I said I had COVID like 2 days ago. I was sick, but I'm fine now. And I explained all the stuff that I— my doctor threw the kitchen sink at it. We took all these different things. And one of the things that I mentioned was ivermectin. And because of me mentioning that, I also said monoclonal antibodies, Z-Pak. I talked about all the different IV vitamins. I took a bunch of different stuff and I got better quick. And they took the video and changed the color of my face to make me look green on CNN. On CNN.

Well, CNN's not a good channel, is it?

I didn't know. I didn't know until I saw that. I was like, wow. I was like, do I have to sue CNN? Like, this is crazy.

So is that Billharzia when you're talking about with the eyes, the worm in the eyes? Is that the Billharzia you get from the water in Africa?

River blindness? I do not know what that—

I think it's called Billharzia. I think I may be wrong.

You might be right. But I know they also, it's used to treat yellow fever, dengue fever. It's used to treat a bunch of different things, but it also has antiviral properties that have been demonstrated. Like there's papers on it. And it's very cheap. Yes, but that's the problem. The problem is anybody can make it and you could buy it for like, it's like a dollar a pill or something like that. It's nothing. And that was the real problem is that like, if you wanna have the emergency use authorization of a vaccine that hasn't gone through the safety protocols, in America, you have to have no other medications that are available that can treat it. So the reason why they went after me on CNN was because clearly I was doing okay. It was 3 days later and I said, I never got vaccinated. So here's all the stuff that I took and now I'm fine. And they went crazy. And it was this concerted campaign to try to destroy me. Neil Young took his music off Spotify 'cause he said that I—

He was on SoundOn.

'Cause it said that, he said that I was promoting vaccines. Vaccine misinformation. And he probably believed that. He probably did believe that, but he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about. He's just— he's another old boomer that just watches the news.

Yes, we— I did used to like his music when I was in school, didn't you? I still love it.

Still, I still listen. I don't care. I mean, I even told a story when I made the video about how when I was at a Neil Young concert— well, I was working at a Neil Young concert actually when I was 19, and that was the last day on the job because a riot broke out. And I was like, I'm a huge Neil Young fan. Like, I don't care. He just doesn't know. Someone told him this, or he really thinks he's doing the right thing by removing his music. Like, okay. But what you're doing is you're supporting this machine that is lying to people and telling people the only way to get through this is to get vaccinated. When in fact, there's real, like, Uttar Pradesh in India, where it was just very low instances of COVID fatality. All of it was through ivermectin. Yeah, it's, it's, they had amazing success with just ivermectin.

But again, I think the state knows that it's caused damage. I just don't think they can admit it at the moment.

No, they're not going to admit, they're never going to admit it. They just gloss over it and move on. And some of the same people that were promoting that shit on the news, they still deny it. They still deny, and they've lost debates. Like Chris Cuomo got destroyed by my buddy Dave Smith because of it. Like, they're in denial of like the things that they were actually saying.

Yeah, it was like fluoride in water and folic acid in bread and all this.

All that shit, it's all—

yeah, I mean, it's, it's, it's sort of man getting high on his own supply, isn't it?

Well, it's also a business. That's the real problem, is that there's lobbies in this country that, you know, they want to continue making money the same way they've been making money. Yeah. And one of the ways they do it in America is they advertise on the networks. So the pharmaceutical drug companies all advertise on all these networks, and there an enormous part of the advertising budget. I know in England that's not legal, and it's only legal in America and in New Zealand. Those are the only two countries that allow pharmaceutical drug companies to advertise on television. But what it effectively does is it stops all criticism of any side effects. There's no stories on heart attacks, there's no stories on strokes, no stories on myocarditis. Now, if they weren't advertising and then someone was making money off of something that was killing people, that's the news. The news would be all over it, but they have effectively ruined their own reputation by turning a blind eye on something that everybody knows. But do you think they're turning a blind eye?

I think they know.

I think they know, but they can't admit it. Well, the people, the individuals most certainly must know someone who got something from COVID from the COVID shot. Someone, you know someone who had a stroke, you know someone who's got a neurological condition. I know way too many people for you to not know anybody. I know I have two people that I know that have pacemakers now. Like, there's, there's a lot of weird, horrible side effects that happen from that. If you don't know anybody that had one, I don't believe you.

Well, I know loads. I mean, my, my sister-in-law had myocarditis. I've had a friend— my best friend had a stroke literally a week after having, having the jab. People have had problems with heart arrhythmia. Yeah, all sorts of stuff. And, and there's some been some issues with blood too. Yeah. So look, I, I think the, as usual, money probably goes to the root of it, uh, Joe. Absolutely. And we had something in, in the Britain called the nudge team, which basically was— I mean, how the government thought that was okay. It's a bit like when I was in football, people were hacking my phone and thought that was okay. But with the nudge team, it was to nudge people into accepting the lockdown, and, and it was effectively very clever manipulation of the population. So look, I mean, I, I— you can't believe that the state thinks that's okay, but they did. They did.

Yeah, they did. And they did it in America for— depending on which city you were in, to various extents, varying extents. California was bad. It was real bad. I mean, they, they closed down all the comedy clubs. They closed— they lost 70% of all the restaurants in Los Angeles. I mean, it's crazy.

Yeah, great place to live, California, though. I like— what's that? It's a great place to live, California.

That's why people still tolerate it. I mean, if California had the weather of Seattle, it'd be empty.

It would, yes.

You know what I mean? It's like the reason why people are still there is because, God, it's so amazing, and there's so many cool people there, and it's so nice, and the weather's incredible, and the views. And yeah, you could be at the ocean, and then 2 hours later you're in the mountains. I mean, it's an amazing place.

It's an amazing place.

I went there. Filled with dumbasses.

Yeah, yeah, with socialists, Joe. Unfortunately, it's been permeated with socialism.

That and grifters. Grifters pretending to be socialists. They're essentially those people with the wolf with the sheep wrapped around them.

That's a large— Fabian Society.

Yeah, that's a large portion of the government in Los Angeles and a large portion of the government in California in general. And the way you know this is how wealthy those fucking people are and how it doesn't make sense how they're so wealthy. You're making how much a year and you're worth how much? Crime. Yeah, crime. They're doing crime. One of the things that happened very recently is they just announced that the governor of California, one of the people on his staff had been wearing a wire for over a year. Did you see that story, Jamie? What's that? Well, no, no, I don't know what they got either, but this lady had been See if you can find it. What it says. But she had been wearing a wire. She's working for the Gavin Newsom organization. Yeah. And she was working for the administration and she was wearing a wire for the FBI because they had been investigating him for— and this was during the Biden administration. They started this. So they started this in 2024. If they're investigating him, it must be like they must know that something bad, real shit is going down.

FBI infiltrated Gavin Newsom's inner circle by convincing governor's ally to wear a wire.

Yeah, not good, not good. But I think it's the same in Chicago. You've got some pretty bad spots. San Francisco, I think, is not good.

It's a lot of people that are profiting off of this idea that, you know, the government should be taking care of everybody and you should be making all this money from taxes. And then, you know, California spent $24 billion on the homeless and it just got worse. It is like— and so that now it's an industry. So now you have this homeless Taking care of the homeless is now an industry, and there's people on the homeless industry board that are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. And it's like, what are we doing?

It's the same with compliance. It's the same with, as you say, DEI. Yeah, there's a whole industry and industry of people making vast amounts of money on, you know, compliance, DEI. Yeah, basically wealth creation. Yes, which ultimately strips personal responsibility and tries to imbue everybody with a very sort of malign philosophy, which is very damaging to—

Under the guise of being inclusive. Correct. And also, you're getting wealthy. How many people from these nonprofits are getting enormously wealthy? Like, this is insane. And that was one of the things that USAID clearly uncovered. I mean, I don't know if you've ever seen Mike Benz and some of his takes on it.

Yeah, it was shocking. I couldn't believe it.

There's so many hours of it. It's almost like there's too much information to digest. You— I could listen to like an hour of it. It's like, I gotta stop because I just don't know when this ends. I'm not even absorbing this. I'm just so flabbergasted by the extent of the corruption. The amount of money that's been gone to fraud and possibly waste over the years is just staggering.

But, but it also went all over the world, didn't it? It was, it was a philosophy, a poor philosophy that was being exported. To other countries, and particularly to Britain. I mean, we have a presenter called Rory Stewart. His wife was being funded by some of this stuff, which got shut down. Did they shut the whole thing down? They shut the USAID down. Did they leave a remnant of it?

I don't know exactly how much they've left, but essentially it's been shut down. Of course, if there was ever a Democrat that got elected president in 2028, it would probably start that bitch right back up, open the borders right back up, business as usual.

That would not be good, yeah. No, it seems like there's—

there was a desire to move people into blue states and then eventually get them on social assistance and then get them to become citizens, and then you have guaranteed voters because they— you want to continue this, right? You want to continue living like this? Well, this is the way. And then you would just completely take over the presidential elections. And I think they were trying to do that. This is Elon's perspective, and I think he's right. And, you know, he's obviously much more aware of the problem in terms of like the extent that USAID was involved and these nonprofits and NGOs were involved. It seems like there was a concerted effort to do this, and it's disturbing.

But again, a lack of respect for taxpayer funds, which is what we have in the UK. I mean, we need your help at the moment. You've got— at least you're making a stab at returning to some form of normality.

For now, but if we don't fuck it— I mean, we might have fucked it up by going to Iran. I mean, the— this war is not something anybody that's conservative wanted. Most people don't want it except supporters of Israel. They're the only people that seem to be thinking it's a good idea in this country. Most people are horrified by the idea because Trump was elected.

One of the pillars that he stood for apparently was that he doesn't want any more wars, but he was I came out against it on the basis for us of realpolitik, which is it wasn't in the interest of the British nation. Right. And I think again most of these leaders should put the interest of their taxpaying public first. And there's only a reason to go to war if it's going to benefit you. Yeah. And I— it was difficult to see what the benefit was. Although I think Iran is a sort of malevolent state. And it is spreading a very bad philosophy across, obviously, you know, you've got Hezbollah in Lebanon and then we've got Hamas causing a problem. So I think they are a problem, but certainly from our point of view, I mean, you're the only country with the ability to do anything about it. I mean, we had one warship which didn't work properly when it was sent out to help. So I mean, goodness knows, we You know, we've spent all our money on welfare and not enough money on defense. So no, we need, we need help. And, and I think, um, to your point, Elon Musk has been, to my mind, incredibly helpful in restoring free speech because Starmer and, and, and these Fabians, Fabian-Pabloist-Haldane society as I call them, they're sort of all, they're all, they've all got this malign And I think what giving us free speech has done is it stopped them crushing the spirit of those people who do want to debate, who do want to discuss, who do want to get at the truth.

Rabbi, they've done so much to stop free speech with all these arrests. It's extraordinary. Because they've also incentivized people to keep their mouths shut because no one wants to be in trouble.

Well, it's two-tier policing. You've got, to your point about, you know, that the Palestinian marches are tolerated whereas any form of Tommy Robinson march. And Tommy Robinson in the UK, he's deeply disliked by the establishment. I give him credit for what he did again on the grooming gangs in 2003. He was warning about this in 2003 in Luton.

Not only that, I remember people dismissing that in 2003 or '04, wherever, whenever it was when I first heard about it. They were talking about him as he was just horrible far-right extremist. I know. And that he was making up these stories about these grooming gangs and rape gangs. I remember hearing that. I remember not knowing, like, what is it? What's accurate here?

Like, what's going on? Well, I think the accuracy is that he was right. The establishment didn't want to admit it because if we're right— well, I think we are right about their multicultural post-war experiment. They realized it was failing. Because you can't justify the, the, the, the sort of abuse and grooming of the most vulnerable people in your society by people who've come into the country. They should be treated equally under the law. A rape is a rape. It doesn't matter whether it's perpetrated by somebody from, is from a Muslim country or a Christian country. Rape is rape. So we treated the same.

What would you do to stop stop this? Like, imagine if you got into power right now. What would you do to put a stop to that?

Well, we have to root it out and we have to stop it. How do you root it out? We have to apply the law, the law of our land to the people who are perpetrating it. The problem is the police have institutionally been taught that they are racist. And we had the Stephen Lawrence killing, which was— which didn't reflect well on the UK, but the response to has created this fear of being called a racist. Which is the Stephen Lawrence killing? Stephen Lawrence was killed, I think it was in the late '90s. He was stabbed by some sort of British miscreants. And where was he from? And he died. It was in London. Where was Stephen Lawrence from? Well, he was a black—

Oh, okay, so it's a racial hate crime?

Yeah, it was a racial hate crime.

Okay, and this was in the '90s?

And it was blown up, and again, you find that the racial hate any white people is now blown up, whereas the more— the very often and increasingly common acts against the indigenous white people are hushed up as much as they possibly can be.

That's a funny thing to say, indigenous white people. Yeah. I mean, it is real for England, but I mean, nobody thinks about that in America. You would never say like indigenous white people.

Well, we do have an identity.

Yes, of course. There's a reason why everyone's so pale.

Yeah, yeah, we do have an identity. It really is indigenous. As I say, we've been very tolerant of people who needed help. We've let them into the country, and on the whole they have integrated and they have contributed. Right. And I have no problem with that. Like you, I'm absolutely in favor of that.

Right, the only problem is the people that aren't integrating.

If people don't want to come and live and integrate and contribute, then they shouldn't come. They should remain in their own country.

It's also the idea of incentivizing people to illegally migrate to your country is just pure insanity. Yeah. You're going to run out of money and you're also putting a burden on these taxpayers for no reason whatsoever. It's a bad use of their tax dollars.

But in our immigration document, we put forward the case for a— basically a hostile environment. We don't want to be handing out welfare. Right. We don't want to be encouraging people to come. We want to create a hostile environment and encourage people to go, unless they're contributing, to go back to their own country and live there, particularly if they don't like our culture and our laws and they don't respect us and they think we're the infidel.

But do laws exist that would allow you to deport those people?

Well, you'd have to repeal. So that's why— that's why it's so important we win an overall majority in Parliament by '29, because then we can repeal a lot of this legislation, which will then empower the nation-state again.

So this is the legislation that provides healthcare, dental, welfare, housing to these people?

This is legislation largely passed by Tony Blair and his acolytes.

And this was all just to encourage mass migration?

I think it was to encourage this mass immigration and make it very difficult to stop it, practically. Interestingly, he's quite crafty because he came out the other day trying to distance himself from a lot of the things that he has actually created. So he's quite a canny old fox. And he does look— he looks a bit like Beelzebub these days. I mean, he's got this white hair and these piercing sort of eyes. I can't help look at him and think of evil. But look, so he ultimately, I think, him and his team realized what they— they realized what they were doing and he had— it was all done through the law. You have to do in a country that believes in the rule of law, the only way to change it is through control of Parliament. So you have to do it top-down through the parliamentary system so that you can repeal the laws and you can pass the laws you want to pass to empower the nation-state and at the same time, which we're doing you need to start controlling local government as well, because local government's gone badly wrong. And a lot of the failures from the rape gang inquiry weren't just the national government.

You had failure at local government as well.

So is our local government willfully ignorant? Are they denying its existence? Are they gaslighting people on it?

Like, yeah, in the case of Labor, that they've enabled it. You know, they— I say I can't see how anybody can ever vote Labor again after they've read this report. Because Labor has clearly enabled this, both at national level by denying what's been going on, and at local level where you have local government turn— it happens mainly in Labour-controlled areas. You've got people denying completely that this has been happening, whereas we know it's happening. We have people like Sammy Woodhouse who's a victim of it, who had a child by her, by her rapist. Ultimately, local government has to be controlled from the bottom up and we've started that process. We won 9 out of 9 county council seats in Norfolk. So my constituency is on the coast in England. So it's a coastal constituency. Been very badly served by the post-war elite. So the fishermen in England have been sold down the river to— largely to the European fishermen as part of the membership of the EU. So Norfolk is a county on the East Coast. It's got rich farmland. And farming is my passion. I love farming. I absolutely— it's my hobby and I love it.

So I— at the end of the day, we have to control local government and change it bottom up. And we have to then get control of national government and change it top down. I would imagine— And if we can do that, Joe, I truly think if we can— I truly think we can release the spirit of the British people, and I think they want it. But they've got to show— they've got to show through the ballot box that that's what they want.

I'd imagine there's going to be an enormous amount of resistance to this kind of huge change.

From organized crime, which I think we're now in the hands of, from a corrupt judiciary, from a police force that's gone wrong, from local governments gone wrong, the NHS has gone wrong. Again, it's a state monopoly, and its original function, I think, has been subverted. So you've got everything, to your point, the education system is wrong. So there's a lot of change that needs to happen. But I think fundamentally, the electorate, you saw them in 2016 vote to take back their sovereignty. The government wrote a letter to all the households in the UK recommending they vote to remain in the European Union. This is David Cameron. But actually the British people didn't. They voted to leave. And they didn't do it, I think, for financial reasons. They did it because they wanted their country back. They wanted their sovereignty back. They wanted an accountable parliament in Westminster. And some of our problems emanate from the fact that Tony Blair's reforms have undermined our parliament. So our parliament is supposed to be omnipotent. It's supposed to be completely contain the elected representatives of the people. So Parliament is supposed to be right at the top of the chain.

But what's happened is it's been undermined by these quangos that Tony Blair set up, which has effectively created a life of their own. So the Supreme Court. And literally there are hundreds of these quangos that now employ unelected people.

What is that word, quango?

Well, quango is like a quasi-national government organization. OK. So they are— you know, you've got You've got all sorts of bodies, you know, the sort of Bar Standards Board. You've got loads of bodies which now prevail. You know, you've got bodies on almost everything which, again, have flourished since Tony Blair's legislation. Prior to that, power lay with Parliament. So that's why they've been able to control a lot of what goes on because the two-party system, the blues and the reds, the Tories and Labor. Basically have tried to outcompete each other. So the entire Parliament, Blair took it left, Cameron emulated Blair, and you didn't actually get proper Conservative thought to change a lot of this stuff that was wrong. So I think, I think, I think this is an opportunity and I think it's our last opportunity and all the help we can get from from you guys. I mean, we made a bad mistake in letting you declare your independence, which you're celebrating tomorrow in the first place. Had we played our cards better, I think you'd still be— you should still be part of— part of— I think it worked out. It's worked out pretty well for you, but not so well for us.

Sorry, but I think we're better off.

But I do want to see— I do want to see—

otherwise it'd be under your laws.

Well, I do want to see the Anglo-Saxon world world support each other. I think, yeah, there's not enough of that. We're too fragmented. There's too much sort of— whether it's the World Economic Forum, as I said, whatever the reason— there's too much fragmentation and too much undermining of, of this cohesive Anglo-Saxon world, which, let's face it, is the reason why we all have individual freedom.

Because as we said earlier, individual freedom is incredibly fragile, and we could, we could lose it at any minute, I mean, the society that, you know, the way we look at America when people look at it the right way, or when people are proud of America, they look at it as a place where anybody can come and achieve your dreams. And it doesn't mean only white people, doesn't mean only black people, it just means Americans. We're supposed to be a community, a team, you know? And the fact that we're a melting pot, that we're not like, you know, indigenous white people like England, is part of the fun of it all, that everyone's welcome. Problem. Just come over here and do your thing and follow the rules. But the problem with this country is the problem with any country when you're being run by people that are completely corrupt and you're being run by people that are influenced by enormous corporations that don't care about the people, that only care about the bottom line, how much money they're making, and how do they— how do they rig things. And then you have politicians that are making $170,000 a year, but they're somehow worth $400 million, and no one questions it, no one's in jail.

The whole thing is bonkers, and it's just— you're always gonna have crooks, and you got to hold them off. You got to hold them off as much as possible. When you recognize they're in, you got to do a cleaning. You got to clean house. You got to clean house and get rid of them. If you don't, you're just gonna have— the problem's just gonna get worse because they're gonna figure out— okay, it's just like antibiotics. When you don't take the full round and the stuff doesn't really go down, you said, no, now you got medication-resistant bacteria. Congratulations, your medication has made the bacteria worse. Yeah, so if you fight off the corruption a little bit and then you stop, they go, oh well, we got a— we were close, we almost figured it all out and got it all rigged, but now we got to make sure that we lock people down and have even more laws, even more restrictions. And we use—

you've summed up what we need to do in the UK very well. I mean, we are, I think, in the hands of organized crime. I think a lot of the institutions that we had previously have become rotten. I think it's the right way to recognize it too. It is. It's in the— and to your point, you know, we do need to now punish people who've let us down. It's crime.

It really is crime. And to just pretend because it's been going on for so long and that it's business as usual, that it's not a crime— like, no, it's crime. It's crime. It's just somehow another crime that's tolerated.

Well, letting down people who've elected you and given their trust to you is a massive crime. It's—

Not just letting down, betraying them.

I mean, we have the same as you, but to a lesser extent, because you've obviously got far more wealth than us. But like, you see these officials who end up becoming rich, and you wonder how they do it. Yeah. And they're on salaries, and they're taxed heavily, and yet they always seem to flourish. They never seem to be short of money. So I— and I look at our judiciary, which is again now a kwango. The judges are no longer appointed by Parliament. They're appointed by this woke quango. And I had an issue in Parliament, you know, I was, I challenged Parliament because to the point where I've been saying we need to return power to Parliament. They, they have this body called the ICGS, Independent Complaints Grievance Scheme, and in Parliament we have this this system called parliamentary privilege. So I can speak on the floor of the House and I can't be sued for libel. You can say whatever you want. That's the essence of free speech in the Chamber of the Commons. Now, this body has actually been expressly taken outside Parliament and the case I had against them was they tried to say I couldn't— I caught them doing something I thought was wrong and I wanted to take them to court.

They said, "You can't take us to court because we're parliamentary privileged," even though it doesn't It's not the chamber. It's not an MP speaking. It's got no MPs on this committee. It doesn't report to a parliamentary committee. And yet the judge found they had parliamentary privilege. Didn't address the questions. So this is how the elected assembly has been undermined. And this is what we have to— we have to return power to the elected representatives of the people.

There's also another thing that Britain has done recently that's very disturbing, which is eliminate jury trials. For a lot of—

they're trying to do that. Yeah, trying to do that.

They try. So it's not fit—

it's not established yet. They haven't yet done it because there is— there are still a few decent Labor MPs who fought against it. Oh good. Uh, but crazy. Again, I think that's all a manifestation of organized crime, because if you control the judges, of course, and, and you, and you can force more and more people through a judge system rather than a jury system. And so for libel trials, I fought a libel trial when I was in football against the Times, which is Rupert Murdoch's paper. And you know, I think I had my phones hacked and I fought a libel trial against them.

So the newspaper hacked your phone? They hacked—

when I was in football, they were hacking my phone every day.

Wow. How were they doing it?

Listening in through my voicemails. How'd they do it? And then they can blag a number from the voicemail and start listening. So if you called me and left a message, they could blag your number off my phone. And they thought this was okay. These were national newspapers. And again, I want to get into your voicemail. Well, because they— in the old days, you, you know, people— if people had a code to encrypt their phone and they didn't do it properly, so we had 0000. If you didn't change that, they got into your phone, right? So they got into my phone, they got into lots of people's phones. Wow. Because you never know quite how they did it. So if you'd left me a message, they could blag your number. Right. And then they'd start listening to your phone and everything else. Now I think, you know, that was, in this case, Murdoch. But Murdoch, I think, has done a lot for the right-wing cause. I don't always agree with everything, and I certainly didn't agree with him hacking phones. But this all goes to the point of the establishment becoming corrupted. From corruption, I think again, you end up with oppression and we need to sort that out.

Yeah. I'm hoping if I put myself up and the people agree, they will change things. I think they are in a febrile mood, so I'm hoping that they will take the opportunity and give us the power to do it.

I'm glad you brought that part up because we're not really aware in America of what the general mood of the country is, like where people are leaning, in what direction. As far as England goes. What is it like? Are— is a large percentage of the population fed up? I mean, what's going on over there?

Well, I think to your point, you've got this body of people who are profiting on the back of these concepts which are, you and I would agree, are completely flawed. So they're obviously in control at the moment. But then you've got the body of people, this increasingly small percentage of what I call the private sector, which now accounts for a smaller and smaller proportion of GDP. So your percentage of GDP accounted for by the state is much, much smaller than ours. So our— I mean, directly and indirectly, I would estimate that our— the share of government now in our economy is over 50% if you take the effect of these quangos and everything else. Here, you're much smaller than that. Now that's come, you know, pre-Blair, Thatcher, we were in a very, very good economic state and the state accounted for, you know, what it was, 30, 33%, something like that. It's now up to nearly 50% and rising. And this is what the Fabians want. They want a dependency culture. Right. A sort of centrally planned USSR style dishing out of taxpayer funds. So they've diminished the private sector, which they're taxing into oblivion, which has meant that a lot of our most able people have left the country.

So we've lost— a lot of our rainmakers have gone. So a lot of our best people went to, obviously, Italy, to Dubai, to Abu Dhabi, all over the world. Some of them would have come here. So the best brains have gone. And I think the non-doms have gone, which again I think is a huge error because they've now been taxed rather than being encouraged to spend their time in the UK. So, so, so, so we're being hollowed out by this socialist philosophy which is creating damage to the private sector and empowering the public sector.

Is there a large percentage of young people that are aware of this?

Oh, the young people have— I've been incredibly impressed and a lot of them support us. So they, you know, they can see that we're trying, I think, to at least rebalance this. And until we get this right, it's going to be very difficult to sort their situation out. Now, there's no overnight fix these days. And I don't know— I don't think any of us know quite what effect AI is going to have on on the employment market, on opportunities for young people. I mean, in many ways, if they've got a very good brain, they've got the huge opportunity to do very well and enrich themselves. But increasingly, it's fewer and fewer people. It's not like the Industrial Revolution where the majority of people had an increasing standard of living. It's going to be very interesting to see how we all cope with this this incredibly fast-moving revolution, which is what it is, which is arguably going to create some incredibly rich people and those people who haven't got the brainpower will end up struggling. So it's hard to see how that's going to end. But that doesn't mean to say we want a state central planning everything.

We know historically that doesn't work. And from that comes a sort of shutdown of thought and debate and free speech and all the things that you and I love. I mean, to me, that's a country I want to live in. I don't want to live in a centrally planned mess. So we're in very uncertain times, but I'm optimistic that if you release the ability, the innate ability of of people in Britain in particular in this case. I think we can turn it round still. Can't guarantee it, but I'm pretty sure we can still turn it round. But it's got to happen now. If it doesn't happen now, it would have gone too far.

Well, I certainly hope you can, because for America, when we see what's happening, particularly with the social media posts and the arrests, it's so disturbing for us. And then, of course, with your— the rape gang inquiry report was impossible to believe. It's impossible. So, you know, we, we hope you guys turn it around. And when is your elections?

We don't know, Joe. We've got this character Andy Burnham, who— Keir Starmer has stepped down, as you probably know. Yeah, Andy Burnham, I call him the Ghostbuster. He is just a more user-friendly version of of Keir Starmer. He's been the mayor of Manchester. He stood in a by-election recently where he was elected and he's apparently going to be anointed as Prime Minister by the 20th of July. So this is a guy who up until recently wasn't even an elected politician. He's been a politician in the past. He's been in the cabinet.

So Keir Starmer can just step down and put another guy in his place and that guy takes over?

That's, that's what's happening.

That sounds crazy. I know.

What a stupid way to run things. It's, it's, it's bonkers. But so, so, so the answer to your question is, so what, he could run till '29. That's, that's the backstop date. He could, and everybody says he might, have a snap election. I think that's highly unlikely. Labor have got the biggest post-war majority.

Why would he have a snap election?

He's got 3 years left with a huge majority, so why would he, why would he take a risk? In Manchester, he, he was Manchester mayor. He's actually in the report, in the rape gang report. He's mentioned in the rape gang report for not doing enough in Manchester, which, which is a center of rape gangs. So he's involved in, he's involved in that, you know. He's mentioned in our report. It's in there. So, so look, I think the— in answer to your question, when's the election going to be? Some people would say he's going to have an election soon. I don't agree with that. I think he'd be mad because I still think the public will judge Labor harshly because the economy is not going well. People aren't feeling richer, they're feeling poorer. Their businesses are struggling. Their taxes have gone up. Our taxes are at post-war highs now. So, and the waste is just off the scale. So when I'm in the Public Accounts Committee, which I sit in, again, it's all on, you can watch it on, people watch it on screens. It's the Public Accounts Committee, it's the most powerful committee in Parliament, and we question these civil servants to try and hold them to account for the taxpayer.

The waste is just off the scale. So you've got a wasteful, inefficient state. Which is then taxing the private sector into oblivion, the increasingly small private sector. And that's not a recipe that's going to encourage risk-taking investment. It's not going to— you know, they're taxing family farms. They're taxing family businesses for the first time. They're basically breaking the backbone of Britain. To the Fabian point, they are enacting this Fabian agenda, which is designed to create a society that's reliant on the state. And I don't want that. Nobody should want that.

Well, listen, man, thank you very much for being here. I really appreciate it. I really appreciate you taking the time. I know it was difficult to get here for this day, and this is the only day we had open.

No, it's very kind of you to have me on, Joe. My pleasure. I know it's some big celebrations tomorrow, so— Good luck to you. Yeah, we're gonna win. I'm amazed at the support we've got, and I'm amazed at the number of people who, even on the plane, come up to me and and thank me for what I'm doing and say they're going to vote for us. And I think Britain's on the turn. And hopefully, if we put up shop, tell them what we're going to do, give them a chance to vote for us. If they vote for us, I shall do my best to change things. If they don't vote for me, well, that's their prerogative. That's democracy. That's democracy.

Good luck, sir. Thank you very much.

Pleasure. All right. Bye. Bye.