I. Don't know if you saw the very
very polarized responses to my Stupitas interview.
I haven't had a chance to see that yet.
Nor have I, but do pray see them as best you can.
Some people are saying things like that was great, really
enjoyed that and others are saying oh I'm no longer
supporting UK column anymore. It's all gatekeeping you guys.
Limited hangout. Well, this is Look, Jeremy, this
is a common thing. It is.
It is so spectacular. I cannot quite get my head
around how this works, but this is, this is a very common thing
and the other common thread. And this is the opinion that if
we were to speak to someone and broadcast that, that that
therefore implies some kind of support for that individual.
And sometimes this is not correct.
Sometimes this is because we feel that our audience needs to
hear what somebody says. There was a an interview done in
2018 or something like that with General Sir Richard Barons.
Now General Sir Richard Barons is a great friend of Chris
Donnelly who most people will know was running the integrity
initiative exercise to to demonise Russia for many, many
years. He's formerly NATO and General
Sir Richard Barons, of course, absolutely.
British military establishment totally falls on the on the pro
war camp. But if we interview him, that
means we support him. This is not reasonable, it's not
logical. Sometimes it's good for people
to hear what people, some people are saying and they can draw
their own conclusions. We we aren't necessarily making
any or taking any position on anything that anybody says.
I would imagine that's the same for you.
It's very odd. So one of the comments under
YouTube was how can UK column align with Stu Peters and it's
so it's so woke is what it is when you completely play the man
and not the ball. This is something that I'm
noticing, particularly in the last several months that people
on the right have been complaining and moaning and
criticizing and so on the walk left.
And what we find actually is when it suits them, they behave
in exactly the same way, exactly the same way.
They de platform people. They, they, they do all the same
kinds of things that the woke left does.
But when it's done on the right, that seems to be OK and
acceptable. It's not acceptable.
I, I don't agree with very much the stupider says, but that's
neither here or there. You know, you, you spoke to him
and, and I think it's important that people hear what he's
saying and then people can make up their own minds.
I I think it's highly unlikely that even Stu Peters agrees with
everything that Stu Peters says, but but.
I mean, he's sensational, that's what it is.
I mean just look at all the bling.
Yeah, but, but I think the the the greater point is exactly
that just set people thinking about certain ideas and if that
points you in a in a direction that you find interesting.
And I was just thinking this morning how I, I, I have to say,
I can't remember, but I, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, I
haven't had a television for 25 years.
And so I'm, I'm, you might say, somewhat out of touch.
But when I come down to Plymouth, which I do on a
fortnightly basis, I get to watch half an hour, about half
an hour's worth of BBC Morning News.
And there are many features or factors that are common through
every single programme, but the one that seems so blatant now is
the promotion of some sort of pharmaceutical product.
And this morning it was an Alzheimer's drug that I, I
can't, you know, Institute for Clinical Excellence has just
said, yes, it's good or, or something, you know, I mean, I
did actually hear the word safe and effective from Alzheimer's
bloke. So, you know, reassuring to see
that people are sticking with these things.
But, but the idea that is what they say, therefore I shouldn't
watch the BBC. I, I want to watch it because I
want to understand what is being put out and then to consider why
and to better understand why people believe what they
believe. So you can, you can treat
anybody like, I mean, Stu Peters obviously has an enormous
audience and it it is therefore of interest to look at the sorts
of things that he's talking about to, to bring that all the
way back to right. Well, that must mean that UK
column thinks XY and Z and that we only have one way of looking
at a particular subject is frankly really short sighted
distillation, but also just a limiting one because it means
that you're constantly having to act like a pinball going from UK
column where suddenly you find it's dead end because you you
think Stu Peters is XY or Z and therefore you don't want to have
anything to do with UK column on that basis.
Well, where'd UK? It's a sort of, you know, it's
a, it's a, it's a game that doesn't really end up lasting
very long. It's not very satisfactory.
I actually did find one point of interest from something he said
he's opposed to immigration, legal or illegal, and I found
that a fascinating idea. So perhaps we could just expand
on that just a little bit, because I've never actually
thought about the idea of immigration itself being a bad
idea until perhaps you consider something like China or Japan
that doesn't really allow immigration.
You can be a resident, but you can't become Chinese unless you
are Chinese, if that makes sense.
What are your views on that? It's actually an interesting
discussion. I'd be, I'd be really interested
to hear exactly how he articulates that.
But, but as a matter of interest, did you get on to
emigration? Well, so for example, you know
about the South Africans that have been given hilariously
refugee status in in the US, right?
Which I think is very unfortunate because makes me as
a white South African look ridiculous, like I need to be a
refugee and saved by Trump. Which of course, and on the face
of it, it's absurd he would be opposed to that because the
white S Africans are not American.
OK. But sorry, what I meant was he
because he, I assume he's talking about United States and
he's saying that there should be no immigrant inward migration
into the United States. Yes, yes, immigration was if.
You are there. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But if but if you are there, does he have a view on whether
or not you should be able to leave?
Well, he wants everybody who's not American to leave to be.
But what if you are American and you think, well I'd love to go
and do something in Angola? Does he have a view on that?
The, the reason I ask is because say countries like New Zealand
have a have a massively transient population and one of
their issues is a sort of skills deficit because people go abroad
and practice all the things they've learned in New Zealand
elsewhere. And the feeling is that
therefore their services and their economy suffers as a
result of it. And in the United Kingdom, the
Shetland Islands have a sort of similar thing island population.
Lots of people go away to have experience elsewhere, but of
course that they're therefore creating a void in Shetland.
So if you if you're saying that you don't want people coming in
and that presumably is based on some semblance of an idea that
that talks about the concentration of a of a
particular populate population. Is it consistent then that you
should say right, well, those people need to commit to acting
in the service and to the benefit of this country and
therefore they cannot leave either.
Yeah. And, and look, I would add to
this because how far do you take it?
There are, there are parts of southern Italy, there are parts
of southern France where, you know, basically there's nobody
under the age of 70 living in towns, villages or whatever,
because there's no economy. And they've all migrated to the
big cities to get jobs. And as a result, the local
mayors are offering, you know, all kinds of incentives to try
to encourage people to come back.
Do you take that you may not leave your, your 15 minute area?
How far do you take this? Now I, I would so, I, so I would
qualify this and say I would personally be certainly against
the, the policy of weaponized migration, which is something
that we are without doubt witnessing at the moment.
This has been weaponized as being used as a, a tool of
destruction for societies and for cultures.
And that is absolutely something that that should be resisted.
But, you know, I myself have moved other countries for work
and so on because I wanted to experience working in those
countries. If you're going to tell me that
I shouldn't be allowed to do that, then I couldn't agree with
that, that position because that was something that I found
personally an enriching part of my life.
And so, you know, it's, it's the weaponization and the
trafficking and, and that the, the, you know, what we would all
consider to be, and I don't want to use the word illegal in the
sense of, of illegal migration. Because actually in Britain, for
example, and in Europe, the, the biggest part of the problem is,
is so-called regular migration where, where we are actively
encouraging people to come and offering all kinds of channels
for them to come, so-called legally.
And that, that while at the same time not increasing our
population densities, but not providing the infrastructure to
support these people. So, so you know, that that I
would say absolutely needs to be resisted.
But the idea of resisting all migration is it just seems
nonsensical to me because, for example, we hear people
complaining and whining about Muslims taking over Christian
churches and turning them into mosques.
And I'm thinking to myself, well, hold on a second.
That couldn't have happened if you were a Christian and you'd
been attending that church. The reason that has happened is
because that church is closed because you haven't bothered
getting off your backside to go to to that church and make that
a viable operation. So, you know, we're busy
complaining about I'm, I'm, this isn't something I'm saying.
This is something I hear others say.
We're complaining about the reproduction rate of certain
demographics in the UK while the white population isn't breeding.
Why, why are you complaining about that?
What are you doing to resolve the fact that, that, that we are
being outbred? If if that is the case, what are
you doing to resolve the fact that we are being outbred?
Right. So there there are many economic
reasons why people are not having babies from the, from the
so-called indigenous population. There are many other reasons why
aren't we? Why aren't we actually
supporting and? Having more sex.
Well, no, but it's just, it's just, it's, it's even beyond
that. It's our entire culture.
We have, we have for the last 50-60 years abandoned the idea
of being British. We've abandoned that.
And then when, when others come in and, and suddenly it's
perceived as a threat and we're complaining about it.
This problem didn't start 10 years ago when the serious
levels of migration started. This problem started 60 years
ago when we started walking away from and being embarrassed about
our flag and and turning the idea of identity into something
that was representative of right wing extremism.
Right with this is something we did to ourselves and we cannot
blame immigrants for that. That's our problem.
I. Don't know if you saw my
discussion with Simon Rush. 100 years ago, the year 1925, you
know, white people made-up around 27 to 30% of the world
population. Now it's below 10%.
Whose fault is that? It's it's economy.
First of all, the fact that, that, you know, 60 years, 50
years ago, people could buy a home based on one person's
salary, that that's, it didn't cost 50% of your combined income
in order to provide childcare for your children.
It's the fact that we constantly move away from the older
generation. So we have no support for child
childcare and these kinds of issues.
So, you know, it, there's that there's a whole range of
different reasons why we are not producing children at the
moment. Lifestyle are, are the food that
we eat, the air that we breathe. All these reasons are reducing
fertility rates. But you know, the economic part
of it has to be addressed first because if people can't afford
to have children, which is the main reason people aren't having
children at the moment, then then of course they're going to
be discouraged from from doing that.
An extension of that talking point is what does it mean to be
British or what does it mean to be South African?
So my country is a complete mess, as you know, right?
So if you were to ask me what is a South African, I can't answer
that question. I don't know, I.
I was thinking about this last night, in fact.
Certainly the idea of white British being one distinct
culture I think is long gone, if really it ever existed.
I think that's the other issue with this is, and I know we, we
have touched on this before, but exactly how far back you're
going to, to talk about Simon's statistic of 10% of the world
population being white. It's just fascinating that we
would look at it in those terms, the United Kingdom and indeed
South Africa, but the United Kingdom, let's say, which has
had, as far as we're aware, throughout history, a white
population has been a constant battleground between rival
groups of white people who have had very, very bloody conflicts.
And yet from that we're trying to suggest that we are a unified
race as it were, which we're not, we can't possibly be.
So the whole, the whole migration inward migration issue
is a massive intellectual fudge anyway.
Because in actual fact, if you examine your bloodline, if
that's what this is about, then you will either find that you
have come from, say the Western Isles or Ireland or indeed
Northern Europe, Scandinavia or slightly further E you know,
somewhere in what would now be Germany.
I mean, I'm speaking broadly, but but we can trace that part
of history relatively accurately.
And so the idea that if you have Pictish or Celtic heritage or
Saxon or Angle or whatever, that that now doesn't matter because
the, the common factor is that we're white and therefore we are
a nation. Well, when did that happen?
Why did that get decided? Very sorry.
To to get to the point, I was, I was walking last night and I saw
a white British girl who had tattooed on her sort of upper
back 3 Crescent moons with a star in it, basically Islamic
symbolism. And I, it just made me think
about the way that cultures express themselves.
And to answer your question, insofar as you know, is there a
British culture? Look at the body art that people
wear and find me people who are decorated with symbols that are
British every. OK, I'm speaking generally but
but tattoos by and large sported by Brits are either sort of the
bits of arcane or obscure language don't actually really
make any sense to anyone except for them.
But often they're in a non British script or they are
images or symbols from other parts of the world.
So don't tell me that there are people in Japan who are wearing
tattoos with, I mean, I can't, I can't even think what like a
stick of rock or AII don't know what a sunburn or something on
them it was. So.
So we haven't managed to export any cultural significance to
anyone else that has made them think, yeah, OK, I am Japanese
or I'm New Zealand or whatever. But actually what I want to have
inked onto me for the rest of my life is a symbol that doesn't
reflect the culture I belong to. It's going to be from somewhere
else and OK, it might be my point.
Although of course, as we know, tattoos are on the up and up and
up. So.
So it is kind of significant. And if you stop in the R salmon
industry, I don't think they would ever have given it a
second thought. But that don't you know, do you
consider yourself British area? Absolutely.
Because I drink 10 pints of Stella every night and you know
that that's. Yeah, I'm absolutely pure
purebred. And yet I'm decorated with icons
that I have no idea about their origins, genesis meaning
anything, but they look good and, and there we go.
So no, I, I don't think there there really is.
And also, as I say this, this relates to the to the wider
issue of, of the sort of line drawing thing.
So to go back to Stu Peters and OK, I don't want to concentrate
on necessarily him, but it's not an uncommon message to say, OK,
we have a nation and he's talking about the United States,
but the but like the UK, it is a massive melting pot.
And I'm talking about the white people.
White people have come from all leave it to form that society.
And that's the that's the complete irony of what he's
saying. Let's Yeah, the United States is
a country of migration. That's, you know, the indigenous
population is sitting in small packs of land around the
countryside. In the meantime, the vast
majority of the population are all immigrants.
And now he wants to stop immigration.
Well, that that's the whole basis of your country and and
that that's something that I think Stu has missed or has
conveniently wanted to forget in this conversation.
Yeah, and also the the slightly less palatable truth or issue is
the, you know, the undertone to all of this.
I'm certainly not accusing him of, well, anyone else who holds
these views, I'll say racism. So say idle and unfounded.
That's not what I mean, but there.
But but, you know, even if like like Simon Roche does, which I
think he articulates really well, you're making a
distinction between people have say, different colours because
it's so obvious. You can see it at first glance.
And he's absolutely right in that people do when, when the
chips are down, they gravitate back towards people who are most
like them. And that doesn't matter really,
whether that's on family or, you know, a business or whether
you're in the army or whatever it is.
But you do, you do gravitate back towards those that you feel
safest around. It's entirely natural and
there's no getting away from it. But the point.
I think of all of this bit is slightly losing my thread as I
say, which is annoying because it was so much in the front of
my mind when I started that sentence.
But it's yes for it for it to come down to to cut yes, that's
what it is. Sorry.
It's the inference that there is something about coloured
immigrants into a white country like say the UK or the, or the
United States. There's a, there's a sort of
lazy inference that these people are somehow useless, drawing off
the state, taking all the money, you know, blah, blah, blah,
generally bringing society down. Of course, the unpalatable bit
is to say, OK, well, let's just look at society as a whole and
consider who is useless and who is useful because that's
ultimately sort of where this is going.
And if you look at the white population of the United
Kingdom, there are a lot of very useless people who are not
contributing to society. So, So what do we do?
Do we, do we get rid of them or do we say, no, we'll keep them
because they're white and they're British, even though
they're totally useless. So in a way, where does this
debate, if that's what one wants to call it, where does it go?
What's the, what's the ultimate aim?
Because just penning people of the same colour or nation into
the same place, how sure are we that that guarantees good
outcome? I think that if we look at what
the biggest immigration related problems are in Britain over the
last period of time, I would say that at least as important and
something which is never discussed is the immigration of
so-called culture from other countries.
I'm thinking about Hollywood, for example, and, and the
complete destruction of people's minds that have come from that
part of the United States, from the US gaming industry, from
social media. It's all come from California.
We have imported this stuff into our countries and it has
destroyed our countries. And this isn't something that
was done by a Pakistani or an Indian or an African.
This is something that was done by other white people in a part
of the United States. We've got to.
We can't ignore that from the conversation.
I mean, I've said that also, for example, in the COVID era the
the people here, at least in South Africa who got themselves
jabbed like cattle lining up to be branded in the main were the
white middle class and upper class.
By far. Yeah.
I mean, this is OK. The the percentage weightings,
obviously South Africa versus UK are very different in terms of
black white, but but the the parallels are amazing.
And in fact, we'll be putting it out fairly shortly.
But Monty Toms, who does some excellent out and about sort of
St. interviews for UK column, has just dealt with the issue of
digital ID, which I would say is so very obviously a terrible
idea on absolutely whichever, whichever level you you want to
examine it. And he went out onto the street
in London and OK, with all these things you can always say, well,
you know, it's just sort of potlucked men.
So you get on the day very small sample size, blah, blah, blah.
But what was really indicative or illustrative or informative
instructive from his most recent one was that there were two why
a young white man and a young white woman not, not with each
other, not not related, but interviewed separately about
digital ID, who both said exactly the same thing, which
was, yeah, it's just great idea, you know, having everything in
one place. I mean, how incredibly
convenient. And they were, they were so
obviously a product of the UK's education system, having gone
through school and critically university where they were
effectively, you know, indoctrinated, brainwashed,
whatever. And everybody else that he spoke
to who were not of the, let's say, sort of modern progressive
educated class took it at face value.
And even if they hadn't heard about it, just just their snap
judgement on is it a good idea to have all your data in one
place and have it controlled by somebody else?
They said no, That sounds like a terrible idea.
And then that question was superseded by, do you trust the
government? The answer to which was no.
And then it was right. So what do you think about the
government having all of your data in the same place, you
know, by which they're virtually running off down the street?
So, and, and yet these two white people and yes, OK, it's only
two people in the home of London and blah, blah.
But they absolutely do speak for a class of people who have this
sort of almost unthinking arrogance to consider that
they're a product of a system that they trust implicitly that
it is looking after their best interests and that everybody
should just sign up. And this is, of course, you
know, we go back to the safe and effective and all the other
massive pitfalls that people have just walked headlong into.
But it was so interesting and the the number of people that
Monty spoke to were black. I'm trying to think, I think
perhaps one or two Asian people as well, but they but all of
whom. So through this, and I'm not,
I'm trying to make some sort of racial, ethnic profiling thing.
But it was just very interesting that this idea of whiteness,
culture, national thing, whatever, you know, going back
to the what is the benefit? What, you know, do I really want
to be stuck in a country with a bunch of people who say, yeah,
digital ID is such a good idea because it's all your stuff in
one place. How terribly convenient.
Let's all be white together. It's just crazy, isn't it?
OK, so let's look at South Africa, for example, the Zulu
nation doesn't include white people.
But however, and I've I've thought about this, how
important is that? We are for the last 30-40 years
been told all about diversity. We've got to have diversity and,
and as a result, we've ended up with people being given
diversity training, for example. Now, what is the purpose of
diversity training? The purpose of diversity
training is to actually break down any sense of, of pride in
your nationhood and in what, in your history and where you've
come from, right? And to say that that you, the
black man, are the same as you, the white man, or the same as
you, the Asian. What that does is that actually
removes diversity, right? Because we've all grown up in
cultures. We have a language which
expresses things in particular, There's other, we all know this
there. There are other parts of the
world with other languages where the concepts that are expressed
by those languages aren't even translatable because because the
concepts and the words don't exist in the other language that
you're wanting to translate into.
That's true diversity, having a diversity of cultures, being
proud of the culture that you're part of, that brings strength to
the human race because it brings a diversity of ideas and
concepts and and so on. Now, of course the converse of
that is that there's potential for conflict, but we it's, you
know, we could choose to grow up and and abandoned the conflict
that actually appreciate, right. But diversity, the idea, the
modern idea of diversity breaks down the differences and
actually what they're attempting to do is turn everybody
culturally into the same thing. And that's something we
absolutely should resist. But but of course, we can only
do that if we understand what's comes back to your earlier
point, we can only do that if we understand what our culture is
supposed to be. And I'm not sure that I do.
I'm not sure that there are very many people actually do
understand. And certainly from the the idea
of, I mean, what does British actually mean?
Britain is is a nation of three, supposedly a nation of three
separate countries is actually quite a bit of diversity even
within the UK between the various peoples that that are
here. So I'm not sure that there is
even a there's even such a thing as British.
So, but nonetheless, getting back to the main point, the main
point is that this idea of, of diversity is actually something
which is 180° from what diversity actually means.
And, and actually it's turning us all into the same thing.
I've said this many times, but you know, when I was growing up,
we had Paddy Englishman, Paddy Irishman, Paddy Scotsman jokes
and, and, and we took that Mickey out of each other's
cultures with the Scottish are tight fisted money wise.
The Irish are all drunks. I'm not at the, the English are
so insignificant, I'm not even sure what they were supposed to
be. But well, anyway, anyway, that
the point is, we, we, we recognized our own feelings.
We were happy to make a joke of them.
We were happy to laugh at ourselves as much as we're so
scared to laugh at ourselves, at ourselves anymore.
We're so scared because we take offense at the slightest thing
that anybody says. We've all just got to grow up.
I think is is basically where we need to start.
When I was in Paris, that's beautiful and etcetera.
And there's obviously history and buildings and all that sort
of stuff. That's, that's, that's wonderful
to look at. But I remember saying to my
wife, I want to see France. I don't feel like I'm
experiencing French culture. There's McDonald's and the
Burger King and everything is international, which we have
back home. You go to most cities in what we
describe as the Western post industrial sort of modern world
and, and they are by and large in the way that they run
homogeneous. They they exactly like you say,
they've all got the same multinationals with their
horrific outlets selling junk or junk media or, you know, junk
clothes or fake this and that and the other.
So in some sense you could be anywhere.
Of course you have this phenomenal historical,
architectural or visual backdrop, like Paris, you know,
being a very good example, of course, very beautiful.
But when you look now at all the other bits that are sort of
overlain, they are pretty dreadful and dull because you
get them everywhere. So yes, I think to go out
further away from that, where those influences can't manifest,
then you see a society which is trying to preserve its way of
life and that is what culture comes back to.
I mean, I think France is very distinct from the United Kingdom
in that respect. And that you go to the majority
of OK, I'm being particular with the folks on England, but, but a
lot of English villages now will have no way of life that would
that could be described as distinctly British in the way
that they might have done 50 or more years ago.
In that the vast majority will have a church that is largely
dormant because people don't attend it anymore.
They will not have a post office or a village shop because they
will have decided that the convenience and cheap allure of
supermarkets was what they wanted to go for.
And now they, well, they probably don't even rue the day,
but but obviously that's meant that that any sense of local
service, community, hub, blah, blah, blah has has all
disappeared. So the, the, the, the idea of a
preservation of a way of life in many parts of the United
Kingdom, particularly in England, I think has has, albeit
all but evaporated. France less so.
And I think to go back to what you were saying about, say, the
Zulu nation, we see that there is a much more concerted effort
to preserve a way of life. And if that involves making sure
that the people that make up that nation are from the same
genetic ethnic heritage and that that makes sense to them at that
time, then so be it. And let's not forget that
particularly with Zulus, that we don't go terribly far back to
remember what this is or was all about, which was conflict.
It was, it was asserting your identity on a particular way of
life or a particular territory by either the use of force or
the resistance of force. But as time has gone by, that
has by and large fallen away. And so therefore, in order to
preserve the way of life that we consider important to us, we are
looking for other capabilities. And so the trying to progress
traits such as strength and athleticism and and war
fighting, which would make sense on a, on say a sort of
ethnological basis that that's no longer valid.
And so going back, you know, in the UK, go back to 2020 when it
really did feel like the, the walls were closing in and the,
the tyranny was absolute because people were really having their
way of life compromised. The important thing then was to
find people who shared that belief.
It didn't or shouldn't have mattered what their background,
colour, ethnicity, age or, or anything was.
And that was because we weren't in a situation of needing to
physically fight that. That's long gone.
So I think we're in this odd age in in this part of the world,
you know, in what we call the developed part of the world
where we're we're wanting to form as groups, but not for the
same reasons. And therefore we're still sort
of casting about in the wind to work out exactly how best to do
that. But the thing we people sort of
fall back to is this idea of nation through a visible
connection to other people exactly like Zulu.
But but I think unless I got it wrong, Zulu linguistically and
sort of ethnically a close to causa is that isn't that right?
Similar. And yet, yeah, quite different
exactly. But that's the point.
They are very distinct. Whereas here in the United
Kingdom, Angles and Saxons and Normans and Celts and Picts all
live alongside each other, largely oblivious to the
incredible conflicts of the past.
And they consider that they're all now British, which of course
is a nonsense. If you went to if you went into
Natal, Kwazulu Natal now and said to Azulu, by the way, you
know in how many years time somebody in the Cape or in the
trans guy will be the same as you.
They they dismiss it out of hand.
You need to differentiate. I think on a micro level,
multiculturalism is fine. You can have neighbors who look
and are different to you in every way.
I mean, you, there's no problem. I, I have black friends and
Indian friends and whatever else, right?
But I, but I think as you see with what's happening in Europe,
you have on a macro level, a situation that is not really
cohesive. Apartheid was an interesting
example. And that's a discussion for a
different day because it's highly complex.
But the, the, the original intention of apartheid was not
based on white hatred for blacks.
It was, it was based on the fact that the two simply cannot work
together under the same roof because #1 that had different
languages and different, different ways of operating.
So it would have been best to have divided the country with a
border. And as the saying goes, borders
make the best neighbors. Now of course this the system
became highly corrupted, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
But the, the idea that on a macro level this can work, I
think is fairly clear internationally that it doesn't.
But on a micro level, it's absolutely fine.
If you just leave people alone, they get on fine.
They do, but it, it does go back to the, you know, the motivation
of threat and exactly what it is going back to this preservation
of a way of life, what it is that is the foremost pressure on
that. And therefore what recourse
you're going to take in order to preserve that life.
And, and, and you know, it's, it's so common for there to come
points where factions develop because that sense of integrity
does actually dissolve at some point because whatever it is, I
mean, it's, I know it seems ridiculous now, but, but because
you're not the same colour or you're not from the same part of
that country or not from the same family or, or whatever.
But the but this is when the pressure is on the.
These are the things that turn out to matter.
If I had a neighbor who was ethnically and culturally very
different to me, no issue. But if I had a neighbor who
decided to slaughter a cow in the back garden in a way that
that that just I don't appreciate, it doesn't work with
with my own slaughtering of cows, for example, Right.
I I have it done at a butcher, not in a back garden where it's
noisy and, yeah, animal screaming and the whole thing is
it's blood everywhere. But they could argue, yeah, but
that's our custom. Now we have an issue because
what happens now? This is exactly what I go back
to in terms of preserving a way of life.
So it's kind of academic as to whether your neighbor doing that
is black, white or green. It's it's rather more to do with
the fact that they, like you say, they've come from a social
grouping that does that thing in that particular way.
And to go back to the Zulus, let's say, because there there
is a discernible way in which Zulu people do continue to live,
then that would be there'd be no barrier.
I mean, they would all do it in the same way.
They that that is part of what belonging to that society is
about. And that's what I think that's
what I mean in terms of what we have lost.
So the idea, you know, in Britain that we do do things in
one particular way is, is, is absolute rubbish.
We, we completely do not do it. And so it's complete potluck
now. I mean, I might find that I had
a neighbor who was a different colour from me, but shared a
view of how a certain thing would be done.
And I would say that if somebody's slaughtering a cow in
their back garden and it's making any noise, they have got
something very wrong. Because I would advocate for
anything to happen outside an abattoir.
But that's a perhaps a discussion for next week.
But the, the point is that, as I say, because this, you know,
conflict we hope doesn't exist anymore.
The basis of culture, ideology, belief is, is on these sorts of
practices. And therefore we've, we seem to
have moved beyond in, at least in the UK, a time where you can
look at somebody and discern whether or not they're going to
want to behave in a particular way over a particular issue and
whether or not that's going to be similar to you or different.
Previously we would have been able to do that.
You would have been able to distinguish between white
groups. You can look at people now and
take a, take a fairly educated guess as to what their ancestry
is just by the shape of their face and their body.
It's more difficult to do now because we are much more of a
mixture. Let's be honest, we can all
agree that that nobody wants gingers around.
Tough crowd. Yeah, really tough crowd.
I mean, that's the thing. I mean the things like that, I
I, I have never ever understood, you know, the the sort of
characteristics. No joke.
It is a joke, but it's such an extraordinary one because the
the the archetypal image of a claymore wielding Scott with his
kilt flying behind him is always a flaming redhead.
He's like the bravest of the brave.
I, I, I can't think of a similar joke where the, the, the, the
sort of apex of whether it's masculinity or strength or
agility or whatever is lampooned in that way.
It's so bizarre. But yeah, I, I do appreciate
that it is a joke, but thanks very much for pointing it out.
But, but in fact, part of that, of course, is the fact that even
talking about this kind of thing might be regarded as being
sensitive. I mean, why on earth would it be
if we're talking about people who had big hands or big feet as
though that was in some way a defining national
characteristic? And that's how people read here,
all read here, you know, and that, and that's how people
decided which group they would belong to.
I mean, OK, the the the, there would therefore be a media
propaganda campaign in order to make that sensitive issue.
But the point is that we are, we are kowtowing to the narrative
in the 1st place by even considering that it should be
sensitive. Why?
You don't have any control over what colour you turn out to be.
Why on earth would it be sensitive?
It's only sensitive if you fall into the massive trap of saying,
Oh yeah, actually there are sort of, I don't know, intellectual
differences between people and therefore, you know, we have to
be really sensitive or because we can't possibly say that white
people are this and somebody else, that we are all different.
That should absolutely be acknowledged.
But but the in to draw the inference from that that
therefore, well, it's too sensitive to talk about because
we're different is is absolutely absurd and pathetic.
Well, you know, I, I think, I think actually, you know,
intelligence is something that we should absolutely be looking
into. I mean, for example, the
intelligence of the average MP Now there, there's a, there's a
grouping that, that I think we can universally and blankets say
are thick as 2 short planks, but they seem to come from all kinds
of different backgrounds these days.
So, you know, I don't think it matters what, what colour
religion, whatever these people are, let's put them in a box and
just put them over there and say stupid.
That would be a good, a good start, I think.
And maybe then we can the rest of us can get on with building
our lives. Look, the, the, the bottom line
here is the, the whole notion of protected characteristics is, is
something that has been created in order to 1st of it.
It does, it does a couple of things that are really
detrimental to the, to the conversation.
And if we're getting worried about even having a conversation
like the one that we've had, then then that just demonstrates
how far, how far we've fallen. The fact of the matter is that
as soon as you say to someone you have a protected
characteristic, first of all, that is telling them very, very
sternly that they are somehow inferior and that therefore that
that characteristic needs to be protected because it's it's an
inferior thing. And to the person who wants to
criticize that characteristic for some reason, you're saying
to them, no, you can't do that, so you just shut up.
Well, this, this, this, this, first of all stops the
conversation. It increases the frustration.
It's part of the mechanism by which racial tensions, religious
tensions, skin colour tensions, sexuality tensions are built.
And it, it is an, it is a psychological operation.
It's something which is being done to us all and and it is
there to divide because when we're divided, we're weak.
It's it's time that we as as ordinary people from whatever
religion, culture, background, whatever, recognise that that
our enemy isn't each other. Their enemy is something else,
and we need to start having conversations about what that
enemy actually is. Exactly.
So I said to a friend of mine last week that my enemies are
not those to the left and right of me, but those probably above
me. Again, going back to this idea
of nationhood and peoples and, and all the rest of it and, and
what it is to be part of that. It is interesting that the I
think what never gets talked about is that if we are to have
this idea that we have come from somewhere, is it appropriate
that we should have just one sort of leadership body as it
were? You know, the the United States
has one president for all those people, for all those white
people who are as stupid as would put it sort of part of the
American nation. But of course they're not.
They've all come from all over the place.
So it is, it is really the expansion of the colonial
project in that you're managing everybody by creating leaders a
little bit further down the pecking order and therefore
homogenising groups in order that you end up with this
pyramid with one person at the top of it and everybody sort of
falling into line. So it's it is interesting that
it that it, it does conform to that way of of ruling people.
OK. Final thought, Mike.
Yeah, I don't really have any final thoughts on that.
I think this conversation is is one that's going to rumble on.
I hope that this that what we've discussed today is highly
controversial. I hope it causes at least as a
determined response as the Stu Peters interview did.
And I hope that it causes people to think, you know, I'm, I'm not
going to say that that everything, my views are the
only are the right views and everybody's got to believe what
I believe. In fact, I would, I would say
quite the opposite. You've got a people have got a
challenge conceptions and that applies to ourselves as well as
those we might hear from others. So, so bring the challenges is
what I would say.