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.