#2524 - Rupert Lowe

The Joe Rogan, experience. Train by day Joe Rogan podcast by night. All day. Thank you for being here.

My pleasure. And thank you to Brett Weinstein, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk for helping connect us. We are going to see Elon on Sunday. So he's been an incredible support for us.

So I don't know how you want to play. 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.

Yeah, and that's why you're here. And this is what we're talking about. We're talking about. The right gang.

We've done. This is a crowd funded this. Okay. Which I'm very happy to talk to you about.

The title of that rape gang report. Yeah. The idea that there's rape, there's actual rape gangs in the UK in 2026. And 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, or elite, 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 super state which is the EU, the genesis which was obviously not.

So they had to diminish the power of the nation to do that. Because I think Britain was a proud nation state. 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've had mass dislocation in Europe.

Huge numbers of people have 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, 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 the culturalism 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 Monet's, the Spinelis 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 to sort of diminish the idea of nationalism? Yes, I think that, well, I'm not.

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 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 1997 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 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 a reversible. But in the event we, thanks to Sir James Gelsmith, 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 the 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 elite in Britain and the elites of the United States, it's coordinated with both of them. I think less so in America Joe. 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, Joe Biden, you have to wonder whether they began with the World Economic Forum to play a part in this.

But I think the post-war plan for Europe was founded on a socialist principle, whereas I think America has always been a very sound politically based structure, based on obviously the founding fathers and your constitution, which I always think returns power to the individual and has always understood that the dangerous are status dangers, not individual dangers. So I'm very much in the camp. I like the individual at 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 status.

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 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 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 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 Spanish societies in South Asia, and 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 the high trust societies were, you know, Lee Kuan Yew based Singapore on post-war Britain where 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 rebuilding, 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 really accelerated after 1997 when a lot of the legislation that Tony Blair and his cohorts passed, such as the Human Rights Act, which embedded in the ECHR, he created the Supreme Court, they passed laws like the Equality Act, and the 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.

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. If you're thinking about building a website, you should try Squarespace. I know because I use it. That's right.

JoeRogan.com is powered by Squarespace. It has all the features that you need to create a standout website like an AI-enhanced website builder, SEO optimization tools, and seamless checkouts with mobile pay links. Head to Squarespace.com.com for a free trial, and when you are ready to launch, use the offer code Rogan to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. This episode is brought to you by Uber Eats.

Hockey season's here, and Uber Eats is delivering game-day deals on favorites, like wings, pizza, fries, and snacks, and you can order more than food, like gear to rep your team or fresh batteries for the remote. When your watch party gets hungry or you just need anything, order in and keep everyone's attention on the ice. Score great deals on Uber Eats all season long because hockey is for the hungry. Terms apply, product availability varies by region, see app for details.

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 you probably know our Bill of Rights in 1689, a lot of that was lifted by your founding fathers, who embedded it within the US constitution. So that embeds freedom of speech, embeds the individual, embeds all of the rights that I think make the Anglo-Saxon world great.

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 lot for business for Sterling, a lot for Vote Leave, a nice tip for the Brexit party and I was elected there. 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 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 vote. They can't be under the current laws and treaties that we're part of that 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 prisons in our prisons and we have people who 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 the legacy of this huge amount of immigration which took place. And are large percentage of these people receiving welfare from the British government? Yes. Yes.

What percentage? Most of the people who arrive at their all supported, I mean, they're putting in channels. So I mean, as soon as you get there? In Parliament I see the contracts.

Thanks to my parliamentary questions. I'm allowed to ask questions and scrutinise the contracts for, for instance, the Bibi Stockham, 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 food they require.

I mean, literally it is 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.

That's your question. I don't think they know how many people are living in Britain illegally. Well, the similar situation in America over the last four years where on the low number they think it was 10 million people came in. Which is insane.

It's an insane amount of people that come in in four 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. It's very 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 that we're going to be able to do. 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'll 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. And who have their own court, they have their own court Sharia courts, yes, parallel legal system. Okay, so it's unrecognized by the British government, parallel legal system that exists inside of England.

It's tolerated. So they're aware of it. 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're allowing that. No, no, I believe, I don't know if you come to our country, you should live under our laws. Well, yeah, I mean the idea of, well, the United States in particular is a melting pot.

And people come from all over the place and it's one of the cool things that does 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 stuff that a lot of people might not even be aware of 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. And this is the, no one thinks that's a possible thing. People look at the Coliseum, you look at ancient Greece and they think, wow, 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 into 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 great. Lots of people were there.

The minute that the Muslim population went over about 15% you started to get a problem with the Civil War, you've got the Druze and Maenai Christians in a civil war with Muslims. And now Lebanon is a Muslim country. And Hezbollah, back by Iran, is effectively running the show. So, at your point, I couldn't agree more on 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 pounds. And very inquanctitist people gave. And we did it because the government will not have a statutory inquiry.

So our government, particularly the Labour Party, have been presiding over this because it goes to the Muslim block 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 Labour. That's beginning to change.

They're beginning to vote for Muslim independence now. And I sit with someone at the back apartment. 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 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 On X Offroad. Ever wonder how to reach these epic mountain lakes, they're tucked away, dispersed campsites.

With On X Offroad, 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 is capable before you go. Unlike other apps, On X gives you turn-by-turn directions on the trail and their new dispersed camping layer shows where you can legally set up camp.

You'll 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 On X Offroad for 50% off, go to onxmaps.com.com. Why is that?

Is that a failure of your media? Is it a failure of the politicians? Why don't people know about this? It's a total failure of the media because the media is 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 Labour Party in power. So they put power ahead of principle. And in the report we covered this. We covered the reasons why it's so serious.

And you'll even cover, as you quite rightly say, the fact that dogs are not liked by the Islamic faith logic because of hammered like cats, he didn't like dogs. And what we wanted to do was interview victims, which we did. We did it properly. We 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 two-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 that 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 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, as you probably know, if a woman accuses somebody of rape.

And a lot of these Muslims come from Pakistan, they're predominantly Pakistan, and they're predominantly from one part of Pakistan called Mipur. There are some from Bangladesh, some from Somalia, 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 quite horrific.

And our reporters effectively uncovered this. I think we've played a part with this report in the government saying 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 will appear, voluntarily. The government can actually force people legally to appear.

They can actually make it a legal requirement that people attend. We couldn't do that. But there had been reports in the past. There was the J report in 2014, and there's been the KC 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 status 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 is permeated the whole of British society, since Tony Blair, people have frightened to be accused of effectively being biased and white.

And we talked about things, you probably don't know what you have here, unconscious bias and all of the other sort of what I call woke DEI driven rubbish, which has permeated Britain in the same way. I think it may have originally come from you guys, but 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. Thanks to the Donald.

Yeah, that helped a lot. And I think a big part of it was Elon buying Twitter, where you got legitimate free speech, 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 are.

I was about to say up in arms, but that's also part of the problem, is that no one's armed over there. I have actually got some guns, because I have a farm. So when you come to the UK, I hope you'll come and shoot some pheasants with me. 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 full accusations about me threatening to hit one of the years of the meeting. And some of you say I went around Parliament and say I was a very good shot and I was going to shoot. I used to believe that I got a completely clean record. I employed lots of people.

I have lots of businesses and I've never had an issue. But listen, forearm 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.

They turned up. Just from an accusation. 9.30 at night. Left at call to 12.

We got them on the cameras. It took all my guns, all my ammo, and it took me five or six 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.

You probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane. One murder. So everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had his dead-knob lesson, but he had all his pistols were taken away. The gun that the pistols used to shoot with at Oxford University.

I mean, we now have a society which needs radical change and we need to release the individual. And to your point on social media posts, there was a lovely lady Lucy Connolly who was locked up for 32 months for just a very emotional social media post which she deleted after four hours about the Southport killings where this chap Axel Rudakabana went to knife three 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 where the British state's gone completely wrong. So instead of one law for everybody and one policing for everybody, this sort of view that the white population is racist, which I don't personally believe them to be, I think Britain 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 architecture to it, this was by design, that this was done, or is this just a natural response to people being called racist?

Because there was a course in the past, there was more racism than there is today and people always want to point to that racism as evidence of colonialism, evidence of what 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 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 with slash, which is, some would even say that out loud. You own nothing and you will be happy. Is this a part of an Orwell book? Because this doesn't seem like a real person, would say something like that.

Who the fuck is going to listen to that? Doesn't make any sense? Well, George Orwell has been rather accurate in terms of history. He's dead on.

He's actually pretty optimistic. His version of the world was a little bit more palatable than what we're dealing with right now. Interesting man, Old Italian, fought in the Spanish Civil War. He was a very quirky Englishman who clearly had a hugely pressing foresight, and I think probably like me, he had a healthy disrespect for what I call collectivist stateism.

And he was a very much an individual and 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 has never happened. This is not even possible. But what a crazy world this guy's created in his imagination.

The 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, biologically male athletes that compete against women because they identify as women 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 doing? Like, what is this?

Well, it's almost as if we're subverting all the things that made us great. Yeah. And you know, there's nothing wrong with immigration, but there's probably a good idea to make sure no one's on a fucking murder before you let him 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 Pakistan.

Go to Karachi. Go hang out. Go down the street as a woman. Go down the street as a woman in a manuscript and see how that works out.

Go to Pakistan. Again, this is your quite right. 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 totally covered.

Yes. And again, it's all in various of the Hadith, which we quote in the Reagan report. They are considered to be meat. And this is something I've never understood.

How do you square the 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 over a thousand years? And acknowledging that is somehow another racist. Acknowledging that some cultures are superior is somehow another racist, but 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, a lot of cultures in this world live as people live thousands of years ago.

No one in the United States wants to live as people live 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 unfair, 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 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. It was Margaret Thatcher who was very strong on this. And you have to have laws. You have to have laws.

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 what 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 laws. But what you do, though, if someone comes over here and then they're not violating any laws, they're not violating any laws. They achieve citizenship.

But then they start bringing over more and more people and then start instituting shari law. What do you do? Do you deport them all? 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 going to knock on people's doors and pull them out of their homes and ship them back to where they came from? Well, I think the first thing you do is you stop them coming across the country.

Well, how many are... They shouldn't be coming any one hundred percent at all because they're traveling across the country, 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 this illegally.

But in our paper, I mean, we think it's sort of 1.8 to 2.5.5. 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. We can vary.

You can get a thousand in a day. If the sea's rough, you get none because obviously they suffer. If they try and cross, the overcrowded ding is that they can't get across. But we're paying the French over half a billion pounds.

You have to try and stop it. That, I think, is not happening. And as a result of that, our border patrol picks them up, gives them bottles of water, brings them in, and settles them in in hotels. And pays them welfare.

They become, and then they apply for residency. They say, there are asylum seekers. I argue most of them are economic migrants. But our woke culture 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 in housing. That's right. Why would you not do that?

Well, not any of that. You go to the top of the waiting list for dental treatment, which British people don't get. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

They get access to dental treatment that the British people don't get? Correct. Why do immigrants get access to it? This, Joe, is the mystery of what are leaders.

I don't know what they think they're doing. But they have this misguided view that these people are actually calling asylum seekers. They need to be looked after and protected. They're not economic migrants.

And to your point, if they know that there's welfare when they reach Britain, they'll travel across multiple safe countries to get to the welfare, the free housing, and all the other stuff. 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 their own laws, as I said. And there are large tracts of the country now where we've got these Islamic settlements 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 smarties in Minnesota. 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. It's kind of crazy.

It's crazy. 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.

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.

Yeah, that's why queers for Palestine is always hilarious. And then you see the meme, Palestine for queers and throwing people off roofs. It's like the champion runs our green party is a gay Jew. So I mean, 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 be. But this is what's crazy is that their society, 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 it? If someone has, first of all, if they commit adultery, they can be killed. Stoned to death.

Yeah. And I want. It's a horrible video where a father did it to his daughter. Yes, you do get these killing.

Honor killing. Yeah. Or brothers. The brother will kill the daughter of the daughter's shame.

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 Me Too movement, it 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.

And to your point, again, in our report, a woman, if she accuses in Pakistan a man of rape, she has to have four 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.

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. If you deviate from those rules, you're racist.

You don't want to be a racist, right? Then everyone's welcome. As you say, it's honor killings, it's tribal. Your first loyalty is to your tribe and your family, not to your host country who's actually got their own laws.

There are all sorts of Hadith rulings which they can use to justify it. I mean, for instance, if they rape a white girl, that doesn't count in their view of life as adultery. So they are effectively taught that a girl who doesn't dress as they would dress is meat to be abused. And they have these extraordinary sort of cultural views.

You see it in my view with a society like ours where we are a matriarchal society which respects women. I think we have grown to respect women. Obviously they have 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 important part of everything. But again, under 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 behaviour which is not compatible with our values. You keep using the term meat. Is that how they actually refer to it as?

That's how they consider it. What do they say? How are they? It's in our report.

That was actually, I think it was... Is it a translation of...? 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 a slave.

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. Where one of them does liken white girls not dressing as Muslim girls dress, and he does liken it to meat. Jesus. And that is an analogy he used.

So 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, it's going to sound wrong.

What the number of people that were victims, the estimate? It's estimated that a minimum of a quarter of a million rapes have taken places. It's probably much, much more Joe. 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 Rajdell Oldham, one or two, Bradford, one or two centers, and that's why they're a statutory inquiry, the terms of reference of that, and have 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 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 red, roofing, corn?

What about what's happening here? It's happening here. It's happening here. So I think it's incredibly widespread.

And there's other people who've corroborated that call from 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 organised 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 only raped or jimely 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 of 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 any 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 infidels. And as you probably know, in the Crusades, if you lost a salad in 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 is a massive national scandal, and I'm hoping now I'm an MP. We've written this report, and this should stimulate debate. We send 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.

Because everybody in power should look at this, and they should start to correct it immediately. You use the term, the term is used rape gang. Why are you saying gang? And this is an organized practice?

It's not as simple as Islamic men are raping poor white girls. It's that they go out of gangs, specifically for this purpose. 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 the Testaments we've had.

So originally when I went into Parliament, I was elected late, so I was elected in July 24. So at the tender age of 67, so I, 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 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 it, I gave a speech in Parliament 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 Jamie will drag it up if he goes on to the, you know, because everything goes into Hansard, and I gave the speech, and it calls shock in the House of Commons.

Now, 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 where 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. 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 in Southampton. I loved the best day of my life when we got to the Cup Final in 2003. We lost one-nil 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 internal 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 is 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. I think 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 Elon and the boys uncovered with USAID and all the misallocation of tax per funds, a lot of it came to what 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 builder burgers, whether it's the council on foreign relations, whether it's whatever the malign influence is trying to do this, we have to collectively try and reverse it. So, I'm saying to people, if you want, I will do my damnedest reverse.

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 bind to it. Are there people that are in denial that this is happening, that this rape-grained problem is real? Oh, without a shadow of a doubt. What do they say?

Well, Labour just tries to look the other way. But 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, 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 of the daily telegraph.

GB News have covered a tiny Patrick Christice covered one evening of it. Now, this is a massive national scandal that deserves a complete 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 organisation. So, it was set up to inform educated entertain. And it was set up by Michael 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 favourite news channel is, or the Breitbart, whoever they go and get it from somewhere else. But if you want to watch sport, you want to basically have your TV, you have to pay the TV licence.

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 The New York Times, if it's not CNN, if it's not, you know, film 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. 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 too fringe. So, that's always going to be a problem. And if someone like the BBC doesn't cover this stuff, 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 very good summary, because the BBC historically was totally trusted. And their news-burtons were designed, I say, to be impartial completely. 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 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 dripping poison into the veins of Britain every day.

One other example of what the BBC is doing, do you think, is dripping poison? Well, I think a lot of their coverage is not objective. It's woke. I mean, they're into all this DEI, they're into, obviously, the LGBTQ+, they're into all of the things, which I think we said earlier probably came from this Democrat period.

But it's been happening for a long time. I think if you look at the Labour Party, again, I don't know if you've ever heard of the Fabian Society. No. So the Fabian Society was set up in the 1880s.

And it was basically most of the Labour front-bench and most of the Labour 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 of George Bernard Shaw. So it's the most extraordinary organisation.

Their emblem is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As if that doesn't tell you what they're doing. Can I see what that looks like? That's their emblem.

It's wolf in sheep's clothing. Fabian Society? The Fabian Society. I need to see that.

I might have to get a few shots. I need a t-shirt. I'll tell you what else they were. They were eugenicists originally.

When? How far back? George Bernard Shaw. Look, that is damn crazy.

Where everyone should look at the Fabian Society because that runs deep through the veins of life. 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 back. This is insane. That's crazy.

What a complete disdain for anybody else's intelligence. They're not even trying to hide it. They're just like... They're all members.

The front-bench are all members of the Fabian Society. That coat of arms is... Kia Starmer is also a member. I need a t-shirt.

Janine, please order it. You want to hold in. You want a Fabian Society? Yeah.

Just for a goof. I think it would be hilarious. But no, so that runs through the Labour Party. So that's all part of it.

So I think the agenda has been, to your point, they infiltrated our education system. And I'm proud of our history. I mean Britain stopped the slave trade. It cost us a fortune.

We did it almost unilaterally. And I think on the whole have been a force of good in the world not bad. I'm proud to say 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. Then I've flourishing because of 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 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. 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 the people that benefited from it, specifically white people, need to be cast out. They need to be silenced. They multiculturalism is the only way to go. Complete open borders.

The way they look at things is like, how do you think these countries got so good? 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, especially when you go back hundreds of years ago, people were fucking terrible. They were terrible everywhere. Humans are just getting better at being people 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 take on it does 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 a quality 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 go into school, when you play in sports, there's not a quality of effort. There's never a quality 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 this... It's capitalism. You have to incentivize people to create these things.

It doesn't mean the only way to do it is to fuck other people over. That's not correct. It could be done correctly. It could be done humanely.

It could be done wisely. You could vote with your dollars. You could 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 the right direction.

But to throw it all out and say, we've got to go to socialism. I'm like, oh boy, I can't believe people are buying that. That to me is one of the real problems with not allowing conservative voices in universities. And these universities, especially in the United States, are a lot of, especially in sociology, psychology, and overwhelmingly liberal.

Surely there's got to be some historians out there that are conservative, and they would have a different perspective. 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.

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 this is promoting X, Y, and Z, this person's a Nazi, oh, they're a Nazi, we can't let them under. As soon as you do that, you ruin the whole thing that the 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 firearms and don't silence them, don't scream and protest and throw things at them, communicate. This is what anybody who doesn't do that should be shunned. If you're one of those people that says, no, you can't talk to Nazis, he's like, shun them.

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 what we have in the UK now is, I always say, reverse Darwinian theory.

And again, at schools now, in my day, I'm lucky, we like to win. To win was good. To win fairly in a proper game of hockey or rugby or whatever. It was great, but now in schools, winning is considered to be bad.

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. We don't have wrestling. I know you do. You do.

You do. So we have problems. bona fide. Wrestling.

Just wrestling as a sport. Just wrestling for high school and college, just 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 age-old battle between individualism and collectivism?