TRIGGERnometry - Steven Woolfe: "Immigration is Out of Control

Episode Date: May 23, 2022

SPONSORED BY: *Ridge Wallet* Use Code “TRIGGER ” for 10% off your order at https://www.ridge.com/TRIGGER Steven Woolfe is a political commentator, writer and host of The Woolfe Report here on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/TheWoolfeReport Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! https://triggernometry.locals.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: https://www.subscribestar.com/triggernometry https://www.patreon.com/triggerpod Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/​​​ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/sign-up/​​​ Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod​​​ https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod​​​ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod​​​ About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There's no control of migration on this border at all. We've got more people coming in. So this year is 200,000. Huge numbers. And it costs around 40,000 pounds for each individual in the first year. That's about 8 billion. Hello and welcome to Trigonometry. I'm Francis Foster.

I'm Constantine Kissing. And this is a show for you, if you want honest conversations, with fascinating people. Our brilliant guest today is the founder for the Centre for Migration and economic prosperity. Stephen Wolfe, welcome to Trichonometry. Thank you very much, guys. I really appreciate you bringing me on. It's really great to have you on the show. Before we get into the conversation, I'll tell everybody a little bit about who are you, how are you where you are? What is the

journey that brings you to be sitting here talking to us? Well, I'm a manx, so from your colleague over here, we've already had the kind of Manchester Liverpool argument. I was born in Manchester. And I grew up in a couple of council estates, one more side, which most people recognized as being from the riots of the 80s, a pretty rough area, and then growing up in Withington near a park where I used to do break dancing and football. So that was brilliant thing. I was lucky enough to have a family, an Irish grandmother, English grandfather, a black American grandfather and a Jewish grandmother, who kind of, even though we lived on the council of state,

believed that the way forward to get on was by education and just keep pushing, never allowing people to define you by who you are and just keep climbing that ladder. But being decent along the way, trying not to be nasty to others. It's not always the way that the world works. And so we read a lot and I won a scholarship to what was then a grammar school, became a private school, St. Beads. From there, university, studied law in Aberysteth, went on, became a barrister, won a number of international awards across the globe for debating,

went to the World Championships, you know, got to the quarterfinals where Gove was actually judging. So, you know, met a number of people with those. And that was always a fascinating part. After being a barrister for a number of years, I then moved into the city of London, so not really very far from here. Worked in Canary Wharf, worked over the city.

And I moved into hedge funds, regulatory law, became general counsel. So by the time I decided to move into the heady world of Brexit politics and leaving the European Union and joining UKIP, which for many was a, you know, it's a kind of, well, what's this kind of mixed race working class boy joining this racist UKIP party about as it war was around 2010-ish. It was very strange for me to have been working in this environment in the city and doing some really big transactions. I mean, I worked on one of the deals when guys had got fined, Berkeley's Bank had got fined about, I think it was about 500 million by the US authorities,

and I had to do their global market conduct policy. But there was big, big issues, and there through the crash. And then I went into politics, and I campaigned for Brexit, joined UKIP, obviously at one stage looking at the leadership from there, and, you know, many people look online and see what happened, but I left and became independent. Spent five years, which was fascinating, really interesting seeing how global politics interacted with European politics

and UK politics, loved campaign. Just meeting ordinary people during that campaign from 2010, right through 14 elections, right through 15, and then the 16 referendum, where ordinary people felt that they were empowered, that they had a voice, that they generally were going to be listened to, and this time the elites had a chance to have a kicky and hopefully changed their minds about how they viewed them,

that was one of the most exhilarating parts of my life, seeing freedom in action and real, real freedom within people's spirits and hearts. But we are where we are now. I then lost my businesses that I saved for a rainy day, through COVID and then decided, well, I have an eight-year-old, there should be nine soon. As a father, you just can't allow your children to see you give up. And I don't think it's easy in this country to give up,

because if you do, then it's an easy slide into absolutely nothing. I came from nothing. I could go back to nothing, but I don't really want to. So I decided to try and rebuild through one of the issues, which I think will not go away, which is immigration, and where voices of people are still being ignored, certainly with the channel migrant crisis that we have at the moment, and I established the Centre for Migration and Economic Prosperity.

So I think that's probably tried to put 54 years into, you know, more than 54 seconds, I'm afraid. Yeah, well, you've done very well to do that, and we want to talk to you about class and immigration particularly. But it just occurred to me that one of the things that you obviously would have, have an interesting perspective on, given your background and your heritage, what do you make of the way we talk about race in our society at the moment? You're divisive. Absolutely.

And it is very much us and then. It's either that you are a pro-migrationist open door and therefore you're kind and you're warm and you're generous. And if you support any form of controlled migration, whether it's through border controls, through visas, through the Immigration Act that's going through, then you are a racist or as a xenophobe and your anti-human being, and you should therefore be pushed aside. I think there's also a huge amount of class involved in that,

if you're well off, if you're a university-educated with an opportunity of life to be able to benefit here in the UK or be able to move around the global networks, as I have fortunately been able to work in the US, work in Hong Kong. If you're able to do that too, then you're part of a global elite which relies seriously heavily on the low income and wages of migrants coming in, filling the jobs that you like, getting into the coffee shop as you turn up at the airport, you know, getting your taxi that's taking you there. All of these what's regarded as low income jobs that you wouldn't deem to do yourself. But you will insult the home people of that country. and here in the UK might predominantly be regarded as white working class individuals, as gamins or whatever, will insult you because you won't do those jobs,

rather than considering why don't they do their jobs, isn't it? Because perhaps the incomes of those jobs are not sufficient for them to have a family and a house in the area that they want to live in. So I think that divisive element that is clearly there as part of an elitist strategy, to divide a particular political parties. Labor does it more. I think the Liberal Democrats and the Greens do it to consolidate their intellectual base as they do so. But I think it's also being used, and we might come onto that with Black Lives Matter and all the rest of it,

as a very violent vehicle now for division in this country to try and manipulate the minds of individuals that those who don't have this kind of global elitist idea. And I do believe it's organized by large corporates who benefit the most. And those in large international organizations who benefit from the billions that are being put into migration issues, they're the ones who benefit the most. And we need to create now an intellectual divide between people. Stephen, why is it that these elites, let's call them that,

why is it they don't understand this? Why is it that they don't get it? Because to me, it's a fairly simple concept. Yeah, but if you live on the lap of luxury, if you're just going to get up in the morning, get on, and let's just take it as you part of what Orwell said in 1984, the 13% of the outer ring, or the outer level, if you're going off in the morning and you get your train and you hit into the city of London and you're a banker or a hedge fund lawyer, or you're an accountant there or one of the IT guys who are doing really, really well, then for you, it's not something that you

will see on a day-to-day basis. I mean, you're getting a reasonable bonus and a good salary to be able to buy a house in a nice area which doesn't have the impact that you see in mass migration. So if you take my street where I lived in Manchester in, in, kind of Wittington at the end, but even if you take it right back to Moss Side, in Moss Side, it was predominantly those who had come from the West Indies who were living in there. And that has changed over time. You know, you know, Somalians have come in, certain parts of food. Hugh. But if you look at Down Whittington, that was predominantly white working class and Irish working class. And the immigrants there were those who'd come over, or like my grandmother at the age of

14, to work for the nuns. And all those whose families were first or second generation. Similar types of culture, you know, a Christian Judeo basis. You might say, okay, they're all white. Fair enough. But so was like 98% of the population till roughly just after the 60s. That's what England was based upon. Now if you go down to the same streets, it is, if I'm right in terms of the demographics, it's more Pakistani-based community now that is stretched across from the 11th human longside coming down. Now, many of them have lived there for a long time, they've got successful businesses, they are working in jobs, nothing to say they don't do the same level of hard work, but the communities are different. They have a different religion. So that might clash. People might say,

I don't like that religion. Some might say I love it. The idea is that community is no longer the same. Now, that change there, which impacts the working class and even the lower middle class more than the upper classes is that when I leave university, I might have had a boyfriend or a girlfriend who is from Bangladesh or from Abu Dhabi or from China,

and they're going off to be a banker in New York. Well, that's fine. we've had the same intellectual levels and we're interested in the same things. Let's get in a big house. Let's getting the great bonuses. Let's be able to go off to the Hamptons at the weekends. Fine, our jets to Dubai and have our five-star holidays.

It doesn't really matter to them because the poverty levels at the bottom they never see. They don't have to go into those areas. They don't even have to get drugs in those areas now because they can probably get a drone or Uber to be able to. Sorry, Uber. There have been one or two cases where people have that.

But you know what I mean? It's on the internet and people can send it. They called it for, right. Anyway, let's not go down there just in case it's picked up as being something that. But you know the point. So they're up there. They don't need to. And if they want their drugs or whatever it is,

they put a call in and someone flies in and a pretty nice car and whatever, it's delivered to them. So they're separate. They're insulated from the consequences of the reaction. Absolutely. Of course, they are. And they're insulated by their own wealth and, ease of life, that is, that comes with having that division. And then it comes to something I think

is intellectually there for them. I've been trying to ponder an aspect about it when you read, I think it's in England, My England by George Orwell, where he talks about even, you know, in the 1900s, how the middle class of England would rather be more comfortable talking to a foreigner than someone from the working class of states of their own. And they have more of an affinity of that. And I generally think that there are two aspects about that. One is class and snobbery. So racism is something that is a cultural aspect about Britain. We can go right back to beyond the Romans to see evidence of that. But so is snobbery. Snobbery is the second pillar of our cultural heritage. And it is something that firmly fits into the class system that we have

developed over years. So you can quite easily sit at a conversational table and say those Brits don't want to do the work. They just don't want to do the work. They're too lazy. They're too thick. They're too stupid. The same arguments that floated through Brexit. And I think for them, it's an easy thing to divide. Look at me. Have I done well? Didn't I start my business on my own and now look at my house? And, you know, I've got my second home down in Devon. It's wonderful. All like that. scum over there. You know, we won't get up off in the morning and do a job. So it's that snobbery element to protect themselves, insulate themselves.

And therefore, that permeates downwards from the very elites who have real wealth, where they really benefit from mass migration, to those and then the next tier down who think, well, we need to follow along those lines. But it's always because they are, as you say, hidden from the consequences at the bottom level of housing, hospitals, schools, wages. All of those are impacted at the lower levels, never at the top. Hey, Francis, have you decided what to get your dad for Father's Day? Same thing as always, a couple of points down the dog and duck,

plus a new Brexit means Brexit car sticker to replace the one I got him last year. Mate, Brexit was in 2016. Do you not think he might want something a bit more up-to-date, like a new Ridge wallet? This is mine. It's smooth, sleek, stylish and it can hold 12 cards and there's also a clip on the bag for cash as well. He's not going to create a bulging your trousers like those bulky old wallet. It'll make your dad look like a top level player. Great idea. He can also put his Brexit sticker on it,

which means a problematic older ladies are going to love him. Yeah, okay. The great thing about Ridge is that they give you a lifetime guarantee, which means if you want, you can have just one wallet for the rest of your life. Ridge is so confident in their product, they'll give you 45 days to test drive their wallet. That means you can get the wallet, use it, and if you don't like it, you can return it in 45 days. Unlike Brexit. Because Ridge are such great guys, they're going to give you 15% off and free worldwide shipping and returns.

That's 15% off and free worldwide shipping and returns. To take advantage of this incredible offer, go to RRINC. Ridge.com forward slash trigger. That's ridge.com forward slash trigger and use our special promo code, which is, of course, trigger. And the problem is because they're impacted, what happens is it just seems to be this chasm that means that they just can't empathize. And we saw it with COVID. I remember talking to a friend of mine who, you know, works at a very, very well-to-two public school, you know, very in favour of lockdowns, very in favour that, you know, this was a good thing and a positive thing, it just couldn't get his head around the fact that this was crippling

ordinary people and ordinary people's businesses. Just couldn't get his head around it. Yeah, and they just don't seem to understand now because the divisive element in our society, even look at the economics of it. I think I look at how fortunate I am in the sense that born in 1967, we still had a grammar school system that enabled large numbers of working class men, predominantly men, I said at the time, but certainly women were coming through at those stages through the 60s and 70s to start getting into the educational levels. Now, I went through law, but you'll see that there's some of great actors that followed similar routes to be able to do that.

You saw them coming into the civil service. You also have the second element that was the, what I regard, the... the transitory unification of Britain that was caused by the First and Second World War, where if everybody looks at duty of the Queen, there were huge numbers of people who had duty of the Crown and the country at their heart because they'd risk their lives for it in the Second World War. They'd literally watch people die next them. I mean, I talk about my grandfather sitting in a pub on his own in the Green End in Manchester,

which has gone now for housing. to large-scale migration. Let's get rid of it and just build more houses, which are going to see huge amounts more than the country now. And he would sit there and become silent when he, and you knew, everyone said, leave Jim alone when he do that with his brandy

and whatever, because he was memorizing, remembering the death and destruction. But that unification also came through with the grammar school system in the 60s and 70s, where this was a supportive element for the nation as a whole. and more and more people like myself got through. And I don't see that now.

Yes, more people are going into university, but what we've seen is that income division has, instead of what we saw in the 60s and 70s, becoming more spread, the total income and capital of the country being spread out more, it's now contracted. Anyone will tell you that the rich have definitely become richer over the past 10, 15 years, maybe even 20.

and certainly the middle classes have become squeezed, not just here, but in the United States, more visibly perhaps in Australia, but it's happening all across the Commonwealth in those countries. And why is that happening? It's happening predominantly because we've got large-scale mass migration, which is increasing the numbers of lower-income individuals, and we've had the use of stock markets and capital growth in housing that is protecting those who already have those assets. so they don't need to seals.

They're quite happy to be separated from us. And your audience will pick up on a movie. There was a movie where literally the wealthy lived in space and they just took the assets from those down on Earth. And the chasm there was actually space. And I think that was a metaphor for expressing where they are now. the chasm is that they're sitting whether it's in their

park lane houses or sitting in their big flats in New York overlooking the parks there they've got their space between them and us and they might turn around and say oh look I'm going to have a wonderful ball

or a party you know for the charity events but that's just really solving their souls solving their consciences and actually also making themselves look good And the politicians that go along with that from the political parties, whether it's the Labor Party or Democrats in the United States, they're actually also working and conniving with those who really just don't care. Stephen, you talk about mass immigration. I think before we carry on, we should maybe explain to people what is actually going on.

Because for a lot of people, they'll have a particular view of it, but it will be local to them or it will be based on the headline. they've read. Now I came to this country from Russia in 1995. At that point I think the level of immigration was about 60,000 the year, 70,000 a year, something like that. Yes. And at that time, 3% of the British public thought that immigration was a major issue. In other words, people felt fairly comfortable with what was happening. They didn't feel particularly disrupted. Their lives were not being damaged by people like me coming. What have we seen in the last 25, 30 years? Well, the level of net migration that's come in is consistently over 200 to 250,000 now for 10 years or more. So you're adding an extra 250,000 that's coming into the country.

Now, some of them are coming for students, some are coming for work, others are family reunions, but the numbers are huge. So what that's doing is increasing the population. Then that's what we might call the legal migration levels. then you've got what someone called illegal immigration stroke asylum on there. And it's the argument that they're illegal until they make an application for asylum. I don't really want to make that distinction as such. What I will say is that there is certainly illegal immigration into the country, but there's also genuine asylum seekers.

And we must always must make that clear distinction between them. Do we know approximately what sort of numbers we're talking about, which is not people who are genuine people fleeing terror and war, and whatever, but people who are capitalizing, let's say, an opportunity that I don't blame them for, right? They're trying to make a better life for themselves. I don't think any of us can make that argument. You want to do the same if you could. Exactly. So, but what kind of numbers are we talking about on an annual basis with just the purely illegal immigration that we don't think is genuine asylum seekers?

Oh, right. Okay. Well, I think what we have to try and work backwards if we can, because the UK's statistical bodies cannot make any assessment of what is illegal migration. In fact, they just published a report on the 24th of February, which almost at the top is saying, we cannot tell you what illegal migration is into this country. What they will tell you is that migration flows from people coming on boats, which is popular at the moment, but they've been coming in backs of lorries, trains and planes for decades now.

And some of those will be asylum seekers. Some of those will be illegal. There'll be overstayers who will come over on a visa for education and disappear into the ether. They're illegal. And what we will then have is other levels in between that. So they're trying to say you can't fix the numbers. The statistical bodies are trying to formulate a way in which they can assess that. But we do have research from the US, from the UK, from Holland that has been,

reported, even to an extent, I think about 15 years ago we had reports that I've been looking at recently that would indicate that we have between 600,000 and 1.2 million illegal migrants in this country. Those are huge numbers. And when you look at what's coming over on the boats at the moment, so we start just on the boats, 891 in 2019, 8,000 odd in 2020, 18,000 in 2021. This year they're estimating that we might have 60 to 100,000 coming on that boat route. Wow. Okay. You add then that we've had about 25,000 coming through legal routes from Syria and we're setting up with Afghanistan. So generally one could argue that we get around 100,000 a year that are coming in through all the various routes to add on to the net migration levels.

many of those people will then move into the asylum process of which about 98% of them make the application, about 60% of them are successful. But then we don't remove those who are unsuccessful. So you can have cataclysmic issues by those who are not removed, as we saw with the attempted bomber in Liverpool. So we do know that there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who are not being removed, who failed not only the asylum application, but we were not removing them.

Now, you can ask why. People will argue that, look, actually, we've only got really on average, around 35 to 40,000 a year in terms of asylum applications. That's the same as came over through the boats, sorry, in the lorries and the vans of the past decades or so. To an extent that is true, but that hides the overall picture of those who get here,

overstay and hide, et cetera. And I think what we're going to see now, is bigger numbers. So if we take Afghanistan, for example, Afghanistan is wholly different to Syria. Population is twice as much. In Afghanistan, we'd spent trillions each year building up a middle class or a class that we thought we could work with. So these people have gone from the time of when the Taliban were in charge of 98% poverty level with just that 2%. We've actually added an extra 10 to half a million people there who have now got used to having televisions going to the malls, having restaurants, all funded from our taxpayers' money, effectively, because their economy doesn't create enough

to feed them and create that lifestyle for them. They'll want to leave now. The Taliban are making it clear that they can leave. In Syria, there's border controls in Afghanistan. There's not. We have drone footage that shows 1,500 vehicles leaving in a day with 10, 20 people on the backs of lorries, paying $10,000 to the Taliban border guards to get out, then paying $5,000, sorry, $5,000 to get them over into Turkey, $5,000 again to get them over, sorry, it's $1,500,000 to get them over to Calais, and then $5,000 to get them into the UK, about average £12,000. Some of them can pay for that because they've had savings or they sell the watches or jewelry. Others can't.

but why we're expecting large numbers to flow is because they're all still the same numbers coming from Iran and Iraq. About 84% of everybody that comes over on the boats are from those two countries. And those routes are now well-traught. The people traffickers, who are a separate body mainly to the drug traffickers,

they are interlinks at certain stages for protection elements where they pay a tie to do so, they can now allow those numbers to come through. So if you expect this year the conservative estimates are 60,000, the median estimates to 100,000, I don't think that's unsubstantiated. Plus, we're going to have to take large numbers of Ukrainians in as well, and the numbers there are estimated between, you know, 50 to 100,000.

So this year is 200,000. Huge numbers. And it costs around £40,000 for each individual in the first year. That's about $8 billion if we take all those numbers in one year. So there's costs, there's housing, where are we going to look after them, where we're going to feed them? So it's really significant things that government has to have policies for. Stephen, I think one of the things that a lot of people watching and listening to this will struggle to reconcile is I think most of us do, and I certainly do, is on the one hand, everyone in this room is a descendant of immigrants. I am a first-generation immigrant, Francis, mum's an immigrant.

You talked about your background, our staff, the same. How do we reconcile the desire to protect people who are fleeing difficult situations, war, conflict, murder, torture, all of that horrible stuff that happens elsewhere in the world? And I desire to be compassionate because we are incredibly privileged and extraordinarily fortunate to be living in the UK, in the West more broadly. We're rich, we're safe, our countries are stable, they're, you know, democratic, you might argue, right? Like, we enjoy tremendous privilege, and it is a natural human thing, I think, to feel compassion and empathy for people who don't have that and who want to have it. I would love every person in the world to be as wealthy and as comfortable as we are. I would, and I think most people would. How do we reconcile that with the practical reality of what happens to a country when there is this level of turn and

rapid change and the security issues that come with immigration from certain parts of the world, et cetera, et cetera. How do we square that circle in our heads? It's not going to be an easy thing to square because you have to look at your heart and your head in terms of this. So let's try and break it down if I can. I do believe that we've got to have legislation in place. And of course, we've got the international agreements with the UN refugees, regulations and laws that are necessary. people, as we're seeing now, a genuine asylum issue happening in Ukraine that deals with that. And I think that's perfectly fair.

Every country who signs up to that has to have a responsibility in order to treat people fairly and look after them. And we then need to assess the global issues. So the UN are estimating we've got something around 66 million people moving around in terms of this migrant flow, illegal or asylum, but generally moving to get out of their homes. The issues that we have to face is a recognition of modernity of our life and the ease of travel and technology. Technology has been sending messages to people in small parts of Africa that never had televisions to say, look at London, the streets are paved of gold. For those in Guatemala, a whole villages have left to cross over the borders into Texas, the US,

a place of land of honey and gold again, sort of thing. So their lives are distinctly better when they get here in the sense that they're not struggling in the way for food and daily living. So that's an economic migrant issue. So the question we have to ask ourselves is, are we going to accept everybody, genuine refugees and economic migrants and just allow everyone to move. Because if you do that, you've got good examples of what happens.

In Germany, when Merkel said, I will open the borders, they've now had over 2.5 million people since 2014. It's an extra cost of between 10 and 15 billion a year to that nation. And you could see the economic changes. You say we're wealthy nations, but we're not really. Look at the average salaries of some of the people, in the north of England. I keep pointing this out,

the difference between living in London where people's average salary seem to around 40, 50,000 a year compared to 25. You can still buy houses for 80,000 in the north of England where that wouldn't even get you a front door, I think,

somewhere in London. So the poverty levels up there, and I don't see people going into the really poor areas of England. They kind of ignore it. It just doesn't exist to them. And so we are creating huge a poverty gaps here in the UK by importing those people are incredibly poor from elsewhere. So is the solution to say, let's just open the doors?

Well, in that case, you're only going to get about 20-odd countries in the world that are going to be able to take the numbers. Look at the populations of the world, billions. If we said let's open the door, those billions will want to move. And what happens to our economies then? Do we stay wealthy? I don't think so. We're already becoming the most dense country in Europe. I think over the past few months,

we're still balancing between Holland and ourselves as England is the most dense place. When they come here, they concentrate into certain areas, London, Birmingham, the cities primarily. But if you look at places like Winchester, where I've come from, we're building huge numbers of housing, 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 houses. We've got an estimate of we're building another 50,000.

37,000 houses. Over the past few years, we're on average building around 165,000 houses a year, and yet house prices aren't falling, and we still have people living on the streets. We still have a quarter of a million people living in homeless shelters and one-bedroom flats and bedsets. We can't build enough houses to accommodate those already living here and expect to be able to do that when coming through. So there are no easy solutions, let's get this right.

No one should say just closing the border will solve the problem overnight because then we are disregarding our responsibilities to those in other parts of the world. For a start, we shouldn't be developing warlike situations with other countries. We shouldn't be interfering in nations to do regime change as we've done in how many countries over the past 10 years. Someone estimated that at one stage the CIA are involved in 130 operations, 130 countries where they're operating to try and do regime change or get their particular people in power. Well, maybe China's doing the same. Maybe other countries are involved in that. But every time you do that, you create conflict. You get armed war. You get

murder. You get death. And when that happens, people want to flee. So our responsibility as a nation should actually, as the United Nations, not be just trying to dole out cash to salve your conscience for the problems that you're creating, you should be looking at how we can create peace and stability in those countries first and foremost by stop saying we're backing the big corporates that we want them to take over your country, we want all your assets, and actually leave it to the people in charge and then help them create economies in their countries that grow and then support their nations and those people want to stay. Now that's where I say it's not going to be easy because we cannot as a small nation

absorb the world's mass migration from conflict to economic migration. And if they're right, maybe environmental issues as well, we can't do that. Without creating an even bigger gap between those at the bottom and those at the top, we must start looking at how we can try and create a peaceful environment and invest in nations to develop their own economies. If we can do that, then we go some way to try and solve those issues. Because it's a bit hypocritical of us saying to Syrian refugees, you're not allowed in, when you look at what's happened to their homeland, you know, which were you played a part in?

Absolutely. I mean, you've talked about it. I mean, in terms of the Ukraine and Syria, but Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Iran, there is a game that's being played by guys and women, you know, and it's equally the same. I saw it in the United States when I'm over there. People call them the neocons, some will call them world. economic forum, others will call them the military industrial complex. Yeah, I'm sure they're all connected in some ways. They all go to the same parties. They like go skiing, the same parts of

Aspen, you know, they send their kids to the same universities and schools. They know where they are. They date each other. That's what they do. But as they at the end of the day, I've pressed a button to murder someone in the country thousands of miles away that they won't see and they get into their big car and they go to their house party in the Hamptons at the end of the day, they're responsible. for the transformations. And they may sit there thinking with a glass of, you know, a big cup of JD and think it's wonderful, what a great day I've had. I'm protecting our environment. You're not. What you're doing is protecting your environment, your personal space, your personal bank

account, this big frame of a house that you're living in. You really don't give a doubt about the people that have died in those countries, those who are having to move across and pay gangsters to be able to get them out of those, all the people living in a state that I grew up in who have to suffer the consequences. That's the big issues that we have. That's why I got involved in politics. That's why I'm still knocking around.

But that subject is a very taboo one. The fact that we're having this conversation, you wouldn't see it being had in a lot of other places with this frankness. Why is that? Because they had... Someone's just opened my eyes to something call the Overton window. I've got to study at a little bit more to try and get a full grip about

it because I don't like to just take a theory about trying to understand the full background about it. But what to an extent that I get from that is that it's okay for us to have a little bit of discontent with the elites. They'll allow us a little bit of freedom and movement to do so. And if you move up, they'll add to too much, then they'll cut you off at the knees. you know, we can argue that you saw that with the reproshment between Martin Luther King and Malcolm X during the 60s, representing two wings of the Black Freedom Movement,

one which was the middle class, and one was very much a working class environment. And when both of them started to come together, it is argued that they moved on from saying it's just white versus black, which fitted into a really nice scenario for the FBI and the elites to dissect them and diversify them. But when they started talking about the economics of what the people lived in

and how we should be changing the economics of the United States soon after they were killed. Now, one could argue that was coincidence. One could argue that was planned. But what we get to a scenario in our country is that whether you've got those threats at the top, when people start talking about the economics and combining all this together,

the window of opportunity to express, it in our modern window, whether this is the Overton window or not, is reduced. So when I would go on to TV on the BBC, it'd often be like three people of pro-mass migration and calling me a racist, xenophobic, against myself. No, I could handle it. I mean, I don't mind. I've got, you know, kind of broad shoulders. I mean, when you come off the estate, you know, you've had a lot worse coming at you

than someone who's been educated at, you know, Oxbridge and shouting a few nasty words. sticks and stones can break my bones not a word that comes from someone from St. Hilbers, you know. And so that is why they don't like the frankness. They don't like the frankness because it challenges them

to try and move out of their comfortable environments. The task for most of us, whether it's in politics, we talk about this, is to try and bring out the reality of the overall impacts to the communities and their home state. And then separate it

from those who are benefiting from this. And I'm now starting to get a bit of funding from people to start to do the research on what I call the immigration industry. There's a huge amount of people benefit from this. So far, I can see just on easy money, very easily identifiable money, that we've got 250 million pounds to 500 million pounds a year being handed out to organizations

that help asylum applicants and immigrants. and immigrants in this country. So those are just the NGOs, these charities, as they call themselves, that come out. So that's a lot of people getting a lot of money from that. Then there are universities that get funding for research projects.

And those research projects often come out and say, look, mass migration creates huge amounts of GDP for us, there's no GMP difficulties, but they're the ones getting the funding. Organizations like myself, which I would need two or three people to be able to help research at the same level the universities have.

Don't get anything near that. So then they've got the material that they can serve through the research that they can use through the polls that they do and then that gets into the press with their friendly journalists, who many of them might have gone to university, who then print what they've got.

So they perpetuate that industry. Of course you've got the lawyers that are making money out of it through legal aid. Get a divorce, try and get your child back from your wife or your child back from your husband. No legal aid there for you. But you do get it if you're an asylum-marketing. So there are some genuine costs going out to people who are making a lot of money out of this. And if you look at corporates, I mean, it's mere Circo and Clear Spring Houses Limited,

signed a contract for $10 billion with the government to house those in initial accommodation and then long-term accommodation? 10 billion. But that was before we've had the latest mass influx. And now we're spending 4.7 million pounds a day housing in hotels and beds. And I'll give you an example of someone who pointed out to me, he said, look, I'm in a poor area of the north. A guy came up and bought three houses, which might only be like two or three bedroom houses,

and they've just housed them with those people coming from asylum applicants. And they're getting double or treasurer. for that house than they would do from someone paying on the local estate. Hey, Constantine, do you love trigonometry? Of course, incredible interviews, hilarious live streams, hard-hitting satire, plus my handsome jawline. Whatever takes away from your hairline. But if you do love trigonometry and you want to support us, there's only one place to do that, and that's on locals.

Yes, Locals is a brilliant platform that has been incredibly supportive to our show and other problematic creators. The great thing about locals is that it's a community for people who love trigonometry. That's right. It's a place for you to hang out with like-minded people, share thoughts, memes and discuss the show. You can enjoy it for free, but it also gives you the option of supporting us for as little as $7 a month. And if you want to give more, you can. We have incredible rewards for our higher tier supporters as well. We've got everything for mugs, monthly group calls and one-on-two chats with me and KK. Get in. Join our community by hitting the link in the description and the pin comment below.

See you there, guys. Stephen, the running theme through what you're talking about is an elite that is uninterested or perhaps even actively disinterested in the needs and views of the rest of the society. And I suppose I would argue that a certain stratification of society is always going to be the case and it's inevitable. It's human nature, hierarchy, etc. But it seems to me that we have come to a point where even a colossal shock like Brexit, Francis and I both voted Remain in that referendum.

We weren't politically particularly switched on at that point, I would say. But that could have been a wake-up call to the elites on this issue. I'm not sure how much, I mean, it might have been a wake-up call, but we've very quickly moved on to other things, and we've just channeled those same bitterness and division and everything into COVID, and now Ukraine, and there'll be next things to come. But fundamentally, I see her all the time. I remember talking to a friend of mine who I knew through my previous work.

I think she was French. And we were talking about Brexit. And she was saying, well, I don't know. I don't know why. Like in France, we just, you know, the people voted. And we went, no, we don't want this. So we just canceled it. And why can't they do that here?

And, you know, and she's not a bad person. She's a good girl. You know, there's nothing wrong with her. But. I just, it makes, I find it difficult to understand how people can be so self-obsessed and so ignorant to the, because you can be self-obsessed in the short term, but in the long term, if you keep alienating your own voters and the people who actually run the country by working and, you know, doing everything, that's not a recipe for a good society down the line. And that's why you have to have gated communities

because you're terrified of the poor people that live around you. Yes. And of course, what happens now is. and you'll see that whether it's gated communities, whether it's the fact that on the streets of almost everywhere. The UK now you're seeing video cameras and technology being used to identify who we are. You know, you're following us on our phones. We're using big high-tech companies to put it into our phones and our laptops.

We're seeing social media as a way of actually knowing what we do and what we say. Monitoring is a really important part of keeping control when you've got bigger, bigger populations. It's not that we haven't had this similar, sorry, the kind of differences between the poor and the rich create huge issues in this country or any other country in the past. One could argue, when you look at the French Revolution,

that was a classic example of where the elites had just really gone too far. One could even step back into the ways of the end of the Roman era, where you look in an era and others were just expanded their empire too much, but just were enjoying the spoils of their empires in Rome by having a ball. all the time. You know, we know what was going on in their kind of hedonistic end days. Great parties, man. I'm not sure I'd want to get involved in some of them when the animals were involved. You know, they keep me, I might be a wolf, but keep me well out of that, to be honest.

But even here in Britain as a whole, we've gone through our riots, whether it's the simple thing as saying the gin riots, because we've now decided that we don't want everyone getting drunk and homemade gin. we're losing revenue, so we created pub laws and licensing laws to bring it back into pubs. You know, that was a small element. But we've had challenges in this country, the corn laws, created riots. We've had, you know, from the levelers and the diggers, the Pentridge Martyrs to when we go down to Murtha Tidville, we had people killed in Murpha Tidville simply for fighting for the right to vote. you know we've had people challenging

up in Peterloo my my home time simply for asking for the vote we lost the lives of women you know in times of the you know putting themselves under the horse one of them put through themselves on front of a horse simply for the right for vote for women so we've had riots in this country

and even if you look at when in the 1980s when we had the most-eyed riots the St. Paul's riots the riots coming down in Brixton all going up at the same time with Hezeltyne coming up into Liverpool. I understand the people I really do. Yeah. You certainly do when you put your contracts into arms companies and helicopter companies, didn't you? That men often killed and burned people in the same time.

We had riots between those who said we've had enough. Now, I don't think we're going to get that many riots anymore. Because if you've seen the way that our police are now virtually paramilitary dressed, as though there are some Stormtrooper movie with an arm. Arnold Schwarzenegger, you know, or Star Wars. And you can see the way that the army in France, just recently, for COVID demonstrations, put 55 armed tanks. And there were, I mean, people were seeing that.

55 armed tanks on the streets of Paris. Not a city of love, but a city of war. We know what they've got behind us and the training that they do to be able to disarm us when we've got. This is if we complain about it. It's not going to be like the Poltacks riots where a few horses running over us. This is literally a militarised force now

that will be used against the people. And they've practiced about it. They have training sessions about it. They're quite happy to use guns on us if they want to. So I don't think we're going to have riots. And secondly, there is still a genuine belief in Britain that we can transform our nation through the ballot box. And Brexit was that opportunity for them to say,

okay, let's step back. Let's go back from what we saw with politics of the past. where we realized we've gone too far and we can actually step out because our country has had that time as I said you know from The the the removal of Charles the first and our own civil war We've had these points upon our time when we gradually got little bits of freedom It was only what In 1930s when we got votes for the women Is an equal stage at the age of 18 and then we handed it over to the EU to my argument to to try to

to remove some of those rights. It took us hundreds of years to get universal suffrage at the age of 18. So we have had to fight to get there. Brexit gave us an opportunity for them to sit back and say, okay, maybe we should allow this to happen and we move on again and we start to transform. But they haven't. You could argue that COVID's come in. You could argue that what's happened in the Ukraine.

Or you could argue that all of these are just great opportunities for us to suppress that. and let's go back to the plan that we had. And I think that's what they're doing. Do you think Brexit, I don't want to use a word betrayed because it's the wrong word, but you get where I'm going with this. With the initial promise,

what was promised to people, which was a control of immigration. Yeah, I would say, you know, in America they use the word rhino for a Republican in name only. We vote bino, Brexit in name only. Just because we left the European Parliament, and there's no MEPs there.

how much real transformational change are we had. Vast numbers of our regulations still aligned with the EU. Most of the trade agreements we have are based similarly along the lines of the trade agreements that we had with the EU. And on immigration and some of the big issues? Certainly. No major transformation. And we're, instead of using it as a real massive, energetic opportunity

to enthuse the British population and get ourselves out there to being a transformative, Bright Britain, I think we just contracted on ourselves and the bitterness that came straight after that, the kind of attack on those who got Brexit from those who were just a continuity remain, some people call them. And that's unfortunately just fed into where we are. In immigration, absolutely no movement whatsoever. Goodness, no. There's no control of migration on this border at all. we've got more people coming in and all we did was say

that European Union citizens have a slight restriction in being able to get here those who were already here we ended up finding out that we had more European Union citizens actually registered in the UK who've been given permanent rights to remain

so it's not like we've removed them and tossed them over the border as was concerned about and yes we're going to kick them all out if you remember some of the arguments through that we're never going to do that And it wasn't sensible to do that either. That's not the sort of nation that we are.

It's about moving together, working together, and recognizing where we are in the difficulties that we had and then saying, okay, time to sit back. Let's assess where we are. We've got housing needs. We've got hospital needs. We've got transport needs. Got to feed the population.

Now we know where we are. Let's try and manage the migration levels. Let's work out how we can create an economy that can be vibrant enough. see if we can utilize those people who are first and second and third generation Indians to help us with trade deals and trade with India. Let's look at those like yourself, you know, to be able to do trade deals with Russia and open up cross businesses. Trust me, I would not be very good on that. I'm not that popular there, but I see what you're saying.

The point is we have an indigenous community here of people that embedded in here. We should have been giving them the tools and the opportunities through government to go out and do that. Stephen, how much of this is about guilt? Because there is a narrative in Britain that's, I don't know if it's always been the case. It wasn't, it certain wasn't noticeable to me when I first came here as a kid, which is that Britain is bad. It's a bad country. It colonized.

It invaded. It enslaved. It profited from the misery. It went all around the world and oppressed people. It brought them over here in terrible conditions. and they were treated very badly when people came. You know, no blacks, no Irish, no dogs, whatever the slogans were. All of that.

We are guilty. We've done wrong. And now the most important thing is that we atone for our sins and frankly, if we can self-flagellate and punish ourselves, even better. Even better. Well, yes, absolutely. And I think there is guilt in terms of our historical context of Britain, in terms of the way that we went out and struck an empire.

But name me many Western countries that didn't do the same. Look at Belgium, the way that they absolutely massacred people in the Congo. You know, you have Italy who's done the same. Portugal and Spain in South America. It's not just Western countries, by the way. It's not just Western countries. The Muslim world was a colonizing world. The Russian Empire was a colonized.

The Muslim world had the control of the slave trade. And you also look at parts of Africa. I think it might be wrong here, but someone said that the Ashantis grew wealthy on the trade of slaves, being able to enable them to be able to be transported out. So I think, you know, when you're looking at the slave community as being a commodity, just like coffee or tea, and people were making money out of it, it goes back to the commercialisation of them. But should I then go to my house and then get a whip and whip myself

at a back for something that someone did hundreds of years ago? Depends if you're Catholic or not. Let's not go down there. Or if you just enjoy that kind of thing, that's the other option. Yeah, I know. I heard of certain parties in London and get on with that. But at the end of the day, the communities today shouldn't be responsible and feel that kind of guilt for what happened 100 years ago.

Otherwise, I, as an Northerner, want to go and find the Normans for harrying the North and creating the first genocide in this country. Because that's what those, which is modern-day France, did. they wanted to wipe out those who were opposing them. Do we go to Bath and level Bath now for all the sins of slavery and rape and pillaging that the Italian Romans did in our country? Do we dig up all our roads and say,

we don't want those roads? Because that's what guilt is. And those who start pulling down the statutes are only referencing to one country because it's about hatred of this country. It's not about hatred of the other. other countries for doing it. And so I think guilt is very, very bad. But guilt is something that is really part and parcel of our education system at the moment. I think clearly there are those who

feel guilty in the academic circles and they're educated to do that and when they come out is all now filtering through. I mean, I certainly had my own daughter talking about the Vikings and the Normans and she's starting to talk about that now at the age of eight and nine and I can see through it. So what I do is I have other books that I start reading to her about the history of England that I've collected and she sees a different angle, not from those that are in the academic tombs that are being pushed upon our people of today. We should not forget, and that's, we shouldn't forget what happened. Because we forget what's happened. We can't use it today to look forward about how we improve our world.

I'm trying to think of the Labour leader in the 80s who was pilloried for his bad dress and style. Kinuck? Oh, before before. Before Kinnock. And he used to say, if you don't know about history, you don't know about our future. And I think we have to look at that and analyze it and say, yes, what we did was bad. But it doesn't mean we start dipping our hands into our pockets now and taking out the billions. that should be helping our own country in compensation to those other countries.

Because it won't benefit them. We know that every amount of money that we're handing over to those countries is being used badly anyway. Isn't it better to try and do what I said at the beginning, which is try and find mechanisms globally in which we can try and improve the profitability of those countries? Not just by dumping cash into them, but working for them to build their environments,

build their economies. Dumping cash in compensation is a very important. going to help because it'll just help the elites in smaller countries there to pocket it for themselves. Stephen, I'm listening to a lot of your arguments and they strike me as quite classically old-school left-wing arguments. But a lot of them, I can imagine, you know, Barbara Castle, you know, Tony Benn, even, dare I say, Jeremy Corbyn, apart from the mass immigration thing, talking about the very same things that you're talking about. And yet you were this evil man who wanted to be leader of UKIP.

Yeah. What's gone wrong with the left and politics in general? Well, I think in terms of the left, driven by this desire under Blair Mandelson, that they wanted to, they recognised that they were beginning to lose the vote of the working class male in particular and the families of the North. Why? Because there were no longer any culpits and we're killing the steel industry and the fishing industry was dying.

So they had to make a... political decision of where they're going to get the votes for in the future. So the votes they felt was easy pickings was by manipulating university students into voting for them. The young people are always more aggressively pro-progressive like the rest of us. They want to just help the world, which we do, but they think more with our heart and they never think with their heads. That was their analogies. And then mass migration. Whereas another way we're going to rub the right's face in this was one on the comments that's often used and we saw mass migration because statistically here in the UK and in the US and in Canada

is that migrants who come here first tend to vote Labour or tend to vote the left organisation. So for them, that was a political turning point away from those of my estates who would say that some of the issues that we've talked about, the economic issues that impact those on the lowest incomes and the middle classes and the ability to move up the ladder were no longer is important anymore. The way that we'll salve that is just give them benefits. Keep them away. Push them away with benefits, the lazy way out of doing it. We won't deal with the proper issues. Just throw them cash and then we can look good again. That was Labour and that's modern Labor today. Tony Ben's arguments of socialism was the first political book that I ever had and I still have it.

It's a bit worn torn and all the rest of it. If you looked at that, the labour of then were a labour of looking after people. globally internationally one could argue that I don't want wars and I see the global elites I might be a John Pilger type style of viewpoints on some of that yes where is this weird lefty coming into me but on some issues social contract issues the family the faith the flag that I saw from my grandfather my grandmother coming at the integration into our country those are parts that have been pilloried by the left they hate us for that they genuinely hate us and despise us we talk about a Catholic or a Christian religion in the UK.

If they talk about flag-waving, I mean, what's it in the Rochester by-election, there's an England flag, look at that, how disgusting is that? You know, they really don't like it. Because for them, the socialist internationalism is not about anything that could be positive patriotism at all.

And positive patriotism can be a really beneficial thing if you're looking at how to improve our nation. The way that we put our hands in our pockets for charities, the way that red-noseday, we come together. All of those are part of the historical aspects of who we are as Brits. But for the Labour Party in the left, yes, I have that social contract. Maybe that's what was slightly dangerous to some of those people who didn't want me in charge of the political party at the time.

But there was also an element that has been captured by the right. And I think that's the zeitgeist that was there in the middle. And that's what we've seen in the country. of separation between modern left, modern democracy, Democratic parties, sorry, and those in Europe, where we now, their main supporters, immigrants first generation and second generation, university and the intellectual elite, what I call Fabian socialists. And the traditional trade union socialists are not there. There are still some who might believe in it, but I think some of the traditional trade unionists have been bought off by the way that they can.

get huge amounts of money and have a reasonable lifestyle as well. Or just forced out like Paul Embry, who we've had on the show many times. You know, absolutely. Stephen, it's been a great conversation. Before we ask you questions from our supporters, first of all, tell everybody where they can follow your latest work. Yes.

And we'll ask you our final question as well. Yeah, so if you go to the Centre for Migration and Economics Prosperity website, which is www.c-c-c-c-M-EP.com.com. That's where most of the work will start to come. And from there, you'll feed off into the other works that I do around that as well. Fantastic. So we've got one more question for you, as always. Which is, what's the one thing we're not talking about, but we really should be?

Well, I think it's the way that we're manipulating our young people out of the concept of freedom. That we are watching our young people becoming more and more intolerant and accepting of that intolerance, way that they can have people at university saying you can't speak on a platform the way that we attack individuals if we're not not in agreement with your view I mean look at those in the LGBT movement who really championed it who are now being banned from actually being you know standing up and talking about the transgender issues for example so there's something going on there where we're feeling it's quite easy to

manipulate young people into this kind of ideology that they all agree with, the Greta Thunberg chanting brigade. Whether this was started by Tony Blair and that kind of movement, whether we see that kind of progressive elements that was there in Trudeau's way that he wanted to manage the truckers, it's this attempt to dissolve freedom into us and them and you're our pack, but it's done now at a younger age. And what we're seeing is a way that we put masks on children, weaponizing children, weaponizing our young people over the arguments of transgenderism. Why is it that we feel that you can take the Jesuit idea of getting when they're young, now being accepted in politics,

instead of allowing them to live their lives freely without politics, without any of our adult views as children, and then at university and school being given a wider birth of opportunities. That's what's the concerning element to me, because once you're changing where we're seeing now, the generation that we're in, which was enabled to have a deeper conversations will become narrower and more intolerant. Stephen Wolf, fantastic. We're going to ask you a couple of questions from our local supporters, but for now, thank you very much for coming on the show. It's been a pleasure to have you on. Thank you for having me. I've really enjoyed it. Thank you.

As have we, thank you for watching and listening. We'll see you very soon with another brilliant episode like this one or also. All of them go out 7pm UK time. And for those of you who like your trigonometry on the go, it's also available as a podcast. Take care and see you soon, guys. In your opinion, do you ultimately believe that you dodge the bullet by not becoming leader of UKIP?