reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The British people deserve an explanation for a significant failure that was not merely accidental or due to global trends. This failure was intentional, stemming from deliberate policy reforms aimed at liberalizing immigration. Brexit was leveraged to transform Britain into an experiment in open borders, under the guise of "Global Britain." This approach lacked public support, yet it was pursued while downplaying its existence.

The speaker criticizes the British government for making decisions without consulting the people, such as bombing Yemen and neglecting border security. They also discuss the influx of immigrants in the US and the UK, questioning whether it is intentional or a result of corruption. The speaker highlights the silence of authorities regarding the high death toll from various causes and accuses Pfizer of profiting from diseases like turbo cancer. They mention the lack of concern from leaders worldwide and the recent scandal involving wrongly prosecuted sub postmasters in the UK. The speaker concludes by condemning the elites gathering in Davos and their agenda to rebuild trust.

We spend £15,000,000 daily on expenses like hotels, which is insulting to hardworking Brits struggling to make ends meet. There aren't enough schools, GPs, or homes being built, and the influx of people from other countries is changing our country beyond recognition.

Jim Fergus hosts a conversation with Hayden Appleby, a young British journalist based in Essex who runs a channel that started as a podcast and now shares social-media clips. Appleby describes his work as discussing issues facing the UK, the US, and Europe, and he emphasizes attacks on freedom by “collective governments” and the need for free debate. He says freedom was brought into sharp relief during COVID, notably bodily autonomy, movement, and free expression, and that the education system functions as a propaganda machine with set topics and messages that push one side of an argument and stigmatize dissent. He contends English, math, and science curricula are infused with messaging, including a portrayal of capitalism as negative, and he argues that younger people should speak up and engage in debate rather than simply follow established views. Fergus notes his recent activities in Europe, including Berlin’s Corona Symposium and a brief speech in the EU Parliament, and he encourages viewers to follow Appleby on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok, with Appleby highlighting Instagram for clips and X for thoughts. A central theme of the discussion is freedom and censorship. Appleby asserts that the UK currently faces a global standing where independent journalists and ordinary people risk arrest for online statements, contrasting that with the past, when cancel culture led to job or funding losses, whereas the present era sees people jailed for online expressions that are not incitements to violence. He argues that freedom of expression should be protected “under all circumstances besides the direct incitement of violence,” criticizing the notion that indirect or contextual statements can be punished and pointing to authorities such as the CPS, police, and councils acting in concert to target journalists and ordinary citizens. He cites incidents of a comedian being confronted by armed officers and suggests a broader trend of suppressing dissent. When discussing political leadership, both speakers critique the Labour government and the Conservative Party as beholden to a globalist agenda, arguing that leadership has betrayed British citizens by redirecting resources abroad and away from domestic priorities. They criticize “globalist governments” for prioritizing others over British citizens, and they condemn increasing taxation and policies perceived as punitive toward those who work hard, including high taxes and policies affecting home ownership. Appleby argues that rising costs, inflation, and taxation, including a proposed “leveling up tax,” threaten households and small businesses, and he contends that millions of high-net-worth individuals have emigrated in response to policy changes. The conversation touches on media bias, with Appleby decrying the BBC as biased and unethical, citing past instances of manipulation and alleged corruption, including the organization’s treatment of Trump. They discuss the potential removal of trial by jury, as proposed by Deputy Prime Minister David Lamy, and the concern that politically appointed judges could replace juries, eroding private citizens’ rights and sovereignty. In the US context, Marco Rubio and President Trump designated Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, and Rubio and Trump also labeled the Muslim Brotherhood as a prescribed terrorist organization. Appleby supports designating Antifa due to its violence and intimidation, and he condemns mass illegal immigration as a perceived threat to Western civilization, arguing it compromises safety and national cohesion. He condemns “catch and release” immigration policies and advocates for stronger border controls to protect citizens. The dialogue explores concerns about civil conflict, drawing on Professor David Betts’s warning that demographic shifts and rising crime could lead toward intergroup conflict or civil war within a few years. Appleby agrees that while he does not want conflict, persistent crime and division could heighten tensions, urging peaceful political solutions and unity. Towards the end, Appleby urges continued public discourse and unity in defending freedom, warning that elites inside the establishment are not representative of the majority, and he emphasizes that “more speech is what is needed, not less.” He thanks Jim Fergus for the interview and invites audiences to stay engaged and keep talking.

Discussion focuses on mass migration and its political economy in democracies. In the UK, immigration accelerated after Brexit: about 4,500,000 immigrants between 2021 and 2024, 7% of the population, with 80% outside Europe. Brexit promised to limit immigration but ended up loosening it for economic reasons, destabilizing politics, with calls to exit the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN refugee treaty. The guests compare immigration’s effects elsewhere: in the US, a settler situation allowed growth; in Europe, it's more like seventeenth-century North America, with newcomers becoming a core population. Germany’s AfD rising; debate over banning parties under its constitution; immigration policy evolution after 2015; Japan’s more closed approach, debt, and cultural continuity. The conversation also covers American civil rights tools, affirmative action, and ‘state of emergency liberalism,’ Trump’s reversals, and the potential for economic-reform cycles akin to the New Deal. They end cautiously optimistic about the US.

"And frankly, the there's a massive incentive on the left to import voters." "So if they can't convince their nation to vote for them, they're going to import people from other nations to vote for them." "This is a massive factor." "And frankly, it's a strategy that will succeed if it is not stopped." "It's really a voter importation thing." "That is 100% what is happening." "I mean, BBC is complicit in the destruction of Britain." "The '97 is a failure if we don't pay for it." "You're forced to pay for your own destruction." "We pay for it." "Yes."

Brexit has resulted in higher levels of immigration than before. The change involves a shift from single individuals from Europe working in sectors like hospitality to families from Asia and Africa. The speaker questions how this shift has been beneficial.

In 2014, I predicted a war in Ukraine due to NATO and EU expansion, which I believed provoked Russia. I've been warning about this since the 1990s, and I was criticized for it. Recently, George Robertson, a former NATO secretary general, echoed this sentiment, stating that EU expansion directly contributed to the conflict. Regarding Brexit, two main expectations were controlling our borders and reducing immigration, yet numbers have surged due to a conservative government prioritizing cheap labor. Additionally, Rishi Sunak's promise to eliminate 4,000 EU laws was abandoned, hindering regulatory simplification.

People arrive in the UK as asylum seekers, often claiming family ties to stay. This leads to a chain of family reunifications. In contrast, the US is actively deporting individuals who entered illegally, and many in Britain support this approach. Reform UK is committed to addressing illegal immigration and deporting those who enter unlawfully. The party draws parallels with the situation in America and seeks support from those who share the belief that current immigration practices are unacceptable. Join and vote for Reform UK to help tackle this issue.

People who are determined to move to another country will always find a way, regardless of the risks involved. The concern of potential ISIS members infiltrating is valid, but it is unlikely that they would go through the same routes as asylum seekers or highly motivated individuals. Politicians often use immigrants as a scapegoat for the country's problems, blaming them for dissatisfaction, economic decline, high energy costs, and inflation. This tactic is nothing new.

The key to successful leadership is showing empathy towards voters by addressing their concerns about immigration. It's not about specific policies, but about acknowledging and understanding their worries. David Cameron's failed immigration target still resonated with voters because it showed a desire to control immigration. By engaging in meaningful conversations and demonstrating empathy, leaders can build trust with the electorate, even if they don't always deliver on promises. This approach has been a longstanding tradition in British politics. Translation: Understanding and addressing voters' concerns, especially regarding immigration, is crucial for effective leadership. It's about empathy and meaningful conversations, not just policies. Even failed attempts to control immigration, like David Cameron's, can still resonate with voters if they show a genuine desire to address the issue. Building trust through empathy and dialogue is a key aspect of British politics.

I can't believe the rapid Islamization in the UK. Voting for the Labor Party will speed it up. Muslim population doubles every 10 years, leading to Sharia law. LGBT rights will vanish, men will be softened, and women's rights will be at risk. A move towards communism, digital currency, and social credit scores is coming. British patriots must choose: give up or protest for change. Let your voices be heard.

The speaker reports they have been officially banned from entering the United Kingdom. They state the UK government, under Keirstarmer, deems their presence “not conducive to the public good,” and they express confusion over why being conducive to the public good is a requirement to enter a country. They compare this to thousands of illegal immigrants entering through the Channel daily, noting that “Nobody's asking them to be conducive to the public good,” yet they cannot go to the UK. The speaker mentions they did not apply for an EITA (likely a visa/permit) and had recently returned in September to join the Tommy Robinson rally where they spoke, intending to participate again in May, which now seems impossible. They describe the timing as suspicious, pointing out that three days earlier they posted about Kierst Armour calling out his hypocrisy for wanting to ban X because of women’s safety while allegedly allowing migrant gang rapes to happen. They imply this is connected to the ban as an act to ban free speech. They describe the situation as dystopian and emphasize the severe limitation of their freedom, noting that “as it says in email, I cannot appeal.” They stress they are not convicted of any crime, not under suspicion of any crime, and that the decision was made by Kirstarmer that someone like them is “not welcome in The UK.” The overall claim is that the ban is an abrupt, non-appealable restriction on their entry into the country, framed within accusations of political manipulation and hypocrisy by the UK government and Kier Starmer.

Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven toxic for Europe. Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, and David Cameron have all acknowledged the failure of multiculturalism. This approach does not require newcomers to integrate, allowing them to live separate lives within society. In extreme cases, this can lead to actions that undermine stability and threaten security.

When a white person dies at the hand of an immigrant, we may acknowledge it briefly, but then we move on. What does this say about us? It suggests a society that has given up and accepted defeat. But have we truly given up? Do we accept the globalist vision being forced upon us? If we don't fight for our continent, religion, and people, this era will be remembered as the time when Western nations were conquered not by armies, but by invitation. A corrupt elite invited the invaders and made the native population pay for it.

Allowing a large influx of people from diverse cultures and religions was a significant error. This decision has led to the formation of pressure groups within each country.

Letting in people of different cultures and religions was seen as a mistake as it creates pressure groups within each country.

President Trump secured the border, saving lives. The Biden administration could have done the same, but chose not to, undoing all of Trump's work. This wasn't incompetence; it was a deliberate action. Over 90 executive orders reversed border security measures. I believe their motivation is multifaceted. Some genuinely favor open borders, while others see political gain in welcoming millions of potential Democratic voters. Furthermore, reversing Trump's census rule allows millions of undocumented immigrants to be counted, potentially increasing Democratic representation in the House. Ultimately, they sacrificed national security for future political power.

The speaker compares the current immigration situation to a Ponzi scheme, stating that the institution needs constant influx of immigrants to sustain itself. They mention that the number of immigrants coming into the country has reached a saturation point, using the example of Ugandan refugees and Afghan refugees. The speaker highlights that the rate of immigration in the last 25 years has surpassed that of the past 2000 years combined, contradicting the notion that Britain has always been a nation of immigrants.