Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 21, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:26

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #441

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 21st of July 2022.
	I am your host, Connor, and today I am joined by Jake Scott, chairman of the Mallard and political mastermind behind the Backing Bedknot campaign.
	Jake, how are you?
	I'm well, thank you, Connor.
	How are you?
	Good.
	Well, we'll see how good I am when we get to today's topics, which are the World Economic Forum wanting to blot out the sun, the fact that the Conservatives are alienating their youth activist base, and also, what was the third topic actually?
	There we go.
	Completely slipped my mind.
	Oh yeah, Biden's Marxist groomer schools.
	Wow, we're also a roaring star.
	But first, I'd like to just plug Josh's contemplations on globalism.
	He's going to be explaining exactly why the environment, all these sort of crazy plans as part of the WEF, are folded into the global hegemonic agenda, and it's one of the topics that we're definitely going to be covering today.
	There we have it.
	It's well worth it.
	I'll also be covering Josh.
	Josh and I will be covering who needs to be published on the right, and it goes live on Saturday.
	So, without further ado, let's discuss why the World Economic Forum wants to block out the sun, shall we?
	So, in Great Britain, last Monday and Tuesday, we received a catastrophic weather warning from the Met Office.
	It was the country's first red weather warning.
	We saw temperatures of 40.3 degrees Celsius in certain places, and apparently that was going to signal the end of the world according to climate change.
	How did you survive?
	I just had the fan on me all day, every day.
	Yeah, didn't you have some wine and fall asleep?
	I did.
	Oh, proper Christian wedding.
	Unfortunately, that lasted all of two days.
	So we've survived the climate catastrophe.
	2050 deadline doesn't need to exist anymore.
	And you'll be seeing that little climate change Wikipedia disclaimer underneath the YouTube version of this podcast, of course.
	Now, despite being told not to conflate weather with climate after everyone points to snowstorms as evidence that global warming isn't going to incinerate us all, the media did the irresponsible thing and, of course, conflated the two.
	And as we can see here from a post from James Melville, something incredibly instructive as to how the media decided to present weather in the last couple of years versus the current weather forecast.
	You can just skip to the next link, John.
	So, a couple of years ago, lovely and sunny, heatwave, enjoy the beach, and then as of this year, apparently we're in the seventh circle of hell, only the deepest red possible, and most of the time the actual temperatures aren't even comparable to, I mean, as you can see on the edge of the country in Wales, it's at least a degree higher in the former forecast, but of course the climate catastrophizing will not go amiss.
	So, Alex Sharma, MP, didn't stop him from getting up in...
	Oh, Kent Online are of course going to whine about us using an ad blocker.
	Didn't stop him from getting up in Parliament, complaining about the fact that the climate crisis is going to kill us all.
	He says the weather is a wake-up call to the UK to address climate change.
	He says that many people, many millions of people across the world are experiencing this on a regular basis and finally the UK understands just how much they're suffering.
	He used that exact line in the recent release of the IPCC's paper in 2021, so it seems that he keeps calling for wake-up calls.
	But also Alok Sharma doesn't seem to be getting much done, because at COP26 he decided to break down in tears because his COP26 deal got watered down, mainly because China and Brazil decided they didn't want to implode their national economies at the expense of the planet.
	Alok Sharma also promises to resign if the next PM scraps the Net Zero pledge.
	We can only hope this is what your favourite, Kimmy Badenock, actually turned around and said that if it was going to bankrupt the country, I might reconsider it, especially considering all the people setting the targets won't be around to see it come to fruition.
	Well, I think that's a very conservative thing to say, obviously, speaking as a conservative.
	The fact that one thing she said repeatedly is we shouldn't burden the next generation with our problems.
	And granted, on the issue of climate change, that's something we've been doing, but the answer shouldn't be more burdens in a different style.
	That's just absurd.
	Well, didn't she at least cite Burke once in one of her speeches?
	I will say to her, she talks a good game on the continuity between our previous generations, the wisdom of our inherited forefathers, and the Covenant, the unborn.
	And considering most of the politicians won't be around when the 2050 target comes to fruition, but we'll still be paying for it and our kids will have to grow up if at all we have children, considering the climate activists keep telling them to voluntarily depopulate to save the planet.
	They'll be the ones living under the iron curtain of immiseration for lowering carbon emissions.
	So, climate change emergency is increasingly an excuse for the state to confiscate our individual liberties, to clamp down on consumption, to crack down on all of the things like the Industrial Revolution brought us that made life more than bearable.
	Despite their objectionable obstructive activities, some are calling for climate protesters to not be prosecuted for all of the infrastructural devastation they've caused because we're in an emergency.
	Extinction Rebellion this week actually smashed the windows at the News UK building.
	Funnily enough, there was a statement from Steve Tooze, who's a member of Extinction Rebellion and, ironically, a former Sun journalist.
	There's a bit of meme magic there for the latest segment.
	These newspapers have spent 30 life-or-death years denying or ignoring the climate crisis to ensure that business as usual keeps the money flowing into their already obscenely bloated bank accounts.
	I would like him to put down whatever climate nonsense he's reading and pick up a dictionary so he doesn't have to run on sentences, please.
	As a result, millions of us still have no clue about the terrifying dangers that threaten us.
	We can agree on that, Steve.
	You definitely have no clue.
	Unfortunately, despite the eloquence of this man, good morning Britain...
	Oh, sorry, actually, Extinction Rebellion are actually protesting a fuel depot, despite a court injunction telling them not to.
	And they've threatened to sit in the M25 surrounding London, so...
	If you were trying to circumvent the train strikes and even get away from the smell of your bins because there are many bin strikes going on, you won't get anywhere very fast because they're impeding the working people of this country driving around in their cars.
	It's not like we have any concerns anyway.
	No, onward into the climate utopia.
	Good Morning Britain has proposed an amnesty on these protesters being prosecuted for their disruption.
	We won't play the video, it's just Ed Balls prattling on about why we should get rid of all of our standards because we're in an emergency scenario.
	I might humbly point out that if the rules can be broken in an emergency, then they're just going to engineer emergencies to break the rules.
	I don't think we should be dispensing of any objective moral norms just because a bunch of crazy-haired weirdos tell us to.
	How do you feel about that?
	I can't say I disagree in the slightest.
	Well, unfortunately, the next gentleman does.
	The danger-frog-haired person speaking in this segment with that dreadful tie-dye shirt.
	His incredible quote was, he's a member of Just Stop Oil.
	He justified invading football pitches, damaging picture frames on Price's artwork, and blocking the oil refineries as about forcing the issue to the forefront of public consciousness.
	How wonderfully Marxist of you.
	However, when one decides to make aggression to make their point, they kind of lose the argument.
	It does make a good point, though, that Extinction Rebellion protests pressured the Conservatives into pushing a climate emergency declaration through Parliament.
	So when they stood on top of the trains and that, rather than the Conservatives saying, nope, we shouldn't be doing this, they actually just went, yeah, you're right about the climate emergency, we should pass it through.
	I always return to this story.
	I spoke to Chris Pinscher.
	I spoke to Chris Skidmore.
	Let's not get those two confused.
	I wasn't molested, I promise.
	And he was the guy who signed Net Zero into law.
	And when asked, how did you do it?
	He just said, I just changed the number.
	And no costing involved.
	Lovely.
	Speaking of people that are climate catastrophizing, Prince Harry decided to tell the UN about how climate change and disinformation on the internet are a global assault on democracy and freedom.
	He got his private jet to jet over to the UN from his California mansion and speak to, as photos that I didn't include show, a room full of basically no one because nobody cares about what this ginger convert to globalism says.
	LAUGHTER Pretty sad that the formerly bachelor prince has been having his balls placed in the purse by an American divorcee, but I suppose we move on.
	Greenpeace agree with him, though.
	They say a climate emergency is a legacy of colonialism in this cracking new report released today.
	We're on the cutting edge of intellectual titanry here.
	The climate and ecological crimes are a legacy of systemic racism, and people of colour suffer disproportionately from their harms, a Greenpeace report says.
	I think there are plenty of hurricanes just pulling on their KKK hoods.
	Globally, the report says it is people of color who, despite having contributed to the least of climate emergencies, are now disproportionately losing their lives and livelihoods by the millions because of it.
	India's emissions would like a word.
	Produced in collaboration with the race equality think tank, the Runnymede Trust, your favorite.
	The report traces the roots of the environmental emergency to colonialism, slavery, and the plunder of resources from the global south.
	Greenpeace says it is making environmental justice a central pillar of its work.
	It actually introduces the Kimberley Crenshaw and Kehinde Andrews expansive definition of racism here, as inferred from group inequalities, by saying, we argue that the outcomes of the environmental emergency cannot be understood without reference to the history of British and European colonialism.
	We were more successful.
	Which set in motion a global model for radicalised resource extraction from people of colour.
	It's the same old Leninist belief in colonialism being the unilateral extraction of resources from one country altogether.
	At the expense of their economic output.
	It's the labor theory of value and it's just nonsense.
	The environmental emergency is the legacy of colonialism.
	This was because colonialism had established a model through which the air and lands of the global south have been used as places to dump the waste the global north does not want.
	Now, I'll give them a tiny bit of credos here, because we do have a lot of greenwashing in Parliament and governments around the world, because we do just sort of ship our waste over to a place like Ghana to be burned on the coast, which just makes a lot of this very expensive, performative green policy, which I have been trying to rectify in my prior career.
	Just a form of immiserating us at the expense of the living conditions across the world.
	I don't know how you feel about conservation.
	I think it's a worthwhile goal for any Conservative, but do you feel that they actually have a genuine concern for that sort of thing in Parliament?
	No, not really.
	I think they're just saying what they think they need to say in order to either get the funding or to get the votes.
	Do you think there is a voter base among the Conservatives that actually bother voting for any of the Net Zero stuff?
	Because we keep hearing, oh, people voted for it.
	It was in their 10-point plan that was chiefly topped by Get Brexit Done and nobody read the more of that.
	But do you think there is even any Conservatives willing to vote for this nonsense?
	I think that conservative voters or conservatively-minded people, as you say, believe in conservation, but that is used as a way of hoodwinking them into voting for, essentially, as you say, pseudo-leftist nonsense.
	Trojan horse?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Shock.
	So this scaremongering actually goes against all available evidence.
	Nowhere in the UN's IPCC report that Extinction Rebellion have pretty much given up sighting now because people have called them out on it, including Andrew Neil, who converted Zion Lights to not being an Extinction Rebellion protester, and now she goes out stumping for nuclear power.
	Nowhere in the IPCC report actually predicts an imminent collapse about as reliable as the Mayan calendar.
	Michael Schellenberger in Apocalypse Never, great little book there, if we can get rid of the Amazon cookie thing, documents how in early 2019, many of you may remember, newly elected 29-year-old Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the central brain of the Democratic Party, said the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.
	Now, we might be charitable and say Ms. Cortez had a slip of the tongue, but considering she's a lying, insidious communist, I'm not going to be willing to ground her on that ground.
	The next day, a reporter for the news website Axios called several climate scientists to get their reactions to AOC's claim.
	All the time-limited frames are BS, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist.
	Nothing special happens when the carbon budget runs out or we pass whatever temperature target you care about.
	Instead, the costs of emissions just steadily continue to rise.
	So, no impending catastrophe.
	That's from the NASA climate scientist.
	That's from the leading body that actually hosts the 97% figure on his website.
	Actually, I saw someone do a cost-benefit analysis for the IPCC and said, actually, if we hit all the IPCC targets and we just dispensed at the economy, it'd only be a coin flip chance as to whether it actually did anything anyway.
	So, if it was an impending catastrophe, we couldn't do anything.
	But luckily it isn't.
	And instead, the policies are so bad that they're the more likely things to immiserate us.
	Then there's also the UN itself getting things wrong.
	The UN says natural disasters would increase 40% in a recent report.
	But Bjorn Lomberg, who does the Lord's work and actually costs in these sorts of things, is under Twitter thread on how the UN has actually misrecorded the natural disasters.
	and it's mainly because they just forgot that we had satellite imaging and increases in in seismometer improvements so they're just recording stuff they didn't record before and they also enveloped some natural disasters they put some man-made stuff in there like you know wildfires that were started by arson they said it was just exacerbated by climate change normally it's actually exacerbated by climate policy I don't know if you Yeah.
	Actually, it's on fire because you didn't do any dieback burning.
	And in LA specifically, you imported a bunch of Australian eucalyptus.
	And if anyone knows anything about eucalyptus oil, feel like your throat and that, it's got loads of hydrocarbons in it.
	So it went up like a bonfire because you built it that way, you bloody idiots.
	So then heat deaths themselves, as we've been warned about constantly in the UK as a little heat wave, they barely register as a concern.
	From Bjorn Lomborg's old book, Call It.
	In Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year.
	However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold.
	That's more than seven times the total number of heat deaths.
	Since 1998 to 2008, Europe lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003.
	That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tell us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.
	Reported by the media.
	Yes, what happens after 2050 when heat deaths are meant to be eventually outweighing avoided cold deaths?
	Because of course the planet's going to come to a cataclysmic end.
	Heat deaths actually won't outweigh cold deaths not in 2050, not in 2100, or even 2200 according to the modelling.
	So, nothing to really worry about there.
	But don't let these inconvenient facts get in the way of the narrative.
	We have to push onwards to abolishing fossil fuels, as that colourful gentleman from Just Stop Oil said.
	Unfortunately, renewables aren't really up to scratch.
	As we go to the next article, there's an issue of corrections in here where there's a lot of cope about misreporting, but they never actually walk back the headline, because apparently California, who are very keen on installing solar panels, have caused a massive pollution problem in their landfills.
	California has been a pioneer in pushing for rooftop solar power, building the largest solar market in the US. More than 20 years and 1.3 million rooftops later, the bill is coming due.
	Many are already winding up in landfills and contaminating groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium.
	Bear in mind, we get most of these heavy metals and battery capacity from China about 80%.
	Although 80% of a typical photovoltaic panel is made up of extremely recyclable materials, disassembling them and recovering glass, silver, and silicon in them is extremely difficult, so most people just send them straight to landfill.
	No wonder, then, there's also the space problem, and this is going to be a real recycling problem, and we see what China's doing with their solar panels, as we can see here.
	Just papering over the landscape.
	Oh, wow.
	So if you can imagine, as Roger Scruton once said, the beauty of the English countryside was private property rights across thousands of years, and it was a cultivated thing rather than just left to its devices, that's what's going to happen.
	It's going to look like the outskirts of Blade Runner 2049.
	Looking forward to that future?
	Oh, very much so.
	Well, you already live in Birmingham, so you don't get much scenery.
	Renewables are also polluting the planet.
	So solar panels produce 300 times more toxic waste than high-level nuclear waste, if we go to the next Forbes article.
	By 2035, write three economists, discarded panels would outweigh new units sold by 2.56 times.
	In turn, this would catapult the LCOE, levelized cost of energy, so that's basically how much energy costs to make over time, to four times the current projection.
	It costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle panels than to just send it to landfill.
	More than 720,000 tons worth of Wind turbines as well will also end up in landfills over the next 20 years, and only 5% of electric vehicle batteries are currently recycled, so if we're all adopting electric because new petrol cars are being banned in this country and Canada and the like by 2030, then we're going to have a major scrappage problem.
	But it's a good thing that renewables actually work, right?
	Well, no.
	So I actually did the modelling on this a little while ago.
	The government actually listened to one of the policies in this, and I got a letter from Greg Hands, who I don't know if he's still the sitting energy minister, but he probably won't be in the next couple of months, saying that we're going to take on board your advice on building new nuclear power plants and stop China for paying it and instead allow the energy companies to factor it into their overall costs over time.
	Hopefully that builds all these new plants we've got.
	Because currently, the 2030 target for, I believe it's Bradwell and Sizewell, China own a 22% stake and a 33% stake in our nuclear structure.
	And we're doing a joint nuclear venture with them for £500 million on our shores.
	So that's not a national security concern at all.
	Luckily, we can just invest in renewables, right?
	Well, no.
	Unfortunately, if the UK alone tried going renewable, it would take the world's battery manufacturing capacity, again, made 80% by China, From 2022 to 2030 to stop, be entirely redirected to the UK, it would cost £3 trillion, that's adjusted for inflation, might be even more than that now, and it would only make 26.5% of the current consumer energy demands.
	Now that's obviously not accounting for an increase in things like induction hobs in homes and electric cars to make everything more energy efficient and more renewable.
	So yeah, terrible plan.
	Didn't stop Germany though.
	Germany decided to go full-throatedly ahead with destroying all of the nuclear power plants after the Fukushima disaster.
	They decided to go fully renewable by 2022.
	They're resulting rolling brownouts where energy production and storage dip below usage rates.
	These actually cost lives in some cases.
	You know, hospital generators went out.
	And so now they've not only fired up their coal plants, but they've also invested more in a Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline than they did in NATO.
	And congratulations, you've got an unfunded Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
	Germany's terrible energy renewable policy has actually enabled them to be held ransom by Putin.
	His fifth-generation warfare tactics and energy rationing have resulted in the next proposal.
	As of today, the UN are actually telling residents to turn your lights off.
	Brussels on Wednesday urged Europeans to switch off the lights and turn down their air conditioning this summer.
	You know, just when they're saying the heatwave is going to kill us all.
	Amid growing fears of a likely cutoff of Russian gas supplies to the continent.
	When you rely on your enemies for your most vital resources, don't be shocked when they hold them against you.
	So this road to energy immiseration isn't going to help anyone.
	Renewables aren't going to work.
	Deciding to lock down the climate for...
	Lockdown the economy for the climate isn't going to work either.
	So has anyone got any brighter ideas?
	Well, thank you to mad Uncle Schwab pulling out the Mr.
	Burns solution.
	Firstly, he said he's asking China to get more involved with the WEF to fight climate change.
	He said giving more power to Big Pluto China will address climate change, promote industrial transformation and social equity.
	In the tweet, this is his next job.
	There we go.
	Grinning Bond villain.
	And in the next one, we've got a video actually.
	They've come up with an even more novel solution.
	Just block out the sun.
	So for our audio listeners, it says, MIT scientists say space bubbles could help reverse climate change by deflecting the sun's heat away from the Earth.
	Don't see anything could go wrong here.
	Scientists say cutting out just 1.8% of the sun's rays would fully reverse global warming.
	However, it would be several years before space bubbles could be put to use, making the task of decarbonizing life on Earth no less urgent and, yes, be immiserated in the present.
	The bubbles would be manufactured in space by robots.
	They would then form a raft about the size of Brazil!
	There's no problem with this.
	That would be placed at the Lagrange point.
	That is a point in space where the Sun and Earth's gravity balance each other out.
	This would keep the raft in fixed position.
	This kind of large-scale physical solution to climate change is called geoengineering.
	You know that thing Alex Jones warned us about.
	Such several ideas have been posed.
	From spraying aerosols into the upper atmosphere.
	Chemtrails aren't real, by the way.
	To churning up tiny bubbles on the ocean's surface.
	All with the aim of reflecting solar radiation back into space.
	How noble of you.
	However, the MIT scientists say Earth-based geoengineering solutions could be too risky, as they might have had unintended consequences for the biosphere.
	Yes, like, losing it.
	And that space-based solutions could be safer.
	How is your country tackling climate change?
	Terribly.
	We're all poor.
	So, thanks to the WEF using Chinese Communist Party propaganda platform TikTok there to give us basically the reasons for blotting out the sun.
	So there's an article on the WEF's website explaining exactly how this is going to work.
	The WEF proposed floating a thin film layer of graphene-reinforced ionic liquids into the upper atmosphere of Earth to create a filter the size of Brazil which will reduce the amount of solar radiation hitting Earth.
	MIT's ironically named Sensible Science Lab say if we deflect 1.8% of incident radiation before it hits our planet, we could fully reverse today's global warming.
	It's interesting that suddenly the climate change narrative about things also getting colder and more extreme weather events like blizzard suddenly goes away when you want to reduce solar radiation.
	They propose a less likely alternative to spraying aerosols to geoengineer the atmosphere, because spraying aerosols would essentially counteract the greenhouse gas intensity by reflecting some of the solar radiation back.
	But of course, the atmosphere is a tragedy of the commons, so everyone's got to breathe it in.
	You can't exactly consent to breathing in geoengineered air, and which countries do it is actually a concern.
	But I'm sure the WEF themselves, being one giant superstate which we don't elect, will...
	Put it in safe hands.
	The public policy questions include whether geoengineering presents a moral hazard by undermining the support for climate mitigation policies and encouraging people to see the shift away from fossil fuels as less important.
	So note there, it's not a moral hazard because you as an individual can't escape geoengineering.
	It's the fact that it might stop governments from pursuing these immiserating policies in the first place.
	And again, it's very telling when they say, oh, move away from fossil fuels rather than carbon capture the fossil fuels.
	They want to destroy your means of reliably generating energy rather than just get rid of the emissions, which would actually be a sensible plan, like pollutants.
	Translation, we're worried about people will think we're effing around with the atmosphere, so we've got to pretend that we aren't, even when we are.
	So call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't really trust a bunch of lab coats to block out the sun without it having catastrophic effects.
	Like, I don't know, widespread photosynthesis rate decreases, mass famines, and another ice age?
	Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus once asserted that the economic damage done by the UN's incompetent climate policies would inflict more damage on the people living on the planet than if climate change just played out as predicted.
	So, turns out that our policies may be far worse than anything.
	But of course, Norhouse never counted on the fact that Klaus Schwab wanted to turn us all into the I am legend zombies to save the planet.
	If you'd like to know more about how Silicon Valley are actual vampires already, you can listen or read to my DeepThink on the website, exclusive to subscribers, because it seems that we'll all be going this way eventually.
	And after that, black pill, let's discuss why the Conservatives are alienating their activist base.
	So, I'm going to quickly plug Englishmen for Exclusivity Against Equality because I think the Tory party and any of you that are interested in infiltrating the halls of power to change their attitude on why we should have exclusivity, meritocracy, fairness, prudence and justice rather than equality, which every social justice member of the Tory cabinet seems to be talking about in the last couple of years.
	I think we should all give this a read.
	So, if you'd like to subscribe to LotusEasers.com, you can listen to content like this.
	So, Jake, why don't you run us through why you're dispirited with the Tory party and what you're doing to change it?
	Well, I think before I go into that too deeply, I mean, the point about equality is something that really frustrates me because a lot of people say things like, I prefer equality of opportunity over equality of outcome.
	Forgetting, of course, that you're still talking about equality for one thing, But also that you actually can't have equality of opportunity without equality of outcome at some point, especially if you're talking about things like inheritance tax or basically any form of tax.
	But in terms of the actual election race, there was a really interesting article that caught my eye, which was this by Aris Rusnos in Unheard.
	It's called Brittany's Macmillan, not Thatcher.
	And in case you couldn't tell from the picture, Liz Truss as a sort of pseudo-Thatcher or a warmed-up Thatcher zombie is not Aris's choice.
	I don't know, the next Call of Duty looks great.
	Well, they're all painting the tanks forest green instead of desert sand, in case you didn't see that.
	Now, the point with regards to this article is that We should stop trying to reanimate Thatcher.
	We should start talking about things that are more pressing concerns.
	I think Aris is obviously an excellent author.
	I love Aris as an author.
	And one of the reasons I quite liked this article in general was that Macmillan and Quentin Hogg, when they were in charge of the Conservative Party, basically said something along the lines of, if you do not give the people social reform, they will give you social revolution.
	It's a very important point to remember.
	But...
	In my mind this article is the same issue just dressed up a bit differently.
	We're still looking for solutions to now in the past and we need to think creatively.
	We need to start thinking about different ideas and we're just not doing that.
	We're stuck in an ideological rut.
	We've got the last three years of essentially grand statist projects that have failed miserably.
	I mean the furlough scheme One thing I noticed was that every single Tory candidate for the leadership praised the furlough scheme, forgetting that that's basically created the situation that we're in.
	And for all of his faults, at least Boris Johnson had an idea of a sort of grand vision of Britain I don't know what that vision was, but he always talked about this, you know, this grand idea of vision.
	But Sunak doesn't have that.
	You know, I don't even know what Sunak actually believes in.
	And Truss called state targets of house-building Stalinists.
	You know, we're still stuck in this kind of Thatcherite miasma of the last 40 years.
	But to give it its real name, it's Blairism.
	because not only is it this kind of reheated Thatcherite economics, it's the same things that you were talking about in terms of social justice and equality and these sorts of things.
	And I quite liked the own, well, as you know, I was a big, big supporter of Kemi Badnock, and I quite liked her only, well, not her only, but her great idea of breaking up the treasury and essentially making it responsive to the prime minister and therefore but her great idea of breaking up the treasury and essentially making it responsive to the prime Did you think, so she seemed quite tepid on Sunak's economic record.
	She was also one of the people that fell in line saying the furlough scheme was a good idea rather than just a pilot scheme for universal basic income.
	She was a junior Treasury Minister at the time.
	Do you think that those structural reforms would have improved the operation or do you think she would have sort of talked the party line on economics as they've already stood?
	It's a difficult question in the sense that I don't really put a huge amount of premium in the Prime Minister to change things as much as people think.
	And I completely sympathise with the point that, you know, she may have just been talking the party line and towing the party line and gotten into number 10 and then just been like every other Tory.
	That may have happened and we can never know.
	But at least she was...
	She reminded me of Thatcher not in the sense of trust in kind of reheated economic policies, but in the sense of having at least a vision of system change.
	That was the really exciting thing about Kemi for me, was that she actually talked about system change.
	It's funny, actually, because we are generally not revolutionaries as natural conservatives, but we've been so beset by the Blairist paradigm for how many years that it does require a pretty intensive overhaul culturally and systemically.
	It's funny because Harry and I were covering Michael Knowles' book, Speechless, Controlling Words and Controlling Minds.
	And he said, conservatives almost need a form of repressive tolerance just because we've been so beset by it that in order to get back to a place where we have a tradition to remember and conserve, we need to use the left's own tactics against them and just be obstinate and say no.
	So it would be quite interesting to see if she would have gone in there and taken a jackhammer to the existing order, but...
	Yeah, we won't see that for at least quite a while because I think she's going to have a career around.
	I'm still sceptical on her.
	But yeah, I was going to say, if we can go to the next link, obviously she was snubbed.
	Do you think this spells an ill fate for the Tory party actually listening to the dissenting base who have been quite unhappy?
	I think one thing that's been particularly concerning around this is the...
	Ignorance towards the grassroots and a sort of willingness to ignore us.
	You know, are you a member of the party?
	Yes.
	And I don't know if you saw that article by, I think it was Daniel Finkelstein in The Times, where he basically said, don't give the members a vote, just stick with the MPs.
	And, I mean, for one thing, I would be really interested to hear if he'd say the same thing were Labour to be having this problem.
	But also...
	What kind of world are you living in where that is a good idea?
	I couldn't even work it out.
	There is very much a managerial elitist attitude.
	I remember there was an article in Con Home, a bit of Inside Baseball.
	I was actually in the final two for the Con Home editor position.
	Oh, really?
	At the start of this year, yeah.
	And when I went into the interview, they said, is there anything you don't like?
	And I said, well, can I complain about one of your columnists for a minute?
	Because there was a guy who said...
	He said something similar along the lines of that party members should never say over his PM, but he also said that we should never vote on vaccine passports, they should just be passed by fiat.
	And so there is very much this attitude of having no principle, but there is a job, we must do this, rather than having someone in the room going, okay, why?
	How?
	Is this a good idea?
	Is it going to work?
	And is it moral?
	Because morality seems to have been abolished from our political discourse and our toolkit of policymaking.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And I think, as I say, this is just...
	This will just disillusion more of the grassroots, in my mind, because I don't know anyone that actually likes Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss for who they are.
	They're very...
	Boring is the easiest word.
	There is an enthusiasm vacuum.
	I've said now I am reluctantly trust even because, although she's a blithering idiot, some people around her might cut my taxes.
	For the next two years, before we get into a war, I might be a bit richer.
	LAUGHTER Yeah, that's a fair point.
	I don't know what Rishi Sunak's foreign policy approach is.
	Do you?
	No, I do know he's very cozied up to China because he's the only candidate that's been formally endorsed by a Chinese press outlet.
	Really?
	Yeah, I can't remember which paper it was, but they have actually come out and said he has the most pragmatic and diplomatic approach to Chinese relations, which basically means he's going to bend over backwards and acquiesce to them.
	Of course, his family has ties to the World Economic Forum and data gathering.
	He's also a fan of digital currency.
	He's a terrible totalitarian that people keep trotting out as somehow fiscally responsible and sensible as if he didn't get into this position in the first place.
	I remember Liam Fox earlier, I believe it was on GB News, turned around and said, oh, the people haven't earned tax cuts yet.
	It's like, sorry mate, I earned the money in the first place that you're now seizing.
	The government do not control the economy, thank you very much.
	But yeah, you're right in identifying that this is a very hegemonic Blairite paradigm that's permeated the Conservative Party.
	But the issue is that fundamentally the right has become sclerotic.
	It doesn't have any new ideas.
	It hasn't had any new ideas for a long time.
	And the reason it's, in my opinion, it's not had any new ideas for a long time Is it's led by the nose by the left.
	Like we say, it's in this Blairite paradigm that it only ever responds to.
	You could even see it, even when David Cameron was Prime Minister, Labour would push and push and push for higher taxes, higher spending, all this sort of thing.
	And as a way to kind of look moderate, they would almost go halfway.
	But of course, as any negotiator will tell you, that's how you get what you want.
	Yes, yeah.
	That's Trump's big ask tactic originally, yeah.
	So, I don't know what the best way to approach this, but fundamentally, and what's really interesting, is that it wasn't always like this, right?
	The right used to be quite full of ideas.
	In fact, for the second half of the 20th century, the right was extremely energetic in terms of ideas.
	You had the emergence of the think tank archipelago in the 1940s.
	You had the Mont Peleron Society, the The Adam Smith Institute, the Institute for Economic Affairs, loads and loads of actually quite grassroots organisations.
	And admittedly, economically, they were all quite similar in that they were after smaller taxes and a small estate and all these sorts of things.
	But a lot of them approached it differently.
	You know, some were sort of monetarist and some were just basically, you know, just eviscerate the state.
	And eventually it kind of like a combination is what won.
	But this has all been turned on its head, because a lot of these institutes and think tanks have become institutionalized.
	You know, they're now part of the state apparatus, as opposed to being outside of it and offering ideas, which is what Curtis Yarvin, or as you might know, Menchus Moldberg, talked about, is the cathedral, which I believe we have a link.
	Next link, yeah.
	Thank you, John.
	So, the cathedral is, I mean, he said there, it's just a short way to say journalism plus academia.
	It's the intellectual institutions at the centre of modern society.
	So, when we talk about the Blairite consensus, it's not just economics, and it's not just social justice.
	It's also this sort of incredibly cohesive network of people that think the same, go to the same institutions, and produce the same ideas, and feed off one another.
	You know, they report on what each other said, and as a result, they kind of Yeah, it's almost like decentralized cultural hegemony and a conspiracy of interest linked together by profit and job security.
	Exactly.
	It's also interesting, I've always liked the term cathedral just because it reminds me of...
	When Nietzsche compared the death of God, every church will become a sepulcher, and it would just be this empty building that's slowly collapsing.
	And then I was listening very recently to Dennis Prager talk about cut flower culture, cut flower theology, and it's the idea that you have this beautiful flower, but when you sever the stem, when you de-God the Christian ethos, which is the underlying morality of the West and Enlightenment liberalism, which is the paradigm we're sort of trapped in um then that will die over time and it looks beautiful but it's slowly withering and eventually it will just crumble and that beauty will fade away
	and i think the cathedral funnily enough is this new hollowed out de-godded sepulcher of where they have they have like the money changers which occupy the floor they've set up shop in what was formerly our house and they can't reach the same heights and they can't reconstruct the cathedral because They don't have the same idea.
	I remember Tucker Carlson even spoke about recently that I'm attracted to conservatism because it built beautiful things.
	It's self-edited than that.
	Whereas George Orwell said in Thoughts on the Common Toad that leftist architecture is stripped of all beauty so that it can refocus the worship of your sentiment away from religion and towards the state.
	They've definitely occupied something the right have built Yes, absolutely.
	And I think another reason that I find the word cathedral so perfect for this is partly of what cathedrals were initially intended to do architecturally, which was to bring the sublime into reality.
	And people often misunderstand the sublime in the sense that they think it's, you know, it's...
	A good thing.
	But actually, if you read Edmund Burke's intellectual origins of the sublime and the beautiful, he says that the sublime is a sort of fixing moment of terror.
	And when you think about the cathedral, it is terrifying.
	It is everywhere, but also it's overawing to the point where you look at this and you go...
	How could I possibly fight this?
	You think, well, if I walk into a cathedral, which stone do I start pulling it down by?
	Not that I would, but that's the same problem we're facing here.
	Which stone do we start pulling it down by?
	And there isn't necessarily an answer.
	We just have to assault the whole thing.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	But should we not care about what the leftists say about us?
	After all, there was this famous piece, if we go on to the next link, John, about why Conservatives, especially young Tories who go to party conference, should be shamed into not having standards and not dressing and possibly not having a bit of fun.
	I mean, Casey Byrne down the bottom of there, we're going to ignore his dressing, but looks like a tangerine.
	But I don't understand why particularly the conservative apparatus are still captured and enamoured by it.
	Despite this being a perfectly humorous piece of writing, this is exactly the kind of thing that they will be shamed into foregoing standards for.
	And I don't quite get why they acquiesce to the leftist cathedral so much.
	I have no idea.
	I mean, when you invited me here today, at no point did we discuss dress codes.
	No.
	And yet I still turned up in a suit.
	Yeah, it was just the expectation.
	It's the expectation.
	I'm still trying to shame everyone into wearing a tie.
	I see YouTube comments.
	I want some standards around here.
	But, you know, one thing about dress...
	Is that it's not only a statement of what you think about yourself, it's a statement of what you think about other people.
	And if you are not dressed well, you're saying to people, at least if you're not dressed well in public, you're saying to people around you, I don't care what you think about me.
	And obviously, that's not exactly a radical observation, because that was basically the punk movement of the 80s, and it's the liberation movement of the 70s and 60s.
	But...
	We should care what people around us think about us because it reflects what we think about their worth.
	If I walk into an interview...
	And I'm not dressed as well as I possibly could be.
	My statement is, I don't care.
	I don't care that you think this is worth your time.
	So I think it's not worth my time.
	So I'm not going to get the job.
	It's as simple as that.
	But this isn't like a, you know, a boomer, you should dress for the job you want kind of statement.
	This is like, this is just a simple way of saying you should treat people around you with respect and dress is part of that.
	And I don't understand why.
	I mean, first of all, why we should be demonised for dressing well.
	I'm not necessarily saying that wearing a suit is dressing well, full stop.
	You need to have a good fitting suit.
	But also, I mean, for God's sake, in that picture, there's a bloke with Union Jack socks on.
	What's wrong with that?
	That's just a bit of fun.
	Well, it's not just a bit of fun.
	It's the old George Orwell quote of leftists would sooner steal from a pallbox and sing God Save the King.
	And it just applies here.
	It's any opportunity to demonise a bit of patriotism.
	The little that there actually was at Conservative Party conference rather than just being a debaucherous orgy.
	So, you're doing something about it.
	Hopefully.
	Yes.
	And we'll go to the next link of where you can actually read.
	I've contributed to the site before, but you can read not only Mallard's print magazine, but also their digital publications where they cover not only internal Conservative Party apparatus, but a remoralisation of Conservative ideas in the British sphere.
	And, of course, you provide a platform to a lot of particularly young people's voices that are up and coming to really work out their perspectives.
	I know Sam Martin has some incredibly explosive columns, some of which we might even get in trouble for reading out on YouTube, but they are incredibly entertaining.
	Absolutely.
	I think actually, I think if you were to keep going, or maybe on the second page, there is actually an article by Sam, which is, uh, which is called squandering a political revolution.
	And he basically says almost what we've been saying for the last 20 minutes, which is that the Johnson government has squandered the revolution it was offered in, uh, I think, I think it may be slightly further down.
	Um, That's it, squandering a revolution.
	I remember the quote from this.
	He said, oh, I can't wait to choose between accidentally starting a war with Liz and definitely starting a war with Tom Tugendhal.
	Spoiled for choice.
	But I think as well, one thing that I'm particularly proud of with the Mallard, as you say, is we're, you know, Forefronting younger voices, and that's a great thing.
	I know, obviously, you were with young voices for a while, and we had a lot of young voices write for us, which was absolutely fantastic.
	And there is this network emerging...
	But also, hopefully, as people saw from scrolling through that front page, there's a huge variety of ideas here.
	We're not just talking about economics.
	In fact, I think there's one economic argument in this whole month so far.
	The rest of it's more constitutional, cultural, system change, and all these sorts of things.
	A few articles on abortion, which is...
	Quite brave.
	One of my hot topics, yes.
	Absolutely.
	And I think as well, Jess Gill, who obviously we know, wrote an article, Conservatives Against Equality, which brings us nicely back to the point of saying, actually, Conservatives shouldn't be about equality.
	Conservatives should be about...
	Natural talent and meritocracy and getting on in life.
	Unfairness is not what we're about.
	Instead, fairness means that not everyone gets the same.
	It's about competition and proportionality.
	So what's standing in the way of this?
	Well, I think, as I say, I mean, we have to ask now, where are the rights ideas coming from?
	And I think it is actually no longer think tanks, but actually institutions and media like ours, like Lotus Eaters, The Mallard, Unheard, Spiked, you know, loads of, for lack of a better word, I'm outside the tent weeing in, you know, rather than inside the tent, where you're captured by the institutions of power.
	I'm...
	I mean, if I could put it to you, I don't know if necessarily this is a good or bad thing.
	Do you think that we should be looking to, like you say, recapture the cathedral?
	Or should we stay outside of it?
	This is the difference between the bazaar and the cathedral that Jarvan's constructed.
	I understand the desire to want a decentralized bizarre.
	The problem I always have is, are the communists who believe in global revolution who will never let up going to let us get away with it?
	And so I do think we need to entrench ourselves in a structure, as it were.
	And I say this as someone who is not very good with rules.
	I'm probably the...
	The least orthodox personality-wise of conservatives, even though I understand the value immensely.
	And so I think, hopefully, there's a happy medium where things like the Mallard, of course, you've got the magazine there that people can subscribe to.
	This is the latest edition, even with Jack Posobiec.
	We can change the culture to a point where the people who are best suited to infiltrate these institutions carry our ideas with them.
	Because at the moment, if we can go on to the next link and just briefly discuss this, this is the problem we're facing.
	This is the reason that people aren't receptive in the party.
	It's because of the civil servants and the deep state, as Boris Johnson even said the other day.
	I think one thing that using that phrase that the deep state when Trump used it obviously people immediately laughed at him because it was Donald Trump not necessarily because what he was saying was wrong because actually if you were to row back by about five years the left was saying the same thing and have been saying the same thing for a long time which is that actually there are mechanisms and levers of power that have been captured by a certain interest it's just they think the interest is capital whereas we think it tends to be social justice and actually I think One of the really beneficial things about this blog is
	it proves that it's the same thing.
	Social justice and capital.
	I mean, I hate the phrase, but what is often referred to now as woke capital, right?
	This is ESG scores 101.
	Yes, absolutely.
	And like I said, think tanks in my mind are dead by virtue of the fact they've been institutionalized.
	They're spinning their wheels.
	They literally are.
	And I'm really glad that you mentioned the Runnymede Trust earlier because this article takes particular aim at the Runnymede Trust.
	So for anyone that doesn't know, and actually as Herbalis points out in this, the Runnymede Trust is quite obscure but extremely important.
	So they published a report in 1997 which was basically saying there should be the creation of what came to be the Human Rights Commission, Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
	Now the ironic thing was, well not necessarily ironic, but what's interesting is that they recommended the creation of the EHRC, and then the EHRC recommends funding pro-equality charities.
	The Runnymede then benefits from EHRC-recommended funding, so the funding comes from government, so taxpayers like you and I. So the Runnymede Trust has actually created its own income stream, and then, as a result, It's an Ouroboros of taxpayer grievance piracy.
	Absolutely.
	Actually, I like that.
	There you go.
	Trademarked.
	So, in our efforts to combat this, if you'd like to follow more from Jake, you can go straight to his Twitter.
	You can also subscribe to the Mallard magazine and read on their website.
	And also, the Mallard has a Twitter where they tweet out their articles every day and they often do enjoy a bit of indulgence in the meme.
	And also, can I just congratulate you for naming it after Britain's best duck?
	Yes, absolutely.
	Thank you.
	Okay, after that.
	White pill.
	I'll take a quick sip of water because we've got something terrible coming up next week.
	Yes, I did just hold it with two hands like Trump drinking that glass.
	Okay.
	Let's talk about Biden's Marxist groomer school, shall we?
	This is going to be pretty rough.
	First of all, parents, pay attention.
	I'm going to shill a premium podcast between Harry and Thomas.
	What exactly are leftists teaching your kids?
	In this podcast, they go through a lot of genderqueer and critical materials.
	Plenty of the things that were forwarded to us by some viewers, and if you haven't paid attention to this yet, check that your schools aren't doing this, particularly in the US, where you can go to school boards and actually hold them to account.
	In the UK we don't really have that system, we just have to kind of complain and hope it gets into the press.
	So, the Biden administration had been leading the way on gender confusion.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene was recently persecuted by the Think Pirates over at Twitter.
	The congresswoman received a terms of service breach when tweeting about Woman of the Year Dr.
	Levine.
	Levine said we must debase the US healthcare services to provide gender-affirming care to kids, of Let's
	look at Marjorie Taylor Greene's actual tweets.
	We of course don't endorse these.
	Hmm.
	So we can't say anything?
	Just going to leave that on there.
	Go read in your own time.
	Be in the show notes if you haven't seen it.
	So, Livin and Sam Brinton, Biden's new nuclear waste disposal appointment, attended the Bastille Day in stunning and brave drag.
	It was the French Ambassador's Bastille Day to celebrate the...
	French Revolution, wonderful.
	There will be never such a thing in Russia, said Chechenian leader Ramzan Kadyrov, foreign name, posting two pictures of the transgender NATO members on his Telegram channel.
	We, of course, don't support the Chechenian Russians at this time because they're waging a current war, but broken clocks are right twice a day.
	We want children to have a father and a mother, so that their psyche is not traumatized from an early age, but healthy, strong and balanced.
	And it will be.
	We have crossed the Rubicon, Kadyrov said, and will stand against abomination and Satanism to the bitter end.
	Can't comment.
	Now this is Sam Brinton, the bald man here who's a puppy play fetishist and non-binary, who was granted top Q-level security and a six-figure salary.
	If we go on to the next article, there are whistleblowers that are complaining that Brinton was a diversity hire.
	A letter by a long-serving public servant at the US Department of Energy expressed concern that their...
	Making personnel selections for career positions based on political considerations and gender-fluid identity as a means of exerting political influence over the workforce.
	Repressive tolerance in action.
	And the expertise at the expense of other better-qualified candidates, and it is not the intent of the U.S. Civil Services laws or the Constitution.
	That's a very poorly written letter, basically.
	He's complaining he's a diversity hire.
	Now, we can call Brinton's national security credentials into question here because he actually supported an underage gay prostitution website.
	Because of course he did.
	In an article published on September the 15th on the pro-LGBT website Advocate, Biden's latest top nuclear hire dives into a defense of rentboy.com.
	Which shuttered following an August 2015 illegal prostitution raid.
	The article followed Department of Homeland Security officials raiding Rent Boy's Manhattan offices and arresting Chief Executive Jeffrey Horrant and six employees on charges of promoting prostitution.
	The following year, the CEO of the site, which connected male prostitutes and escorts with potential clients, was indicted on the charge of promoting prostitution, which he ultimately pled guilty.
	The US District Court of the Eastern District of New York's indictment also revealed that the site's negligence regarding underage sex work was particularly spread across Asia.
	Brinton said, the dissolution of Rentboy is more dangerous than the website ever was.
	So because you can't get your underage sex workers, not that we're saying that Brinton ever used an underage sex worker, of course, that things are an utter assault on the LGBT community.
	We weep for you at this time.
	Some of the right aren't much better, though, unfortunately.
	Conservative drag queen denounces grooming.
	That's right.
	I'm a conservative.
	Now, to be fair to this fella, he doesn't pretend to be a woman, but can we just stop platforming degeneracy, please?
	Like, this is obviously farcical.
	Um...
	Drag has an innately sexual component.
	There are plenty of academic papers out there by San Francisco weirdos in universities that say that drag is a component of queering identities and destabilizing identities for revolution, which we'll get onto later.
	And this fella, unfortunately, for a bit of fun, is playing into that nonsense.
	We also don't need someone who participates in the degeneracy to speak out against it.
	We don't play identity politics here, nor do we acquiesce to the left's demands.
	Though, I don't suppose you're booking him for your birthday party now.
	No.
	Didn't think so.
	Now, unfortunately, this has obviously entered schools.
	Along with Drag Queen Story Hour, we are getting a massive rise in actual grooming.
	So far in 2022, 181 K-12 educators in America have been charged with child sex crimes.
	181.
	They included four principals, 153 teachers, 12 teachers' aides, and 12 substitute teachers.
	At least 140 of the arrests, or 77% involved, committed sex crimes against students.
	They also include here that men made up the vast majority, 78% of the arrests, though they don't break this down by sexuality or gender identity, curiously enough.
	So, sorry to depress you about this, but this is only going to get worse with re-education camps.
	Hmm.
	We already covered this on the podcast.
	I don't know if you heard about this.
	There is a Kentucky sex education camp led by queer witches.
	The principals of queer theory have escaped from the college campus and made their way into summer camp for children in rural Kentucky.
	A non-profit coalition called Sexy Sex Ed organized a series of sexy summer camp events targeted towards minors, including lessons on sex liberation, gender exploration, BDSM, A lot
	of those titles are obviously oxy-vironic.
	Who is raised by a host of witchy women in a coven-like mountain matriarchy and uses crystals, sex toys and tarot in her teaching.
	According to the organisation's promotions of materials, the purpose of Sexy Summer Camp is to teach teenagers and people of all ages to openly discuss personal and political consent, sexual activity, safety and autonomy.
	I don't know, because obviously you're in academia at the moment.
	Have you come across any of this sort of nonsense on your university campus?
	I can safely say that no, on my campus, none of this has come across.
	But if I could, for a moment, I'm sure you know about the family sex show.
	Yes, in Bristol, that Fleur exposed.
	Yeah, that was, to me, from memory, the first instance of this actually...
	But since looking into it, this is proliferating.
	And a lot of this is going on just under the radar.
	And they're particularly sneaky.
	But to me that just says that you know it's wrong.
	Yes, yeah.
	If you weren't trying to hide it, then you would...
	Unfortunately, they're not trying to hide this one.
	The second cheek of this backside is an Antifa summer camp for kids, where you can only assume that ideological grooming is going on there, and obviously nothing else, because we won't get sued by Antifa.
	A Portland Antifa group called Budding Roses, I assume related to Rose City Antifa, will be hosting an anti-fascist social justice camp beginning July 25th.
	So that's in four days.
	Where kids aged 10 to 14 will be participating in activities that include learning about police abolition, how to donate to bail funds, the Kamala Harris approach, and what to do if they come into contact with tear gas during protests.
	Obviously, I assume how to mix concrete into milkshakes and ruin Andy Ngo's life.
	According to their website, Budding Roses was founded as a project of Black Rose slash Rosa Negra Anarchist Foundation.
	That's their title, not mine.
	Inspired by global examples of mutual aid and popular education projects like Pai de Fries School in Spain and the Black Panther's free breakfast programs and, most importantly, Paolo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
	We will come on to that crazy Marxist in a moment.
	What is causing this epidemic, I hear you ask?
	Enter the concept of social and emotional learning.
	Now, when discussing with our resident psychologist in the office, Josh, we both agreed that traditionally social and emotional learning is kind of pop psychology that enters schools under the guise of mindfulness.
	it's kind of resilience training emotional stalwartness particularly for anxious pupils and needy pupils at the time it's mindset growth mindset encouragement and other low-level psychological interventions to help kids make their way through school i don't know how you got on at school but i had a particularly hard time and i think if they would have leaned into more practical stuff it might have actually helped yeah well Unfortunately, the White House isn't doing that.
	Instead, they've released a press release on advancing educational equity.
	For too many Americans, including students of colour, children with disabilities, weird to conflate those two, English learners, LGBTQ students, however many are left of them, unfortunately, students from low-income families and other underserved students, the promise of a high-quality education has gone unfulfilled for generations.
	Perhaps charter schools might help.
	No?
	Okay.
	Consistent with the president's executive order, the administration is committed to advancing educational equity for every child, so that schools and students not only recover from the pandemic, but build back better.
	We will see later how they're using pandemics as an excuse to push this kind of policy.
	They pledged $130 billion to support the safe reopening of schools and address the academic, social, emotional, and mental health needs of students.
	The Biden Education Department actually spent COVID relief funds on social-emotional learning, according to the Daily Wire.
	We're doing the God's work on reporting like this.
	Social-emotional learning, according to Abolitionist Teaching Network, include partnering with and compensating community members to develop and implement abolitionist social-emotional learning models, removing all punitive or disciplinary practices that spirit murder black, brown and indigenous children Spirit murder, okay?
	And requiring a commitment to learning about disrupting whiteness and other forms of oppression.
	Now, the term spirit murder is telling here because what that basically means is repressing a revolutionary consciousness.
	And thank God for James Lindsay, because we're going to be covering this hopefully in a future Deep Think or a premium podcast on the website.
	But just to introduce our viewers to the concept of critical pedagogy, I'm going to link to his new discourses website, which is in the next tab.
	I know he's not a Christian, but he is doing the Lord's work in exposing this kind of Marxist crazy nonsense.
	So, we're going to talk a little bit just briefly through what he's covered in his Critical Education series.
	He covered Hannah Dyer's paper, Queer Futurity, which I know is in the tab after.
	Oh, they were the wrong way round.
	That's why that's entirely my fault, I think.
	There we go.
	Let's nicely plug James Lindsay.
	That's okay.
	You're doing brilliantly, John.
	In the next tab, it's Hannah Dyer's Queer Futurity.
	So this is the root of groomerism.
	This paper has been downloaded quite a few thousand times.
	Children are asexual and indoctrinated sexually into heterosexuality, meaning holistic education approach moves towards marginal sexual identities and making them explicit through Lukashian sexual education.
	George Lukash being the Hungarian communist who...
	He decided to make sex education incredibly explicit in his classrooms in order to revolutionize consciousnesses.
	Childhood is a dense site for queer theory and alienation, currently colonized by heteronormative intervention.
	It's fertile ground to interrupt the capitalist cultural hegemony, which encourages heterosexuality.
	Positing that heterosexuality is not the base state of man, it feeds into these antinatalist perspectives again.
	Just so happens that the global depopulation narratives of international bodies conveniently co-align with this sort of thing.
	As you said before, speaking about the cathedral, there's a conspiracy of interest that's particularly misanthropic.
	Childhood is a dense site for queer theory and alienation, currently colonized by heteronormative intervention.
	Against stable identities, critical methodology to loosen the boundaries of normative development, queerness is that which undoes identity.
	So what they're trying to do is create, rather than an identity like gay acceptance or lesbian acceptance, an identity which is permanently in flux, permanently deconstructed, permanently marginal, so it never becomes the mainstream.
	And by never becoming the status quo, it never becomes at risk of being undermined by the re-emergence of capitalist hegemony.
	So it's this concept of petual cultural revolution, both internal and external.
	Gay acceptance is essentially rainbow capitalism rather than queer liberation.
	There's these posters all around Oxford, where I've just moved to, that say this exact thing.
	Queer identities must remain marginal if the revolution is to continue and stave off the re-emergence of capitalism.
	She insists that childhood innocence can injure the child's development.
	Children are capable of possessing complexity and sexuality.
	At the moment you say...
	children are capable of possessing sexuality it's just that it's not free speech argument that's you should be in prison the cult of the child allows queer participation only if they procreate to reproduce the capitalist hegemony therefore the idea of the child must be separated from actual children by raising queer consciousness it's an unfalsifiable self-fulfilling prophecy they say that these children are actually queer we're going to raise their consciousness to the forefront and if they develop any mental health issues along the way then it's just the capitalist system
	This is why they say you have to trans the kids so that it's best to have a son or a daughter turn into a son or a daughter rather than die.
	It's just emotional blackmail.
	It's disgusting.
	So then we move on to Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
	It's the next link, John.
	Yes, so this is a paper that actually Lindsay also covers in his coverage of Palfrey.
	Pedagogy of the Oppressed is the third most cited social science book.
	His Politics of Education, which Lindsay has also covered in his podcast series, states that education and literacy are bourgeois force consciousness.
	So we shouldn't focus instead on practical stills.
	We should focus on ideological indoctrination.
	There's a thing called generative ideas.
	It's teaching through class consciousness.
	Conscientizing concepts.
	I believe it's a Portuguese phrase, but when it translates, it's impossible to say.
	Like interjecting words like oppression or slum into lessons vocabulary.
	This is what we see with praxis.
	I don't know if you've seen the math problems of decolonizing the curriculum by any chance.
	So I know Ron DeSantis banned some of these.
	It was like, Jamal is stopped by the police 100 times.
	Frank is stopped by the police 67 times.
	To what rate is Jamal police profiled more than...
	And they're embedding critical race theory praxis in...
	Teaching.
	So this is a Frearian idea of where we say things like slum, we show you a picture of the slum, we phonetically spell out the slum, and so you're learning spelling while also understanding why this abstract idea of class oppression can then go on to relate for you.
	This is called the decodification-codification process.
	You decodify it by presenting them with an abstract idea, and then you codify it by saying, and this is how it relates to you and why you should be mad about it.
	Men are apparently beings who project onto the world according to Freire.
	We transform the world to its Marxist-Historicist utopia by subjective dialectic.
	We change the meaning of words, then create the reality that we want to live in.
	And obviously it won't run aground on the rocks of reality at any point like the stupid labour theory of value.
	Teachers' roles are to seek out the most efficient and viable means of helping the people move through the level of conscientisation to the level of critical consciousness.
	So, all of critical education is just to perpetuate outrage.
	Prairie then provides the means, and queer theory provides the content to make students into revolutionaries.
	And this is where this paper comes in, because it says, combining these...
	Combining these papers' forms of practice makes students into a resentful, sexually insatiable activist.
	So it uses the COVID-19 pandemic to say future pandemics are going to happen.
	We've got to transform education, to put it permanently online.
	That's like when racism was declared a public health emergency by New York to then do the protests during it.
	By reimagining traditional social-emotional learning into social-emotional justice, it explicitly orients it towards social justice.
	So the teachers themselves are to liberate the students from staying calm in the face of adversity.
	So rather than social-emotional learning originally teaching you to cope with the world's difficulties in an existential manner, this actually gins up racial resentment.
	Emotions are not confined to individual bodies, apparently.
	There's a collective mob outrage.
	Students then become undereducated but highly strung people, incapable of running a business, but very capable of burning one down in a mostly peaceful protest.
	So where did this push come from?
	And John spoiled it slightly.
	Of course, it's your favourite global communists at the World Economic Forum.
	I know Josh is going to get upset for me to call them global communists, but at this point they're trying to do a vanguardist, Leninist takeover through technocracy, and I'm happy to call them commies.
	To thrive in the 21st century, students need more than traditional academic learning.
	They must be adept at collaboration, communication, and problem solving, which are some of the skills developed through social and emotional learning.
	So they've allowed the redefinition, and now they're pushing education departments, governments, international bodies to fund this kind of programming.
	Our five-country survey of more than 2,000 educators and parents revealed a broad agreement about the importance of social-emotional learning, but less agreement about its benefits.
	More than 90% of parents and teachers in China emphasize teaching children these skills, for example, and in the US, 81% of parents and 78% of teachers emphasize SEL. Now, that's of their sample size, of course.
	And so when I might be accused of nut-picking, and Lindsay might be accused of nut-picking in terms of these papers, remember that they had only 1,000 or so citations.
	That's among actual educators.
	The Working Economic Forum for their all-compromising super-state approach to transforming education only picked 2,000.
	So we're running along the same lines here of the people wielding the sphere of influence are a vocal minority but are ruining the lives of your children.
	It would take the combined efforts of stakeholders, so...
	researchers and businesses, technology developers and investors to overcome the challenges facing both social emotional learning and related education technologies.
	Now stakeholders should scare you, not just because of ESGs but because the Biden administration said parents are not the primary stakeholder in their children.
	Really?
	That came that genuinely came out of their mouths.
	Good lord.
	Who is this lot who wants to trans your kids to make the perpetual Marxist revolutionaries?
	And they're happy to have the accompanying suicide rate as long as they get the utopia, apparently.
	Sounds out.
	If I'm accused of nutpicking, well, this is out there in the front.
	But even if the World Economic Forum will be never focused on just giving kids technology and video games to improve motor and cognitive skills, as some of this stuff says, their plan will obviously be hijacked by ideology-bent paedophiles pervert the young.
	But I don't think we should give them that benefit of the doubt, because as James Lindsay also points out on his Twitter in the next slide, Paolo Freire was mentored by the same Marxist Catholic priest who mentored Pope Francis and Klaus Schwab.
	Very strange theory of influence.
	And there's a young Schwab looking like Arthur from the cartoon.
	If there's one small victory at least we can claim.
	Yes.
	Thank you for blowing that up, John.
	He'll see you in your nightmares.
	This is one small victory we can claim in the next tab.
	It's the Biden administration proposing Title IX reforms.
	The rule would protect gender identity in the same way as sex discrimination.
	So Title IX was the kangaroo court legislation that allowed frauds like Mattress Girl to ruin the lives of so many men on college campuses.
	But they said this was outgrowth in the Obama administration of The Clinton-era protection of all female sports teams, because of course otherwise they would just be dominated and women deserve their own sphere of sport, given if no one's watching it.
	But this would mean that trans people and non-binary people, so people deluded into thinking you can change your sex by thought, would be able to use their toilets and their changing rooms across every state, and this would be a federal level Change.
	The proposed rule would also eliminate due process on college campuses.
	It would introduce a heckler's veto.
	So this is the Frearian belief that students and teachers are on the same level in dialogue.
	They can revolutionize each other.
	If a student complains about something an educator says, then suddenly the First Amendment no longer applies.
	Wonderful.
	And also it scraps religious protections that keep in place the very Christian view, which we both share, about men and women having different spheres of influence and being complementary but not equal.
	I always like to tell my girlfriend, we have fair in this household and not equal.
	And that often ends any argument.
	Fortunately, those Title IX reforms were defeated in court by a Tennessee district court judge called Charles Atchley, and he blocked it on the grounds that it didn't make any sense and it was an overreach of the law.
	So, Republicans and their very litigious colleagues are fighting this in the courts and in Congress eventually, but the relentless march of paedophilic critical pedagogy will not stop.
	We must hold these increasingly knowing, endorsing, and implementing these Evil revolutionary principles to account, I think, with actual jail time if you're knowingly doing this.
	I don't think that's a controversial take to say you are grooming children towards being sexually active beyond the age of consent, and that's utterly vile and you should be scrutinised.
	But unfortunately, it doesn't look like much transparency is coming to the forefront on this unless we keep beating this drum and individual parents hold their school boards accountable.
	And you, if you are a parent, you should be very worried about this.
	I hope that this has proved instructive and I hope this...
	Drives you to action.
	If we did it in Loudoun County, we can do it everywhere else.
	So, let's go on to the written comments.
	We won't be doing video comments today, unfortunately, because Jake doesn't share in all our inside jokes, and I didn't want to waste his time.
	But they will be covered tomorrow by Callum, who's much more suited to handle your memes.
	So, comments for the WEF planning to block out the sun.
	Karen M. Basic biology lesson.
	Plants exhale more carbon dioxide at night.
	If you blot out the sun, they will think it's night and will exacerbate the problem.
	Additionally, without photosynthesis, they will grow more slowly.
	These people are pure genius.
	Yes, but that implies that they want you to eat and not just die.
	I believe it was Jane Goodall today who turned around and said, The planet would be better if 90% of us were killed off.
	Leading primatologist.
	Clearly loves the planet.
	Doesn't love the people that...
	Loves her ancestors more than us.
	Wonderful.
	Free Will 2112.
	So Greenpeace calls climate change the legacy of colonialism.
	Is it their view that industrial progress is bad?
	Yes.
	Perhaps they would like to return us to the pre-industrial age when people died in agony of peritonitis because they could not do abdominal surgery, or when dead babies were thrown in the Thames, which was a polluted dead river.
	Or people died from...
	Oh, just been moved for some reason.
	Sorry, I was midway through reading that.
	Uh...
	Oh, page 17.
	Page 17.
	Apologies.
	Just...
	Someone just messed up the document.
	Not ideal.
	Um...
	There is.
	Sorry.
	Or worked 10-hour days filled with back-breaking agricultural labour just to feed themselves, or were tied to their local area because travel was a luxury for the rich.
	It's almost like they want all these things.
	They're pro-abortion, they're anti-travel, they're anti-food, considering the fact that they'd rather grow corn ethanol than crops at this point, hence Bill Gates owning most of the farmland.
	I wouldn't invest good faith in Greenpeace or any of the WEF-affiliated organisations.
	How will they spend hours on their iPhones without power to run them?
	How will they harvest the wheatgrass of their smoothies?
	Will they go into the fields to gather the crops?
	And I seem to remember that the Soviet Union created oceans of pollution, much of it radioactive, dried up in the Aral Sea because of their cotton production quotas in Chernobyl.
	Yeah, it's exactly like, I don't know if you know Mal's story about the War on the Sparrows.
	Yes, yeah.
	Just like Senkoism, the wailing deaths caused by the Soviet Union, the Great Famine, all of these outgrowths, the petro-state that Venezuela has become.
	The idea that eco-socialism was proposed by XR would be any kind of solution to conservation challenges is just nonsense.
	Well, it's like I said on Twitter last night, in response to Jane Goodall's point that you know a social engineer when they base their theory on the idea that society is different to how it currently is, but that's okay because you know who to ignore on that basis.
	Yes, exactly.
	And anyone calling for eugenics or global suicide, you first.
	That guy, TF Allspark.
	Once again, a supposed solution becomes another part of the problem.
	Why haven't we gone nuclear is beyond me.
	Hell, we could have removed all this crud and planted a damn tree farms for burning.
	Yeah, nuclear, obviously France have a lot of nuclear power and may actually export energy to Germany.
	There are net energy exports a year to the tune of billions.
	Everyone that looks at Sweden says, oh, they're all renewable.
	I spoke to a Swedish MP and she said, since the 70s we've had loads of nuclear power, so that's the only reason we can run it because we have a dispatchable baseload.
	Hopefully the UK is going to start building some It's just nothing to worry about.
	It's genuinely just...
	And then there's all the talk of Russian activists funding anti-nuclear, anti-gas campaigns, because then, of course, as soon as the gas outages go, just like they did in Germany, they didn't get bankrolled, but...
	Eric Manson, oxymoron of the day, anti-fascist social justice.
	There you go.
	Itachi of Kanoa.
	I'm sorry, I'm still getting used to these names.
	Alarmists need to stop conflating changes in weather with actual climate change.
	It gets hot, it gets cold, rain and snows, hurricanes and tornadoes, weather happens, calm down, clam up and buy an umbrella.
	You would have thought that every household would have owned it here.
	What is behind the British discussion of the weather?
	Have you got any theories?
	Honestly, I think we're too socially awkward to talk about things that matter, but we're also too awkward to not talk at all, so we have to talk about the one thing that actually changes enough for it to be interesting, which is the weather.
	Right, okay, there we go.
	Social mores, I'll put it down to too much politeness.
	Bald Eagle, all I'm hearing is that nuclear energy is the best alternative to fossil fuels.
	The newest advances in reactor tech have nuclear waste going through their half-life in a single generation, which is a massive improvement.
	We need to invest more in nuclear energy to possibly get the half-life even lower.
	Yeah, there's also thorium nuclear reactors that can recycle it for this amount of thorium.
	It will power each person for 100 years.
	We extract loads of thorium every time we do mineral mining.
	It's just the fact that there's no market for it.
	Therefore, we just stick it back in the ground.
	So...
	If we can work out that, fantastic.
	General Haiping, struggling to work out which is more stupid, worshipping the sun or actually trying to control it.
	Humanity used to amaze me, now it just makes me wince.
	Yeah, there is something particularly Aztec about this, isn't there?
	Paul Neuber, Neubauer, I'm going to, sorry.
	Climate hysteria and COVID hysteria have only one goal, which is the destruction of the economies of the West.
	Exactly why China didn't sign on to it, even though they administered it.
	Conservatives are alienating youth activists.
	Let's see how people respond to us.
	Question for Jake.
	I live in America, and there are a fair few of us that have lost faith in our federal government.
	For a long time, we no longer feel DC has our best interests at heart.
	Have you noticed there's a similar phenomenon spreading in Britain, and how can we revitalise our faith in both our republic and your parliament?
	Well, I'm sure you'll join me in saying absolutely.
	The same thing has been spreading across in Britain, but for probably as long, if not longer, I... The problem lies in that issue that we talked about earlier of the blob, that the vast majority of intellectual ideas come from the same cadre who reinforce one another.
	But also, I mean, our safe seat system, as much as I'm a conservative in many regards, our safe seat system just allows for liberals to be parachuted into wherever they're needed.
	And that's the problem.
	We don't have a democracy in the same way that the United States does.
	We don't have a responsive democracy.
	We don't have recall systems.
	We don't have institutionalized referenda.
	There's no real way of addressing this in the current system as it stands, in my opinion.
	How do you feel about the first-past-the-post system?
	Because obviously a lot of our viewers who are overseas don't understand our voting system at all.
	And it's very difficult to try and explain the issues with it.
	But also there doesn't seem much of an appetite other than for art to actually change it.
	So, I think your point that the vast majority of viewers overseas don't know it, the reality is neither do most Britons.
	Yeah, true, fair point.
	And this is the reason that people keep it.
	It's simple, it's easy to understand, it produces, basically for anyone listening, it's whoever gets the majority of votes, which doesn't necessarily mean 50% plus one, it might mean that out of five candidates, one gets 21% and therefore they're over the line.
	So, in this regard, it produces, in theory, a decisive result, which is its probably only benefit, but after that, it just institutionalizes the same elite.
	So, yeah, I feel as though it needs doing away with, but I have no idea what to replace it with.
	Apart from Absolute Monarchy, obviously.
	Sweet.
	Oh, no.
	Yeah, I'm sure we'll be able to get your take at some point on the reactionaries, because Josh and I discussed that on the recent contemplations, and our problem with them is very much they are deluded into believing that they will be the ones staffing the monarchy, whereas if you're perennially online and you're not the type of person that will do the Jordan Peterson thing of cleaning up your bedroom first, it's unlikely you can run a country.
	It's the same abstract theorizing that besets the left and makes them pretty imbitant.
	Longshanks.
	The Conservative Party is never going to let the base that Kemi represents get anywhere.
	They'll just be kept to the fringes so that people like us stay loyal to the party out of fear of Labour.
	That's their theory anyway.
	Unfortunately, I will agree, especially because a lot of people treat politics like a team sport.
	My nan is the only Labour supporter in the family, and even though I've repeatedly presented her with differences, she's like, oh, but I like them.
	LAUGHTER Which means that our only chance is to destroy the Conservative Party and replace it with Reform UK or something similar.
	Before I continue reading this comment...
	Reform UK, I've spoken to David Ball.
	I was going to go on Tyson's show at one point, but it fell through.
	And I like some of their policies.
	However, much like Reclaim, which again, I very much respect their efforts...
	It feels like they're more our sphere, of where you said before.
	It feels like they're less institutions and more media presences, and it feels that they're going to stay on the fringes, just because both of the electoral system gatekeeping, but also in the way that they run things.
	They're more entrenched in the media apparatuses than they are in the political apparatuses.
	Yeah, I think that's a very fair point.
	And I think the right likes dissidents and likes, as a result, the thing that you pointed out with regards to the sort of Marxist theorising.
	But actually, when you stay marginal, you can have a bit more fun and you can be a little bit more transgressive.
	The moment you actually go into power, you're a little bit like, what do I do?
	Yeah.
	So, in a way, they kind of don't want to succeed.
	No, because they don't want to be hamstrung by the politics of respectability.
	And this is true, you know, it's...
	In many respects, more fun doing this job than it will be in the Houses of Commons, I'm sure.
	Hence why, one, too young, too, I wouldn't get anywhere near the Commons floor.
	I wouldn't be able to keep my mouth shut to abide by the...
	Our Parliament cannot operate with one Conservative clinging to a raft at 10 Downing Street in a sea of Blairism.
	True.
	You need a mighty battleship of a party that knows what it wants to do and has the will to see it through.
	This is, as well, the really frustrating thing about the Conservative leadership elections.
	Every time you hear them talk about the candidates, it's like, who's going to win at the next election?
	It's like, okay, all you're saying is, you're saying who's the most personally electable to stave off the fear of labor, rather than who in the next two years is going to get in, BPM, do such good policies that people just vote for you anyway.
	There's no discussion of competence.
	We've got to win the election two years out by just picking the right person and assume victory.
	Yeah.
	Edward of Woodstock.
	I have to say, I hate the fact that in the end, members only get to choose from two candidates of those who step up.
	It's like putting around an order for pizza and then saying, oh, as I'm phoning in, I've decided you can either have Hawaiian or vegetarian.
	Choose now.
	How do you feel about pineapple on pizza?
	No.
	You know what?
	I will defend it.
	Most places are terrible.
	This is a total tangent.
	I walked into my building last night and the guy at the security desk was having a Domino's pizza cheeseburger flavoured.
	Pardon?
	Cheeseburger flavoured?
	Burger sauce, ground up bits of burger on it and pickles.
	And it turned my stomach, genuinely.
	But, okay, Domino's is terrible because they always burn the cheese and the sauce is too sugary.
	Papa John's is kind of flavourless.
	Pizza Hut, often they screw up the base, is too thick, though I do hold, I'm assuming, a world record of eating 14 pizzas and a tray of cookie dough for the Pizza Hut lunch buffet and being the only person in the restaurant.
	Um...
	So, I will defend pineapple as a provisional topping, but everywhere they put it, it's obviously out of can and all delivery pizza is gross.
	Anyway, tangent over.
	We should have been allowed to vote from the start.
	The elitism is disgusting.
	The idea that the people don't know what they want.
	It's sadly a part of government.
	They look down their noses on those who elected them.
	A party that claims to be the party of small government acting like that is rather disgusting.
	How do you feel about primary process for future Conservative leadership elections?
	I, so obviously I know the Bo group has been pushing for primaries for a while.
	I'm cautious of primaries because I don't necessarily know, I mean, let's face it, a system like Edward, and I appreciate that it's actually a well thought out point, but In Labour, it produced Jeremy Corbyn.
	And I would be very cautious of introducing something like that for the Conservative Party.
	But I think the hustings are good.
	Not necessarily in the way that Conholm did them, because they were extremely controlled.
	I like...
	What a lot of American states do, which is essentially just caucuses where, you know, they go and they basically have to defend themselves in front of the public for like three hours.
	That's a good way of doing it.
	Yeah, transparent and then hopefully televised rather than that circus that Channel 4 put on with not a single conservative voter in the audience and just browbeating them forever.
	Apparently this is a direct one.
	Free Will 2112.
	How will you implement these ideas when the civil service, which is now culturally captured by critical race theory, blatantly work against every government policy?
	And what are you going to do to fight back against the tide of woke that wants to dismantle our country's heritage?
	If you're not willing to save our cultural heritage, you are no longer conservatives.
	I agree with that.
	The problem is we have the current cohort that have been ideologically captured.
	And a lot of that, I think, is just because they want to cling on to their own hedonic lifestyles.
	Like, we all enjoy a good drink, as the nightmare of Northern Reception showed.
	But, unfortunately, the Conservative Party are very happy to have their once-a-year conference where they all get drunk and cheat on each other.
	That's not all of them, but sure, plenty of them are, unfortunately.
	So, to get any interest in remoralised cultural conservatism is going to be an uphill battle.
	Any suggestions?
	I think that if there is a way of doing it, it's leading by example and actually being decent people.
	And I know that sounds almost lazy, but you know, these things don't happen in a day.
	They happen over decades in many ways and actually just putting our own house in order first.
	Like you say, cleaning your bedroom.
	Be respectable.
	Also, I saw someone yesterday saying, I think it was in the website comments or something, they criticised me a little bit for saying that Kemi's connections to her husband's household income being a WEF partner bank was a bit of a superficial way to criticise her when I'm not willing to put myself forward in the Tory leadership race.
	Steady on, I'm 23.
	But it's also the fact that these institutions wouldn't let us in even if we liked, not being funny, because the selection process, again, it's not like you can, in the States where it's a little bit more liberalised, obviously, I know the Republican apparatus has marginalised some candidates, like Robbie Starbuck, for example.
	But over here, you do have to be, as you said, parachuted in by a particular party candidate.
	I know, for example, one girl got asked to be an MP on purely identity credentials and isn't even a current member of the party by a cabinet minister that she knows.
	That's still there.
	So, I don't know how you feel about our prospects, but I suppose what...
	What age or level are we obliged to start moving into the institutions ourselves?
	That's an extremely good question.
	The issue lies in the fact that the left, when they marched to the institutions, they made very, very carefully sure to not necessarily capture the points of leadership, but to capture the points of administration.
	HR. HR. Obviously, this enormous industry which And HR is grievance-led.
	It's grievance-centered, it's grievance-led.
	So they captured the recruiters, they captured the HR, they did everything, or they created HR, but they did everything to make sure that not only were they gatekeepers, but they built the gates.
	So what's really funny to me is that the vast majority of HR graduates these days are 21, 22.
	And if the right's going to do this, it needs to do it at that time.
	It needs to either go to university and go straight into these things, or circumvent university entirely and go in.
	There's almost a certain ego check in saying, you're probably not going to be the saviour of Britain, but you can help by at least going into the right positions and making sure that when the person comes along who could change things, you're the one that opens the door for them.
	Yeah.
	Well, I remember, so I'm not going to say who it was, but someone I know works in school.
	And they said when the diversity and inclusion department opened up, someone suggested rather cleverly that rather than taking over from an American white woman who was very social justice minded, bear in mind this is a religious school, they suggested a black gentleman instead.
	And they were like, oh, brilliant, diversity credentials.
	And he immediately came in and went, right, this is all nonsense.
	And so you use their own presuppositions against them, and that may actually work as a repressive tolerance method for the right.
	Bald Eagle.
	When I realised what dressing well could do with you, I always dressed well for every interview I did.
	Even if the job was a fast food place, I gave the interviewer the respect for taking their time to give me the interview.
	It was surprising when they changed their attitude midway through the interview once they realized I was serious about the job despite being overdressed for it.
	When you show people that you're serious about them giving you their time, they become more receptive and will have an actual conversation with you.
	Yeah, I almost wish I was, well, I don't, because I didn't want the job, but I did once, there was a heatwave in, god, about 2015, and I was booked to do a part-time interview job at Primark, because I was in sick form, and I just was like, look, I can't wear a suit, I'm just going to show up in, like, a t-shirt and jeans, and I remember the guy saying, and you think that's appropriate, do you?
	And I was like...
	Look, mate, it's really hot.
	Do you expect me to come in a suit?
	And he went, the last guy did.
	And I was like, okay, right then.
	He's obviously going to get it.
	And it's like, yeah, true.
	That wasn't the best tact.
	I'm not sad I got the job, but it's also the case that you do have to put some effort in if you want something.
	Paul Nurebar.
	The pursuit of equality and equity will bring us to the world of Harrison Bergeron.
	I don't know that reference.
	Yeah?
	No, I can Google it.
	Go for it.
	I actually do have a piece coming out on how critical race theory captured the idea of equality coming out soon, and it leans into some of what Thomas and Carl have spoken about in their recent coverage of Nietzsche, which is that Nietzsche ceded the ground for postmodern language games and the abolition of God, and therefore that semantic overload eventually fed into critical race theory being an American suicide note.
	Did you get up who he was?
	Yeah, so actually this is really interesting, and I'm probably going to go home and buy this.
	This was originally a satirical dystopian science fiction story by Kurt Vonnegut.
	Oh, right, okay.
	I'm surprised I haven't read that then, because I love Slaughterhouse-Five.
	Oh, yeah, Slaughterhouse-Five's great.
	I'll read the first part of the plot, because it's hilarious.
	In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, obviously being in America...
	dictated that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better looking, or more physically able than anyone else.
	The Handcapper General's agents enforced equality laws forcing citizens to wear handicaps, which includes masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the stronger athletic.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	I'm thinking I'm going to do a premium podcast on Kurt Vonnegut and fold this into Slot House 5 then.
	What was the title of the book again?
	Harrison Bergeron.
	Okay.
	Thank you for that suggestion.
	That sounds really good.
	You'll like this one.
	Longshanks.
	Peter Hitchens has often said the reason the British Cultural Revolution was much more successful than its counterparts is because it was not obvious but subtle.
	It left the monarchy and the church in place but robbed them of their moral and cultural power so people no longer saw the need for them and wanted to tear them down on their own.
	It's kind of telling that Liz Truss was also an anti-monarchist.
	I understand a bit of forgiveness.
	And to be fair, her response to Rishi Sunak was quite good on that.
	But the fact that that's not an automatic assumption by the Conservative leader is troubling, I suppose.
	I think on this point, it's...
	I mean...
	Hitchens in The Abolition of Britain basically laid out the leftists' Gramscian march to the institutions.
	But what matters, and a lot of people forget, is that Gramsci learnt his strategy from looking at the fascists.
	And one of the things the fascists did is almost exactly what this guy said, which is leave the monarchy and the church in place.
	But at the same time, they eroded their moral and cultural power to the point where people didn't depend on the monarchy and the church, they depended on the party.
	And that's what's happened here.
	Okay, moving on to Biden's groomer schools.
	I'll address this one.
	Okay, meeting kids is the problem there because drag is inherently sexualized.
	It's very different to pantomime dames dressing up as fat women with blue colourful wigs and obviously being blokes.
	Um...
	Drag is not appropriate for children, and, not being funny, we don't need someone who engages in the debaucherous culture to then critique the debaucherous culture.
	That's like saying cuties was a critique of child sexualisation.
	Okay, then why did you sexualise the children to do it?
	Comrade Starmer.
	Of course you're going to say this.
	Child bodily autonomy.
	I threw up in my mouth.
	Children have no autonomy.
	That's why if you have sex if you've gone, you go to jail.
	This is literally a non-scult.
	Can't comment.
	Hammurabi VI. I'm atheist, but my future kids are going to the strictest Catholic school I can find.
	Unfortunately, not every Catholic school is avoiding this kind of capture because, especially in the London bubbles, you have to have a diversity appointee to get a certain amount of funding.
	So they are being slowly infiltrated.
	If Nadim Zahawi's education reform doesn't go through and homeschooling is an option, I would encourage it because only you can own your kids and only you have their best interests at heart.
	I'll do a couple more just because we're running low on time.
	Robert Longshore, trying to disrupt normal and natural development of a child's brain by showing them things they're not ready for is exactly how you end up with rapists and mass murderers.
	If you look at any of the most well-known mass murderers or prolific rapists, they were all abused in early childhood.
	This rubbish will mess up kids for life.
	Yes, but this is the kind of...
	What did Lenin have when he had the cavalcade of social dissidents and criminals that he used as a revolutionary force?
	And then he had them staff the gulags.
	That's basically what they're creating.
	They're creating a bunch of degenerates who will then be fit for ideological capture because they're nihilists.
	So, yeah, not shocking.
	Also, pretty much everyone's like John Wayne Gacy because they dress up as clowns and want to diddle kids.
	So go watch John Wayne Gacy tapes on Netflix.
	It's pretty disturbing.
	Or don't actually get a Netflix subscription.
	I'll take that back.
	And finally, Snowdog.
	In my view, anyone talking to kids about sexual identity to anyone under the age of 16 needs to visit the woodchipper.
	I would say 18, personally.
	I saved one child from grooming, and the scum that the police prosecuted only served six years of a 13-year sentence, and there was a rot at the top of the police and courts in the UK. Unfortunately, we do have our grooming gang scandals.
	Also, sentences are far too lenient.
	Parole boards are very opaque.
	I don't understand why people don't just serve maximum life sentences.
	But fortunately, the US now has Katandi Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court.
	He's very lenient on sex offence crimes.
	So I'm sure things will change there.
	Anyway, thank you very much for tuning in.
	If you'd like to check out any of our future content, you can go over and subscribe on the site.
	Thank you very much to Jake for being here.
	Go and subscribe to him and The Mallard on Twitter.
	Until next time, I've been Conor Tomlinson.
	This is The Lotus Eaters.

▲