Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 11, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:24

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #456

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	music Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for today, the 11th of August.
	I am joined by Nick.
	Hello.
	How are you?
	I am well.
	Fantastic.
	Today we're talking about the UK's climate policy apocalypse, how Hitchens is going beast mode on Twitter, and Schrodinger's Sunak, everyone's least favourite prime ministerial candidate.
	Before we begin, speaking of people's least favourite people, Carl and Josh are going to be doing a hangout this evening for our premium subscribers on the life and crimes of the despicable, debauched degeneracy of Hunter Biden.
	Josh has prostrated himself by going through Hunter Biden's iCloud leaks, the laptop, all the materials that are published, of course.
	And so please reward his sacrifices with your viewing figures.
	Go and subscribe to lotuses.com for that particular content.
	Now, without further ado...
	So, the net zero policies hang like a sort of Damocles over the head of the UK's citizens.
	As Western economies have rocked on the precipice of recession, politicians are weighing up the optics as to what is the best thing to sacrifice, the comfort of their citizens, their children, their cars, their homes, and their crazy green dreams of a Crystal Palace utopia.
	They're sort of telling their constituents to sacrifice all they love to save the planet.
	But has this produced an entirely avoidable problem of energy scarcity?
	And as a result, has it produced some net zero skepticism in the formerly very teal Tory party?
	Speaking of coming storms, if you'd like to go over to lotuseaters.com, Rory has just put up an article about The political miasma that we're all experiencing at the moment, there's something in the air, definitely.
	We can all feel that after Trump's FBI raid and the sort of winter of discontent 2.0 we're staring down, there's definitely some sort of civil strife coming and hopefully we can avoid it, but he's pre-eminating that people of different political persuasions are definitely getting agitated about something and let's hope it doesn't come to a violent head.
	So, first off, the UK is looking at a massive spike in its energy bills.
	Now this might be esoteric for some of our overseas viewers, but we'll explain the policies as we go.
	We have an energy price cap over here.
	It's an arms race between energy suppliers and the government.
	They've set a certain rate at which the energy prices can't go above, and every time...
	The global gas supplies, for example, take a massive price hike and the energy suppliers have to produce at a net loss.
	The government decides to hike our bills all at once.
	It's been going up pretty increasingly over the last few years.
	Have you been hit hard by this particular thing?
	I actually haven't because I live alone in a new-build flat that's incredibly hot.
	I mean, it's like basically 28 degrees in there all the time at the moment, and it's insane.
	So I looked at my heating bill and...
	It's the same.
	It's a new bill, so it's all one bill.
	It's electric, and it's just the same, as far as I can see.
	So I have not been, but people with families and normal, healthy lives are hit very hard by this.
	Yeah, you're basically living in the equivalent of Elizabeth Bathory's crypt, where they've bricked you up behind a wall with one gap, just for your degenerate crimes.
	So, yeah, the energy price gap, which is in effect in England, Scotland, and Wales, going up in October.
	Yeah.
	The energy industry analysts, Cornwall Insight, predict an average bill will reach £3,582 a year.
	That's £200 higher than the previous estimate.
	In January 2023, the next time the cap is due to be changed, because of course energy prices keep going up and they have to be adjusted, it expects to go up to £4,266 for the average family.
	This is insane.
	So that means £355 a month for the average household instead of the £164 a month current average.
	Just to add an extra sting into your wallet, the average bill was £1,400 a month in October 2021.
	So that's nearly a £3,000 increase.
	This has obviously been blamed on Putin's price hike, as Joe Biden would say.
	The actual issue is that the UK have sabotaged their energy independence.
	By selling off all our shale gas, by planting tons of windmills and solar panels all across our green landscape, and failing to invest in nuclear power.
	So, isn't that just wonderful?
	Anyway, next, the UK's bracing for blackouts, according to Bloomberg.
	And we actually got a heads up about this from a viewer who sent a tip in a few days ago.
	I believe it was on Monday saying materials have been circulated around the national grid briefing people that work there to prepare for this kind of energy outage.
	I also spoke to a nuclear engineer who's on staff that provided me some insights and some of the things he said.
	Currently the national grid undervalues the role of grid inertia and stabilization.
	That's where kinetic energy is produced when you're generating forms of energy and that ends up stabilizing the rate at which energy goes out and prevents it from doing outages.
	If there's not enough grid inertia then you can get a dip in generation and boom regionally it goes out.
	And the national grid isn't one big interconnected web.
	It has loads of subgrids, and if one of those goes down pretty instantly, they'll try and make up the shortfall of another.
	And if they can't do that, the other one will go down and be a massive blackout across the network.
	Problem is something like renewables has basically zero grid inertia.
	So that means if the renewables have a generation dip because the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, the whole grid can go out.
	And they did this somewhere in the southwest a couple of years ago, and it was pretty catastrophic.
	And the problem is, they've got an automated system to do the shutdown, but then to get it back online, obviously the generators have got to warm up, it takes time.
	So it can go out in a matter of seconds, but it can take hours or days to get back.
	So if you've got no backup generators, or if you've got no instantly dispatchable tech like nuclear or gas, you're up S Creek.
	This reminds me of what Jordan Peterson always says about the infrastructure...
	It's a miracle any of this works.
	And he starts crying because he's like, we have this complicated infrastructure held up by working men, you know, that nobody cares about.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And it's a miracle.
	And he's right.
	When you start to mess with it, we start dicking around with stuff like lockdowns or stuff we're doing now.
	You just go, stop it.
	This is a delicate infrastructure.
	One of the recent quotes he had in a Q&A with a Canadian comedian, he said, we're getting to the point now where because diversity quotas and anti-meritocracy has infected everything, the bridges will start collapsing and it will still be blamed on a lack of authentic black voices.
	And isn't that the depressing truth?
	So in this article, it says, Under the government's latest reasonable worst-case scenario, Britain could face an electricity capacity shortfall totaling about one-sixth of peak demand.
	Cling on to that figure of about one-fifth to one-sixth.
	Even after emergency coal plants are fired up.
	Under that outlook, below-average temperatures and reduced electricity imports from Norway and France could expose four days in January when the UK may need to trigger emergency measures to conserve gas.
	So notice how they're saying they're not going to try and increase supply here.
	They don't conceive of a way that could stop them from sabotaging our energy independence with bad policies.
	Instead, they're going to constrict your usage.
	And a little while ago, as I covered with Carl when we were talking about Uber, they're investigating how if we're all switching to electric cars and smart meters, they can turn off our electric car charging port remotely from the government at peak hours.
	So it's basically a travel lockdown.
	And if you charge your electric car and leave it in your driveway, then the National Grid can drain your car battery or all of those of your household appliances back if the grid has a dip.
	So it can just turn off all your power and shut you down and make sure you can't go anywhere at a moment's whim.
	Just because their energy policies are so bad, they can't meet demand.
	It's insane.
	Well, that...
	I mean, it may be too big a question to just throw in here, but are they that bad or is it deliberate?
	That's the question that I always wonder, because it makes you so angry because it's so unnecessary.
	And then you start to think, but is it this...
	There was a clip of Gordon Brown, who seems to have popped up lately, going around the internet, where he's talking about the fourth industrial revolution and Klaus Schwab, of course.
	Like 2004, right?
	Yeah, but isn't it just how to deal with the obsolescence of most of the workforce which is coming due to robotics and AI as they see it?
	And it's like Schwab and co trying to get us used to the most basic possible living standards that will cost them the least money.
	Or is it sheer incompetence?
	I don't think it's sheer incompetence because when I was in the policy sphere and marketing this, and we'll come onto my modelling very shortly for exactly what kind of stuff this has happened, in terms of going full renewable and why it won't work, You can't tell me that one idiot from his bedroom can model this with the help of a couple of industry experts down the phone, versus hundreds of people in Whitehall who are making these policies nobody's thought about, for example, when you import loads of Australian trees to rewild the landscape, how this might cause a forest fire.
	There was no forest fire provisions in the national tree strategy.
	There was no blackout provisions in their energy strategy.
	There was no electric car charging port expansion problems in the cities in their transport ban for 2030.
	All of these oversights just conveniently immiserate us.
	And I do think, as a bitter cynic, it's got to the point where you can't do Hanlon's razor of saying, oh, it's just incompetence.
	I think there's too much, especially when they put it on their own website, too much of a coordinated effort to make us live in the dark, live in the pod, eat the bugs.
	So the power cuts would come even as Britain's face-up to average energy bills rising above £4,200, as we already covered.
	The first stage of the UK's emergency plan involves the network operator directing the flow of gas into the system, temporarily overriding commercial agreements.
	And the person that said all this has been...
	Asked to be anonymised, of course.
	The second stage involves halting supplies to gas-fired power stations, triggering planned power cuts for industry and domestic users.
	So they're planning power cuts in specific areas, so they don't think that your life and industry are essential.
	Remember the term essential workers under lockdown?
	Well, they're doing it now with energy rationing.
	Life could get more difficult for Britain if the supply of electricity is curtailed along huge cables connecting to France, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands, Norway said on Monday.
	It's looking at ways to limit power exports in winter to prevent domestic shortages.
	And this is because particularly Europe has gotten hooked on Russian gas.
	And that's why in Belgium, the EU is saying to their residents, please turn your lights off when you leave the room.
	Because basically gas is at a wholesale spike of like 500 percent because they relied on Nord Stream 2 and paid more into that than NATO.
	And so they've made the noose for their own neck.
	because we're on global gas supplies rather than exploiting things like the North Sea or fracking the last how many years Or building nuclear power when Gordon Brown could have, for example, as you mentioned.
	We're now at the behest of them because we're idiots.
	So if we look at the next one as well, this coincides with a drought.
	So the hosepipe ban, so a bunch of water companies, including Thames Water, around where I live in Kent.
	I mean that they're going to be shutting off hosepipes.
	And we're basically going back to 1976 when we had that massive drought where we were both too young for this.
	But there was a plague of ladybirds.
	It was record heatwave.
	They're actually referencing in this article.
	And everyone had hosepipe and tap bands to the point where you'd have to go to a spigot in the middle of the street and share water around each other like it's some sort of children in need advert.
	Wow, I do remember hosepipe bans even in the 80s.
	But yeah, I don't go quite back to 76.
	No.
	So yeah, it's quite third world.
	Millions more households could face hosepipe bans after the driest July in decades, as forecasters warn of another heatwave.
	And we're sort of feeling it right now.
	It's a bit miserable, but it's not that bad.
	Temperatures are predicted to rise above 30 degrees centigrade next week, so that'll be this week.
	With little respite this month for communities on the verge of drought, Southeast Water became the second supplier to introduce a hosepipe and sprinkler ban.
	It announced restrictions on about 2.2 million customers in Kent and Sussex from a week on Friday, until further notice.
	This means that hosepipes cannot be used to water gardens or clean cars, and ornamental ponds and swimming pools must not be filled.
	Sorry about that.
	Yeah, no one talks about the ornamental ponds.
	No.
	So I'm glad we're finally addressing that.
	Yeah, essential goods.
	Well, but this is the insane thing, and I guarantee I know what's caused this.
	It's not like we're the Californians of where we have no access to water.
	I mean, we are an archipelago full of rain after all.
	The main issue is, I don't know if you're familiar with Tom Holland, not Spider-Man, the history podcast guy.
	Hang on, have I said the wrong thing?
	Didn't he write that book?
	He might have done.
	But yeah, he's a history podcast fellow.
	So he went to a conservative environment network conference, of which he was the most conservative person there.
	And it was hilarious because he was quoting Scruton and nobody else were, including the conservative MPs, by the way.
	And he said, my village in like Stratford, out in the backside of nowhere, has no water flowing through its rivers because all of the water has been redirected by Thames Water to central London because the population density in London has increased massively, but the sewage system hasn't been updated since the Victorian era.
	So we're so overburdened that our sewage is overflowing, the Thames is being polluted, and we can't get enough water for the central city populations.
	So I guarantee this is because of mass migration.
	100%.
	This is a trickle-down effect of the fact that our infrastructure cannot keep up with the amount of people that need to use it.
	Yeah, interesting.
	But yeah, he wrote Dominion, How the Christian Revolution Remade the World.
	Same guy, right?
	Yes, yeah, yeah, that would be him.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I knew something Connor didn't for once, guys.
	There we go.
	Well, yeah, I haven't read that one, unfortunately, but that actually sounds up my street.
	So, despite all of these costly implications, should we drive ahead with renewables anyway?
	This is an article that I did quite a while ago that comes hot off the heels of a paper I did in which I modelled the effects of renewables on the economy.
	And I'm just going to go through some of the stats here.
	So, a fully renewable grid would produce only about 26.5% of Britain's entire existing energy supply.
	Now, that's not counting for the fact that everything's going to be...
	Increase because of electric cars, everyone's working from home, etc.
	And so that sort of one-sixth demand number looks quite similar to that.
	Of course, we're not reaching a fully renewable grid, but we're seeing the sort of trend of as the renewables increase, our energy scarcity problem worsens.
	It would have no protection from blackouts because it's very weather dependent and has no grid inertia.
	It would cost the UK, before inflation, mind you, I calculate this number, £2.9 trillion.
	That's more than the annual GDP. That would also take minerals we don't have.
	So that's 80% of battery manufacturing capacity every year is made by China.
	So we'd have to go cap in hand to them, right, as we're in a new Cold War against them.
	And they've got the Belt and Road Initiative of 140 countries, which captures most of the mineral deposits in places like Afghanistan that we just handed over to them, and Argentina.
	So it takes minerals we don't have unless we go into outer space, and it would take the world's entire battery manufacturing capacity to stop from electric cars and renewables just to go straight to England until 2030.
	So that's not a very feasible plan, is it?
	Yet we're driving straight ahead with it.
	A lot of that stuff is like that.
	This 2030 stuff, we talked about whether it's sinister, but is it a lot of just the mad ideology of the current parties?
	We'll get on to that later.
	It's a sort of goal-setting mentality of we have to have a deadline, we have to have a date.
	Causality and practicality be damned.
	Because some of it's electoral promises, but some of it, especially with the think tanks like the WEF and the UN, they're setting a hardline date of when their new regime will be instantiated.
	And so if people go, but it doesn't work, it doesn't matter if it doesn't work for us.
	It certainly works for them, because they can make promises and they can say, oh, here's the date where we'll be toasting to the new utopia.
	So I hear the types like the Conservative Environment Network crying, saying, wind is cheap!
	Okay, so if we were to go for wind and solar, the grid capacity would nearly quadruple, it would have to nearly quadruple to facilitate the switch, from 40 gigawatts to 154.6 gigawatts.
	And if wind and solar were to double their grid contributions, the cost for consumers would increase £10 for every single megawatt hour generated.
	Then the production price for wind and solar have decreased from between about 70% to 90% since 2009.
	The cost of generation is actually competitive with natural gas, coal and nuclear.
	But the reason is it's been subsidised to the tune of £9 billion every year, £350 per household.
	And that's because, and this is what Liz Truss is pledging to cut, 23% of energy bills in the UK are subsidies for the renewables industry.
	So we could, right now in the middle of this energy crisis, just slash nearly a quarter of our energy bills, but we don't.
	She's promising that.
	Sunak decidedly is not, and we'll get onto the crimes of Sunak in the later segment.
	But the frustrating thing is, why don't we learn from Germany?
	Because Germany attempted this, of course, after the Fukushima disaster.
	Angela Merkel, who should have known better because she's a physicist, decided to decommission all of Germany's nuclear power plants by 2022, go fully renewable.
	And a lot of this was funded by, for example, I know they've just appointed their...
	I think about 25% of all activity in a lot of these countries was funded by Gazprom to then get them hooked on gas.
	But they got rid of all their nuclear plants and tried to go fully renewable.
	And immediately when they did, they couldn't generate enough energy because they had no storage, and they had rolling blackouts across Berlin.
	China just did the same thing.
	They had rolling blackouts trying to go fully renewable, so now they've opened 252 new coal-fired power plants, and they're going to emit the equivalent of 16% more in terms of global emissions by 2030, when we're only 1%.
	It's suicidal.
	That's why Trump sent Merkel a white flag of surrender, which I think was just a napkin at a dinner party, but he was saying, you've surrendered to the Russians.
	Yeah.
	It's a typically French trait, but it applies to our continental brethren all over, it seems, at the moment.
	So, it seems like net zero promises are encountering something called economic reality, and they're being slowly rescinded.
	If we go to the next piece, it's, uh, Tory party members won't care about net zero targets because 90% will be dead by 2050.
	And this comes from Chris Skidmore, the man who signed it into law.
	This was the man who sat with me on a panel at a conservative party conference that I was invited to speak at.
	And when asked, how did you do the 2050 target for net zero?
	How did you bring the number down?
	He went, I just changed it.
	So it didn't cost it.
	At all.
	And when I asked him that, he just sort of looked blank.
	It looked like I just killed his child in front of him.
	Because he's so wedded to this goal.
	And he actually says, oh, speaking on a panel organised by the National Grid, he says, of course, most candidates would say that because when you cast the question as net zero 2050, probably 90% of them will be dead.
	Steve Baker, MP for Wickham, who's one of the more libertarian ones, sort of, he had a profile on the West website, so I don't trust him.
	Everyone cares deeply about their children and grandchildren.
	That's why the debate about climate change and net zero and energy is so passionate.
	But we mustn't destroy the futures of the young through the misguided policy of today.
	Which did he mean there, Baker?
	Because I know Baker as well.
	I've met him and messaged himself.
	Good guy.
	Seems like it.
	But did he mean through not caring enough about the environment or through stupid economic and energy policies?
	Because he actually works.
	So he's retweeted one of my clips where I was saying that wind turbines are rubbish before when I was talking to...
	Nick Dubois, former Tory MP, who quit after putting the stabbing laws through.
	And also he works with Net Zero Watch, which I've written for before, which are the...
	By the name, they're very sceptical of Net Zero policies being too costly.
	Steve Baker's obviously right about this because...
	And these will be links in the description.
	They're not necessarily up on the screen.
	But if you look at William Nordhaus, for example, he's a Nobel Prize winning economist.
	He did a summary...
	of the UN's climate policies and how cost-effective they would be, similar to how Bjorn Lomberg looked at each of the UN's goals and said, right, climate change is second to last on cost-effectiveness.
	Nordhaus said if the UN tried to meet the IPCC's recommendation of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, they'd miss the target by 1.33 degrees Celsius with their policies, and they would actually save 14 billion by taking zero action against climate change rather than doing all their policies.
	So we're So it comes back to your question again, Nick.
	Is this deliberate sabotage, or is this just incompetence?
	If they're still pressing ahead with these policies, despite some of the smartest economists saying, hold on a minute, Is it purposefully engineered collapse?
	So, the sudden bout of this net zero scepticism has caused a bit of electoral, I suppose, astuteness among the Conservative leadership candidates race.
	And if we go to the next one, Lord Frost, the former Brexit minister, who's one of the few politicians that's actually half decent and isn't actually an MP, which is a shame, has called for a pragmatic response to climate change.
	And he said that we should ditch medieval wind power and go in all in on nuclear and fracking.
	And I wholeheartedly agree.
	He says, And indeed internalised it so that it seems normal to be lectured about the moral aspects of virtually every choice in our everyday lives.
	And at the bottom of this article you see Ben Goldsmith whining, who's the brother of the very wealthy Zach Goldsmith as well, who ran for London Mayor.
	Both Ben and Zach said they sympathised with the Extinction Rebellion, and Ben Goldsmith, I believe he still is the head of the Conservative Environment Network, but lost lots of donors when he put out a tweet saying Extinction Rebellion anchoring themselves to oil tankers were doing the right thing.
	That's right, I'm a Conservative.
	It's funny how Lord Frost had to retire or resign, sorry, to start telling the truth.
	He resigned.
	Now he's the kind of conscience of the Conservative Party.
	He's kind of like Obi-Wan just floating up there.
	He's like the Burkean id, yeah.
	I remember his article in The Spectator basically saying to Boris, you've made a mess of Brexit just because you didn't listen to me.
	And it's frustrating that he was not the ear and unfortunately Carrie Antoinette was.
	And we're definitely still seeing Carrie's green obsession filter through to this, but it goes far deeper than Carrie, as we've already said.
	This is the WEF project, and they're ideologically captured, unfortunately.
	Now, it does seem that the animal is scared.
	With this next article in the Times, it's just golden.
	Now Brexiteers are taking aim at net zero, and God, we can only hope!
	So, Truss and Sunak have pledged to read Net Zero by 2050, but listening to Truss in particular, it is difficult to escape the impression that tackling climate change is to be sidelined, framed as a luxury can't afford in the heating versus eating era.
	And, I mean, you've engineered the heating versus eating crisis.
	This is a burden of your own making.
	So, yeah, we literally can't afford it.
	It's a terrible idea.
	Our field shouldn't be full of solar panels, she fumes.
	The green levee is to be ditched.
	You'll look for better ways to deliver our Net Zero targets.
	Boof!
	The sound of an issue being kicked into the long grass.
	How is saying that we shouldn't immiserate ourselves at the altar of the sun god?
	Avoiding an issue is utterly stupid.
	Farage and Co.
	have set net zero in their sights.
	Thanks, Nigel.
	Earlier this year, he launched Vote Power, Not Poverty, a campaign demanding a referendum on the life-changing net zero plans forced upon us by Westminster politicians.
	In Farage's words, the rich landowners, wealthy investors, and foreign-owned conglomerates will benefit from green subsidies.
	And This is entirely objectively true.
	It's the Chinese who are manufacturing solar panels and batteries who are going to make absolute bank off of us.
	And then when we have a massive blackout because of renewables, we're going to go back cap in hand to Russia and the rest of the BRICS nations who are actually still developing oil and whose currencies aren't imploding right now, despite the sanctions.
	Yes, all the old elite boogeymen are being dusted off and the battle lines drawn for another culture war.
	These forces have a clear us-fee-them message.
	The best political campaigner in the UK, deep wells of oil and gas money, and helpfully irritating opponents from the celebrities who preach about the climate threat while continuing to take private jets, to the activists who superglue themselves to motorways.
	The fusion of populism and Euroscepticism snowballed into a mighty political force.
	Now watch the fusion of populism and climate skepticism fast gain in power, especially as the profitable recession bites.
	Prime Minister Truss or Sunak may be tempted to make concessions to placate the new populist climate sceptic beast.
	And it sounds like, I don't know if you've seen Starship Troopers by any chance.
	I have, yes.
	So you know the bug at the end where he goes, it's afraid, that's this.
	That's the petrified bug knowing it's losing.
	Yeah, I also hope...
	I mean, I haven't watched Farage's show for a while.
	I'm hoping he really does take hold of this because he always loves a referendum.
	He likes to retire, then find another cause or referendum.
	So he said, let's do one on Net Zero.
	But then I haven't heard him talk about it as much lately.
	So I'm hoping it really captures the imagination because it's a bit different to Brexit, isn't it?
	It's a bit more complex in a way.
	The event got put on hold because I believe the venue got shut down for threats.
	But I know Dominique, Julia Hartley Brewer, Richard Tice, leader of the foreign party, and Farage are all set to speak at it.
	And then it just...
	So I don't know how the Power Not Poverty campaign is going at the moment, but I do know we need some net zero scepticism, both in the halls of Parliament and in the public sphere, to say, hey, this is the next civil rights frontier.
	This is a Trojan horse for you debilitating our way of life and making us into techno-serfs.
	Please don't do this.
	We have that opinion.
	Unfortunately, there is someone riding in on a white horse to try and save us from our stupidity.
	A centre-right climate party has launched to oust Tory MPs opposing climate action.
	A new political party committed to solving the climate crisis plans to challenge the Tories in more than 100 seats at the next election.
	Ed Gemmell, a former army officer and city lawyer, registered the Climate Party with the Electoral Commission on Britain's hottest day last week.
	We've got one election left to save the planet, he said.
	Gemmell said his party would also target the 19 Tory MPs, who are members of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group.
	That includes Steve Baker, who he lost against quite a while ago.
	A collection of Conservative backbenchers who oppose the government's net-zero policies.
	The Craig McKinleys, the Bakers, will stand up against them in every single place.
	Any Conservative that tries to join that group and destroy the future of my kids and lose us the big opportunity, we will put a centre-right candidate against them.
	Yes, you sound very Conservative.
	So then he wrote an op-ed for The Guardian.
	This guy's unhinged.
	He said, we've got one election left to save the planet.
	I mean, that's unhinged stuff.
	It should be called the Apocalypse Party.
	It's worse than when Chukra and Muna and Anna Subri, that change UK thing that lasted 10 months.
	Well, this is just about as reliable as the Mayan calendar.
	Yeah.
	So he's done an article in The Guardian.
	Conservative members and by default the whole country have been let down by the current leadership race.
	Both Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss have almost completely ignored the climate and biodiversity crisis in their pitches to party members, effectively jeopardizing the future of millions.
	Leadership has been lacking on the issue.
	So my co-founders and I felt compelled to create a new strong single issue center-right party to champion these concerns, the climate party.
	And then he goes on to say, oh, this is sensible for business because we can get so much investment despite the costs I've already outlined.
	No longer will it be necessary for climate-conscious conservative voters to feel disenfranchised.
	The climate party is here to represent them.
	So as always, I thought I'd end with a lovely bit of eco-hypocrisy.
	Because it doesn't seem like he's going off to a great start.
	A flying start, you might say.
	Because as Guido Fawkes have reported, about three days before registering his party, he decided to sell his sports car on Facebook Marketplace.
	If you can just scroll down, John.
	So he's not only called to limit population growth, like the genocidal maniac that he is, and his fundraiser made zero pounds out of the 770 pounds that he tried to do to prevent the climate crisis.
	And he also failed as a council election in Buckinghamshire, where he lost to Steve Baker.
	But he tried selling his gas-guzzling Vauxhall Opet Speedster three days before launching the party, and he actually tried to reduce the price again to try and accelerate how quickly he could sell it off, because he realised the terrible optics of this.
	It's like when the Extinction Rebellion woman drove a diesel car and admitted it live on Air on Talk.
	Yeah, or Gary Lineker with his gas cousin car always telling us off about various climate-related nonsense.
	I'm sick of the private jet class telling us exactly what to do.
	So, all we can hope with this is that the economic realities of terrible environmental policy are going to provide enough electoral motivation for whichever clown ascends to the Conservative leadership office position and eventually becomes our new Prime Minister...
	It encourages them to rescind some of these terrible, immiserating policies.
	We shouldn't listen to these misanthropic, doomsday-saying climate nuts.
	We can care about conservation, but pretty much all of the predictions of the past, overpopulation, global cooling, global warming, climate change, biodiversity crisis, etc., have not proven true.
	In fact, the biggest impediment to human flourishing is incompetent climate policy.
	And I suppose let's hope our politicians sit up and take no for once.
	Alright, that was epic.
	Epic monologue at the end.
	So do you want to do my bit now?
	How about we do that?
	So I'm going to do a bit called Hitchens Goes Beast Mode, which is about Peter Hitchens getting into a massive, epic argument with Michael Rosen on Twitter about the decline of grammar schools.
	But first, let's do a little promotion of our premium book club on Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground that we did, what, last week?
	Last week, yeah.
	I don't understand time anymore.
	Every day is the same to me.
	It was good though, wasn't it?
	And it's done quite well.
	Good comments.
	Yeah, it was fantastic.
	I really appreciated it.
	And a lot of people really appreciated the discussion of theology right towards the end.
	But I suppose if you don't go to a good school, you're going to end up like this basement-dwelling goblin.
	So learn to avoid it.
	But there's also loads of bants in it as well.
	So it's got something for everyone.
	So check that out.
	And let's crack on with this segment then.
	So this is all about the decline of grammar schools.
	We always hear about grammar schools in this country.
	It's an election-winning thing in the Conservative Party to say, I'm going to bring them back.
	And Liz Truss has done exactly this, if we see this.
	There you go.
	Liz Truss suggests she'll lift ban on new grammar schools.
	So Liz Truss, one thing I like about her, and before everyone tweets or comments, she's WEF, you know...
	She's relatively okay.
	I don't actually think she is.
	I think she's just a blithering idiot.
	People said she wasn't.
	Some people said, no, she was just on the website.
	And, you know, you can barely talk about the candidates without people shouting at you that they're all shills.
	So let's just assume that and crack on.
	So what I like about her, though, is that she's from a comprehensive school like me.
	And she said that they're rubbish.
	So she's going to send their kids to a grammar school and she wants more people to have that chance.
	And then someone replied to this in the Times, actually, not literally because it was a telegraph, but they replied in the Times to Liz Trust in general, and they said, Liz Trust wants to create a new generation of grammar schools.
	As the eldest of six children from a council state, going to a grammar was my only chance of social mobility, but I cannot bring myself to support this move.
	What?
	I'm painfully conscious that I was able to attend the grammar at the expense of the other four-fifths of my age group who went to secondary moderns where the teaching seemed dire and the expectations even worse.
	It's a classic thing.
	I went to a grammar school It changed my life.
	I want to take that away from other people because I feel guilty and because the second three moderns were apparently rubbish.
	Yeah, it's the education equivalent of white guilt.
	Basically, yeah.
	And if you don't know much about...
	We have a lot of US listeners may or may not know a lot about our education system.
	Basically, in this country, we have public schools, which are fee-paying schools for posh people.
	We have private schools, which are fee-paying schools for posh people.
	We have boarding schools...
	Which are free-paying schools for posh people, but it can be public or private, I suppose.
	We have comprehensive slash state schools that plebs like me had to go to.
	And then we have grammar schools, which are not the same as the old grammar schools, but there's a few left, and you basically have to be in the right area.
	Yeah, so I think this will only exist in Kent.
	They're publicly funded, but educationally selective.
	So you've got to take the 11-plus exam.
	There's an English and a maths test.
	There used to be three.
	There was also a non-verbal reasoning test with shapes and maps, like it used to be the old IQ test.
	But if you pass that by a specific set, I think the threshold is, well, I can't remember the number now, but it might have been 180.
	If you pass that with your combined grades, then you can have your pick of the selective grammar schools.
	Right.
	Right, but there are far fewer.
	There's something like 160 versus 1,300 in the past, and they're different.
	They've taken on the comprehensive school exam system, so they're not as good as they used to be.
	They're still better than other things.
	But what they used to do was people like Melvin Bragg, who's an example that springs to my mind because he's from Cumbria, where I'm from.
	He was working class.
	Now he's a lord.
	And if you go to his Wikipedia, it just says, Bragg was one of an increasing number of working class teenagers of the era being given a path to university through the grammar school system.
	So it changed people's lives.
	And his school is now in comprehensive.
	It was changed in 1969.
	And this is what you find.
	And actually, there was an article with him from 2012 where I agreed with Carol Codswallop.
	Carol Codswallop.
	Yeah, that one.
	I've never known how to say her name.
	Well-known lefty guardian maniac.
	But I actually agreed with her.
	She did this piece on Melvin Bragg and she said, Bragg is a product of the high watermark of social mobility, from his grammar school education to his free university place to his maintenance grant to the purchase of his family home on a single modest salary.
	All these things that we've lost.
	He's a member of the lucky generation, the ones who for the first time ever could rise through the classes by way of the grammar schools and access the universities at a time when being a graduate made you a member of a privileged elite.
	And he tries to play it down, but that's what it did.
	You had social mobility, and that was taken away from us.
	And another one was Dennis Potter, who was a good example, the famous playwright, who again, father was a coal miner, but was able to go to grammar school and change his life.
	And that was a generation who had social mobility, and that was taken away.
	My dad came from a very poor background, had to do homework under the sheets with a torch.
	They wanted him to work in a factory.
	But he, past 11 plus, went to a grammar school.
	Many years later, I go to a rubbish comprehensive school where we have 20-something people in the class, even at A-level.
	I got the third highest grade in the country at A-level anyway on history, but no one said go to Oxford or anything like that.
	We didn't have that kind of chance.
	We didn't understand it.
	We wouldn't have been past the interview.
	We were clueless.
	And this is a typical comprehensive, you know, Ofsted were looking at it to shut it down, or they didn't shut it down in the end, it just about passed.
	But you get the idea.
	We've lost that social mobility.
	And this is the subject of Peter Hitchens' new book, A Revolution Betrayed, How Egalitarians Wrecked the British Education System.
	And we have that link, John.
	And Peter Hitchens argues that in trying to bring about an educational system which is egalitarian, the politicians have created a system which is the exact opposite.
	It doesn't sound like the left, does it?
	But there you go.
	It's utopianism.
	And so what Hitchens has done, he released this sign on Twitter that he has designed.
	So he's redesigned the sign for schools with the old school for...
	It used to have a sign meaning this is a school.
	And it was a young lady with a satchel following a young man with a school book.
	And this was changed.
	And he said, I devised this symbol for the destruction of the grammar schools, a prohibition sign over the pre-1965 British traffic sign for a school.
	Note the uniforms on the figures quite unlike the modern sign.
	So he's been posting this a lot because he loves it.
	Yeah, that's actually interesting because much like when Harry and I covered Michael Knowles' Speechless...
	Words and symbols have inextricable moral standards encapsulated in them.
	And this transmits British aesthetic, but also a standard.
	You've got to wear the uniform, you're dedicated to your education, and it's particular.
	Whereas now the modern school sign is the bathroom sign of the square, the woman made up entirely of triangles, and the smaller woman made up entirely of triangles.
	Yeah, there's nothing, there's no expectation laden in the symbol.
	Right, and the woman who designed the new sign, post-60s, actually explains it in the next link in the Guardian.
	She says, the hardest but most satisfying sign is the children crossing.
	The first school sign was a torch, then a boy followed by a girl with a satchel, the one we just saw.
	It looked very grammar school.
	I wanted it to look more inclusive, so you couldn't tell it was secondary modern or grammar, and I wanted it to be more inclusive.
	So I made the little girl lead the little boy.
	Do we have that sign, John?
	There we go.
	So what you have now instead, little blobs, it's a girl leading a boy.
	It doesn't really mean anything except inclusion and sort of lefty blobbishness.
	Subversive, subliminal, leftist indoctrination.
	That's fascinating.
	Yeah, that's what we talk about on this show.
	So that's what you end up with.
	Now, so Hitchens posted his sign on Twitter because he's been promoting his book, and he said, look, this is my sign about the grammar schools, and Michael Rosen, a sort of popular children's author, replied...
	He roused the beast.
	He said, what sign have you got for save the secondary modern schools?
	You never applied to Peter Hitchens.
	Don't even mention the name Peter Hitchens.
	You don't even have to at him.
	If you say his name, he will find you and he will kill you.
	Don't say it three times in a mirror or he'll show up and hit you over the head with an e-scooter.
	Once is enough.
	He'll find you and he'll kill you with logic.
	Because I once said a nice thing about him and he retweeted it, but you just have to put his name.
	So Hitchens replies, of course, and he says, the same one will do.
	How much do you actually know about the much-smeared secondary mods?
	My book out in November looks hard at this often misrepresented type of school.
	So Hitchens' point is that everyone accepts that grammar schools were elite and very good, but they say, but we have to have secondary moderns, which were rubbish.
	And it's not worth the sacrifice.
	Most people didn't get the chance to go to grammar.
	Hitchens' point here is not only were the grammar schools elite, the secondary moderns were still better than the comprehensives we have now, is his argument.
	So he says, what do you know, to Rosen.
	Rosen hits back with his credentials, and he says, try the website that my wife and I started so that former secondary moderners could contribute, blah, blah, blah.
	My dad taught in one of the first comps.
	My stepmother taught him.
	He goes on along.
	And that's, you know, he does know something about it.
	But then Hitchens hits back with this.
	If people knew more about secondary mods, the sneer, but if you have Grammars, you'd also have secondary mods, would lose its force, which is the point I just made, actually.
	That he's saying, that's fine.
	He's saying Chad yesterday.
	Yeah, yeah.
	He's standing for meritocracy, and yes, people will be marginalised by categorisation and delineating for merit, but it's better than lowest common denominator thinking, because when you try and have equality, you go immediately to the lowest common denominator.
	You drag everyone down to the subpar standard.
	And so that's why they abluted the school sign, for example, because they wanted to first nihilistically remove the standard and then supplant it with their new progressive standard, which is at odds with reality.
	Yeah, and I'll give you a great example from my schooling, if you can call it that, comprehensive school.
	We had 20-odd people in business studies A-level, and only six of us passed in the modular exam.
	We had these modular exams.
	I was one of the six, so I'm not an idiot, because everyone else got distracted by some young enterprise nonsense.
	Anyway, only six of us passed.
	What was the solution?
	He re-sat everyone into the exam, except six of us, who were left to just sort of loiter around and mess about.
	And that's how you pander to the lowest common denominator, and that's awful, in my opinion.
	So, yeah, he carries on, and he says, Hitchens, that the problem with secondary moderns, number six, this is John, is that actually people were prevented from taking exams, which was a lefty idea, and he clarifies in the next week, this was from 1944 to 55, that actually there was this weird idea that you shouldn't even take exams in secondary moderns.
	Well, we can see that now in the American school districts, where they're saying that we shouldn't have any examinations in Portland, for example, because the black students were...
	Scoring lower on average than the white students.
	And so it would be racist to have disparate outcomes.
	Therefore, dispense with meritocracy.
	So no hurt feels.
	Yeah.
	Good comparison.
	And then the next one, he points out...
	So Rosen is saying that the problem is lots of people would leave secondary bonds without any qualifications at all.
	But then Hitchens is hitting back with the point that So, he's saying...
	Because Rosen says, ah, the old Dodge, rubbish the qualifications that people got, etc., etc.
	And then Hitchens goes, I didn't realise you disputed the existence of exam inflation.
	Can we go back to that one?
	Do you then maintain that today's GCSEs are equal in value to the pre-1965 O-levels, or that today's A-levels are equal in value to the pre-1965 namesakes?
	And he often makes the point, Hitchens, that...
	Pre-1965, an A-level in this country, Britain, was considered equivalent roughly to a degree in the United States.
	Sorry to American listeners.
	They tried to take our talent, it was called the brain drain, because our schools were so good.
	That actually explains the British invasion as well of creatives into the comic industry in the 80s, because all of the great stories that were told were all from British writers.
	But the Americans just had a complete deficit of talent at that time.
	So it does explain why literary prowess, for example, might have flourished in the arts, and they took all the talent overseas.
	Yeah, I'm sure many things flourished.
	And then what happened was, he says in the next one, number 10, comps diluted the exams.
	So basically the comprehensives, when everything became comprehensive, they couldn't cope with the rigor of the grammar school exams, so they got diluted.
	So the only way they could handle it was, let's just make the exams easier.
	And then you get so-called exam inflation, where you have the same grade, but it's just not as good as it was in the past.
	Yeah, it's hollowed out, especially considering they changed it.
	So for Americans, we over here don't use the A to F you have.
	We have A to U. We used to.
	They changed it under Michael Gove to 1 to 9 as a grading system, but it's in reverse.
	So yeah, the 1 is the worst, the 9 is the best.
	And then they made it so that, for example, in an English exam, you can't take a blank book in.
	You just have to memorise everything.
	And so this is why grade inflation happens, and this is why actually boys are falling far behind girls in education.
	It's because most boys have a specialist subject.
	They're hyper-greater.
	I was terrible at maths, but I can speak, I suppose, with relative rhetorical flourish.
	If you just memorise everything on what they call little cards and things like that, if you just take...
	Yeah, yeah.
	If you just do that, you know, a day before the exam and have a breadth-based knowledge, you can sail through with straight A's because you're just parroting.
	You're not being creative or critical.
	Right, yeah.
	And also, of course, the change to coursework helped girls compared to boys.
	But anyway, that's another story.
	Yeah.
	And then Rosen hits back with this question, well, what's your plan?
	So he says, have you figured out the problem of what happens when the number of places in grammar schools doesn't match the numbers of those who pass the 11 plus?
	No one managed to figure out in the 1950s how does your plan work?
	And it's a fair point.
	He's saying lots of people pass the 11 plus but there just simply weren't enough grammar schools.
	Now he's asking Hitchens who doesn't tend to have a plan.
	He calls himself Britain's obituaries.
	He tends to just point out the truth and what's wrong.
	He doesn't necessarily have a plan.
	So if we go to the next one, he says, "I have no plan.
	People like you with their dogged opposition to the selection by ability from which you benefited have killed any hopes of return to it.
	I just seek to point out the destruction of grammar schools was a grave national error." And this is where I get really irked because Rosen himself, who's arguing with him, went of course to a grammar school, then to Oxford, then to the BBC, which was the standard progression you could make then.
	Doesn't want anyone else to have it because he thinks, "Oh, it's not fair enough." It's like, "Yeah, but you did really well from it, Michael." That kind of thing just makes me so mad.
	It's the Orwellian middle class socialists who would like to pull the ladder up after themselves because they like talking about poverty but they don't actually like interacting with the poor.
	Right.
	And it's the old Thatcher thing of like you want everyone to be equal down here rather than a bigger gap but we're all doing better.
	Anyway.
	And then actually although Hitchin said he had no plan in the next one This actually was much later, but I'm just putting it next sequentially because it's the most hope I've ever seen Hitchens express.
	He said, politicians, someone's saying, shouldn't these issues be thrown at an education minister?
	No, politicians know little and care less about such things.
	The major political parties regard this as a dead issue.
	The education department is uninterested.
	We're discussing the past in the hope of influencing the distant future for the better.
	Well, I am.
	That's the first time I've even heard him say that I'm even trying to influence the future.
	So he obviously cares about this issue a lot.
	He used the word hope.
	That's shocking.
	I know, it's shocking.
	I think he'll probably delete that one.
	But yeah, so Hitchens said, he doesn't really have a plan, but the failure was to build enough grammar schools before the bulge hit in 1956.
	So the population increased, there wasn't enough grammar schools.
	Rosen's saying, look, there was too many people, they passed 11 +, there was no place for them.
	He says, no, that's the politicians who didn't build enough schools.
	That's not the fault of selection by ability itself, which was a good system.
	So, Rosen says everyone knew there was wastage of talent in these grammar schools.
	So he said, But then Rosen says to him, well, you're the journalist.
	Go back to Halsey and Floud.
	Look at the materials produced by Brian Simon.
	Look at Hansard.
	Look at Ed Boyle.
	And it's quite interesting that he mentions Brian Simon because Hitchens replies pointing out that Brian Simon is a literal communist.
	So he says, he says, comprehensives were an egalitarian political project, not an educational one.
	This is why Brian Simon, a lifelong communist, was so keen on them and why social democrats such as R.H. Tawney favoured grammars.
	Now, Tawney was still a socialist.
	He was a so-called Christian socialist.
	That's impossible.
	So, whereas, I know, many have said, whereas Simon was an actual commie, so we're still arguing about different degrees of leftism, but he's saying that, you know...
	I hate this paradigm.
	Yeah.
	Hitchens calls it utopians versus reformers.
	So if you do go to Brian Simon's Wikipedia, you do find he is.
	In fact, he was, in fact, a leading member of the Communist Party.
	Wikipedia does tell you the truth about lefties because they haven't realised that they should hide that.
	You know what I mean?
	They won't tell you the truth about the right.
	He was the brother of the second Baron Simon of Wythenshaw, Roger Simon's solicitor and writer on Antonio Gramsci, the guy who authored...
	Yeah, he was the progenitor of cultural Marxism.
	So, just staggering.
	And so the fact that this is one of the key people behind comprehensive schools makes you see the kind of commie system we have now versus the grammar school system that I would wish I could have gone to and that Hitchens espoused it.
	So, he talks about it in, where were I, number 19.
	Well, Rosen's saying, how would this actually work?
	How would selection at 11 work?
	He's saying, if you're in favour of selection at 11, which is the only way to get grammar schools, how is that selection to be run?
	How are places to be allocated fairly?
	What difference in education in the respective schools?
	Hitchens replies, actually, he prefers age 13 to do the test, although anything old will be too late.
	I favor the German system.
	Briefly summed up, if you think you've been unfairly kept out of the gymnasium, you appeal and are given two years to show you can cope with it.
	So you do get a chance to move across.
	Your life's not just decided at 11.
	Seems perfectly reasonable.
	But he says in the next one, but it won't happen anyway.
	This is all futile.
	There's not a slightest chance of any political party adopting it.
	If they did, where will we find the teachers who know enough to teach the pre-1965 grammar standards?
	They're all thick.
	Also, the primaries, the primary schools, would need to be hugely reformed.
	Basically, Hitchens has got himself, he's done all the training, he's ran up to the starting line and then pulled the gun out and shot himself in both knees.
	Well, but he's always just saying, I'm not saying I don't have a plan.
	It's just that this is a problem.
	Here's the idea, but it won't get done anyway.
	But he always says that because he's talking about going back to the 19365 standards, but at least he's pointing out we did have these standards.
	And actually, the most new claim, or not new, but controversial, is that the secondary moderns were much better than people thought even before.
	Rosen points out, sometimes they ask for a letter from the parents to help them decide your fate for the rest of your life.
	So he does admit that it's decide your fate, which is very much how I feel.
	I'm annoyed about my life because like, imagine you went to a better school.
	It's a completely different world.
	I've noticed this throughout my life.
	So admitting that it decides your whole fate, but then Hitchens comes back with this killer blow.
	He said, nowadays, they don't even need to do that.
	On National Offer Day, your fate is decided by what sort of postcode your parents can afford to live in.
	No second chance.
	This ruthless selection by parental wealth is what you support and defend.
	Odd for a man of the left.
	So it's called the postcode lottery in this country.
	There's far fewer grammar schools than there were.
	It just depends where you live.
	Your parents get you in.
	They say, let's live here so we can get into this good school.
	Even those schools are not as good as they used to be, but it's a much more unfair system.
	And actually, Hitchens said there were always a postcode lottery.
	If you look at the next one, he says, this is from 1965, but particular comprehensive schools will reflect the characteristics of the neighbourhood in which they are situated.
	If their community is less varied and fewer of the pupils come from homes which encourage educational interests...
	Schools may lack the stimulus and vitality which schools in other areas enjoy.
	Basically saying, if you're in a bad area, soz.
	We had a guy, I went to a grammar school, and I have some, well, it's run very poorly, but I like the idea of them at least.
	And we had a guy who pretended to live with his nan, but would commute in from Wembley every morning.
	And this was in Bexley, so that's from West London, South East London, every day from 11.
	Wow.
	There you go.
	And I'll skip the tweets now because it goes on and on.
	This has been going on for days.
	I checked on the train today.
	It's still going on, this argument.
	So it's been going on for many days.
	Never rouse the Hitchens.
	And he goes into it in more detail in his article, The Golden Age of the Grammar Schools in The Spectator, which is very, very good.
	And he concludes it.
	How very strange to go through the whole education system of an advanced country, locate the one bit of it that worked and smash it up.
	Yet that is what we did and that is what lies behind the mess we're in now.
	And I thought we'd end on a video where he sums it up.
	It's that his role in this is that he's the guy that knows what it used to be like.
	So he's just here to remind people and say, this is what it used to be like.
	And he calls it being Dr.
	What.
	Let's have a look.
	Yes, the comprehensive system has not been a massive success, has it?
	I don't think so.
	I think it would be very hard to argue that if you made a straight comparison.
	I think what we need to do is to introduce a television series called Doctor What instead of Doctor Who.
	Doctor What is the only person in Britain who knows what happened in the past.
	And he can travel into the past and tell you what actually happened.
	And in this case, he can go to 1960 and say, look at the schools.
	Look how much better they are than the ones we have now.
	Comprehensive schools, to me, are much more frightening than the Daleks.
	Comprehensive schools are much more frightening than the Daleks.
	Having been to one can confirm.
	So, yeah.
	Sorry, I probably didn't let you talk enough in that section, Conor, but it's a subject I care a lot about, and it just kicked off this week, so I thought we'd go over it.
	So that's that bit.
	No worries.
	Okay.
	So, I recently called Joe Biden political Magikarp in one of the weekend segments, something that Pokemon fans appreciated, or one of you still watching, basically flip-flops ineffectively between positions, without ever actually committing to one and disappoints his trainers, who are obviously behind the scenes puppeteering him.
	Well, we've got our own empty suit running for the position of office in this country, and that would be one Rishi Sunak.
	So, how about we look over Schrodinger-Sunak's political positions during his time for running and prove, essentially, why he's an empty suit who cannot be trusted.
	He's not going to win anyway.
	So, before we go into that, let's look at Rishi Sunak's economics.
	If you look at the Lodzita's website, it's why the left doesn't understand economics.
	You can watch this video to understand modern monetary theory, the reason the Bank of England has been printing tons of money.
	I believe it's something like £1 billion in a month to...
	in November 2021 and has gotten us into this mess where monetary supply outpaces actual goods supply.
	Thanks for inflation, Rishi.
	Of course, you're going to be controlling that.
	So tonight, as a Hustings in Cheltenham and ahead of that, Rishi Sunak, by doing an interview on GB News, which we'll look at in a minute, but also this article in the Daily Mail, he's vowed to launch a major crackdown on grooming gangs and start recording the ethnicities of the perpetrators where they previously weren't.
	So writing in today's Daily Mail at the time, Sunak warns that fears over racism must not deter the fight against grooming gangs.
	After an inquiry revealed, the police failed to tackle widespread abuse by South Asian men in Telford for fear of looking politically incorrect.
	Under his plans, the National Crime Agency, NCA, will be ordered to set up investigations anywhere where significant grooming activity is known to have taken place.
	The NCA is already leading a huge inquiry called Operation Stovewood into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham.
	Sunak would launch a National Grooming Gang's whistleblower network to make sure that cases are properly investigated, ending the scandal of public bodies ignoring evidence of abuse.
	He said it would also be a criminal offence for those who were arrested.
	For those arrested for child exploitation, he said it would be a criminal offence for those arrested for child exploitation not to reveal their ethnicity or nationality or to lie about it.
	So if when you're arrested you say that you're an ethnicity or nationality other than what you are and you're arrested for child grooming, you'll get an extra charge placed on top of it.
	But I don't think he's necessarily said that police failings to report it will also be a dereliction of duty and a criminal charge for them.
	Also note how nobody has spoken specifically here about the religion of these people.
	Because, frankly, religion plays a large part.
	They're not raping Sikh girls, as well as English girls, because of the different ethnicity.
	They're raping them because of a different religion.
	And so there are, I suppose you could say, intersecting layers of oppression going on here that aren't being addressed, again, for fears of political correctness.
	unfortunately.
	And didn't they also rape some Hindus?
	Which was interesting, because Rishi is a Hindu, and he hasn't talked about it much.
	But you think he might, because there were some Hindu girls involved in Telford, as I hear.
	And it's interesting, he's been quite weak on this.
	Trust last night on GB News, on the forum, it was quite good.
	And she was very strong on it.
	Whether it will happen, of course, we don't know.
	But she was very strong on Telford.
	She said, everyone's got to be investigated.
	Councillors, police, absolutely everyone's got to be held accountable.
	And she was very strong on it.
	And now maybe Rishi's jumping on the bandwagon.
	Well, I found it...
	Well, obviously Rishi was interviewed before Trust last night.
	He did an Esther McVeigh showing on Saturday here.
	But the interesting thing is in Trust's framing as well, she accepted the framing of the question that was asked when it said Pakistani.
	But again, Islam was not mentioned.
	And it's because it's a politically poisonous topic in this country, particularly when the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, said that she had favourite Quran verses and that she reads the Quran by her bedside every night in an attempt to pander to Muslim...
	She's like the store of a vicar, isn't she?
	2017.
	Remember when she said Easter worshippers?
	No, that was Hillary Clinton.
	Was that her as well?
	May got involved as well.
	Oh, for God's sake.
	Yeah, of course.
	You can't name one religious denomination when they're actually being attacked by the other, but...
	There you go.
	So during this interview, he said he's refused to rule out lockdown in all circumstances, whereas Trusser says she will never lock down the country again.
	By the way, I'm not a big Liz Truss fan.
	I think she's a blithering idiot, but out of the two.
	He said a particular group of people is committing these crimes in reference to grooming gangs, but he didn't actually say what that group of people was, quite notably.
	And then he's pledged to make all police forces record the ethnicities of perpetrators and create a brand new life sentence for those involved in grooming with very limited options for parole.
	Why, if you're a groomer, if you're a child groomer, do you have any option for parole at all?
	Why would you want an early release?
	Why would you want, as happened to one woman, she meets her abuser in a nightclub?
	Because he was released without her being informed so.
	Or one saw him walking around Asda.
	Just, if you're involved in raping children, why are you let out of prison?
	So, then Neil Oliver tells it as it is, one of my favourite GB News hosts, who I'd still like to go on your show, Neil, if you're listening.
	It would be a step forward if we stopped talking about grooming gangs and called it what it is.
	Wholesale rape of children by mostly Pakistani men.
	It would also help if politicians admitted they have known about this, and this has been going on under their watch for many years.
	Actually, Liz Truss, as you said, she was relatively strong in saying it would be prosecuted, but she failed to mention that she said local governments and police, but also there are some people currently sitting as MPs in Parliament that were implicated in overlooking these prosecutions.
	These are some of her colleagues.
	She didn't mention them.
	So it's just frustrating that this utter apathy by the British establishment to act on the exploitation of these girls permeates all levels of government.
	And Rishi Sunak, who's never mentioned it before, now jumps on the trend because he knows the voting base is far more based than he is.
	Irritating.
	So, if we look to the disappointing grooming gang report, For those who aren't aware, quite a while ago, Sajid Javid, when he was Home Secretary, another snake in the grass, had said he'd commissioned a government review into the characteristics of street grooming gangs back in 2018.
	He said that they should leave no stone unturned, but the research was never published in full.
	And bear in mind, Sajid Javid said he was interested in this because most of the men, he said, were of Pakistani heritage.
	And as a man of Pakistani heritage, I would like to clear the name of British Pakistanis.
	Totally fair.
	When the government eventually begrudgingly released a version of this report, the Home Office tried to make its own assessment of ethnicity from the Police National Crime Computer and concluded that the existing data would not answer the question of the relationship between ethnicity and child sexual exploitation.
	And they said it was not in the public interest.
	There's also no mention of religion in the report.
	The only mention of Muslim is in the title of one of the references.
	There is no mention of Islam.
	The government did not even say that it has data on the religious affiliation of any of the perpetrators.
	It appears that this was not even considered.
	This is in spite of a recent response at the time then to a written question from Lord Pearson explicitly asking whether religious characteristics would be taken into account into the report.
	The parliamentary petition also, as John's pointed out, reached over 100k.
	So it was debated on the Commons floor.
	So people really care about this issue and nothing to come of it.
	And people really cared about this issue for multiple years on all sorts of sides of the aisle, including some former Labour politicians, etc., who've been lambasted as racist for absolutely no reason.
	Rishi Sadak is riding in on the coattails of this and suddenly saying, I really care about this now when I've done literally nothing to help it before.
	Didn't that former Labour politician get sacked for bringing it up?
	Yeah, she did.
	Whereas Naz Shah, who said victimised girls should shut their mouths for the sake of diversity on Twitter, was appointed Minister for Cultural Cohesion or something like that.
	Yeah, she liked a joke tweet.
	She retweeted the Alex Jones tweet.
	Not Alex Jones.
	Owen Jones.
	There we go.
	Definitely not Alex Jones.
	So, just a reminder, if you're thinking that Sunak's going to be anti-woke, he's participated in the diversity, equity, and inclusion training, both at his time at Goldman Sachs, probably.
	I can't say that for certain, but Goldman Sachs have adopted this policy now, when it's politically expedient, and during his time at the Treasury.
	So Goldman Sachs here, if we go back to the previous one, John...
	There's a recent quote.
	At the crux of our efforts is to focus on cultivating and sustaining a diverse work environment at the workforce, which is crucial to meeting the unique needs of our diverse client base.
	We are committed to making progress toward racial equity, advancing gender equality, and increasing representation at every level of our firm.
	In 2020, through our board diversity initiative, we announced we would only take the company public in the US or Western Europe if it had at least one diverse board member.
	Just the diverse, the national umma of diversity.
	We offer a number of programs designed to help our people contribute to an inclusive environment, including learning opportunities such as Blindspot, Hidden Biases of Good People, a program that helps our Vice President and above explore unconscious thinking and its impact on decision-making, and Subtle and Significant, which explores how everyday actions can send micro-messages and reinforce or erode meritocracy in the workplace.
	So in that utter word salad, what that basically means is we're going to put loads of money into rooting out microaggressions with some weird witch hunt, which is just insane.
	So, if we go over to the Treasury Department, which is frustrating, equality and diversity in the Treasury.
	When working on policy, our officials look at the impact of a policy option might have on those from protected groups, including positive opportunities for promoting greater fairness for them.
	They also consider if there are options for avoiding or otherwise mitigating against any negative impact on that group.
	Again, what that basically means is, we're not going to do things on principle.
	We're going to try and micromanage from the top down equality, which...
	Okay, why are you trying to engineer society for equality across groups which might have disparate interests?
	It's just an utter pipe dream.
	And this is a Blairite paradigm that conservatives have again adopted.
	So if we go on to the Treasury...
	That's the most Blairite politician around, isn't he?
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I'd like to describe him as Justin Trudeau without the offensive boot polish.
	Yeah, you also, if you're an ultra-rich Asian guy, I mean, you probably won't have come across many culture war issues, right?
	Because if you're sort of a straight white man, you're already in trouble.
	And if you're a normal person who's going to be affected by this stuff.
	But if you're sort of ultra-rich like Rishi, I just think, I don't think he really gets the culture war.
	And I think now he's, you know, as we've said, he's pandering to the members suddenly.
	Yeah, well, he's alienated from everyday concerns, which is something that people have raised.
	For example, you know, he didn't realise I had to pay for a can of Coke at the petrol station.
	And he said years ago in a rather blundering video, which I'm not going to hold against him because he says some dumb things as a student, but I don't have any working class friends.
	He's a multi-multi-millionaire.
	And then there's also the fact of, okay, unless, unfortunately, and I'm not playing identity politics here, but straight white men are excluded from being hired in plenty of workplaces.
	And so unless you have a stake in saying, hey, this is unfair, this isn't meritocratic, and I'm being barred for how I was born, which I hate, unless you have that stake in that, you're not going to get involved.
	So he's now realizing, oh God, actually, my constituents really care about this.
	So if I just blag enough to get into office, I can make false promises and then just sit in number 10 fat and happy for a while.
	Yeah, well, I was attacking comprehensive schools because I went to one, but Liz Truss, at least, she went to a comprehensive school, is a relatively normal person, so this is an advantage for her.
	Well, I wouldn't call Liz Truss normal.
	I said relatively.
	Yeah, she's odd.
	I put that in there.
	She's a bit odd, but she knows more about normal life than...
	And also, this culture war thing, they've only just started taking it up in this leadership race, because normally it's called divisive culture war issues.
	They try and dismiss it.
	As if we're bringing it up.
	It's like, no, no, this is massive.
	We've got critical race theory.
	We've got children being mutilated at Tavistock.
	It's like, you might want to deal with this.
	Yeah, I will criticise Francis Foster, who was on the podcast the other day, who said, we have to come together, we have to de-escalate tensions.
	I'm sorry, I cannot come together with a party or a group of people who want to lop the breasts of a 16-year-old girl.
	There is no reconciliation or coming together over that issue.
	Well, Francis is a nice guy, but I'm afraid he's wrong.
	It's total war.
	Yeah.
	They've just raided Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.
	Do you know what I mean?
	It's civil war in America.
	There are some people that can be convinced into leaving people alone, and there are some that need to be utterly, utterly crushed.
	So, John, we can go to page 53 of this report just because there's a nice infographic.
	If you just keep scrolling down because it's not exactly lined up, it's page 53 at the bottom of it.
	Yeah, that's all right.
	That's me.
	We're nearly there.
	There's a little pie graph.
	There we go.
	So the Treasury likes to publish its statistics on just how diverse they are.
	I'm just going to read this out just because it's...
	Well, I thought you'd be able to make jokes on it, Nick.
	I'm going to be honest.
	50.1% of Treasury officials are women.
	54.5% at the Executive Management Board and Group Directors level.
	So I suppose that explains the absolute state of public finances.
	And those who think that joke has no legs to it, look at the graphs that as soon as women receive the vote, there's just a massive uptick in state spending.
	I thought I was a misogynist until I came on this podcast.
	Harry just said the most amazing misogynist thing last time.
	You've tried to outdo him this week.
	I disavow heavily.
	It's clearly a joke.
	Stop whining.
	Also, 50% of civil service servants are also...
	And I would assume part of that is because women overwhelmingly go into HR departments, and this is where a lot of this festering nonsense is coming from.
	So it's not women's fault, it's not all women's fault, but it's the fault of HR departments, which are very staffed by the diversity initiatives.
	And to self-select with diversity initiatives, women and ethnic minorities, air quote, you're already self-selecting people who are on board with the woke ideology.
	Like, most women are going to be very insulted, who aren't woke, to get a position based on their genitalia.
	But those who are happy to take that are going to be woke.
	So, by adopting these standards, singing from the left's hymn sheet, we're automatically accelerating their institutional capture.
	That's a great point.
	It kind of reminds me of how we, at GB News and places like that, I shouldn't criticise them really, since they're my employer, but they still do things like diversity, stuff like that.
	There's an idea that we have to do...
	Seen on screen.
	It can't just be merit, which we should want merit.
	There's an idea that, like, let's have diverse people saying anti-woke content.
	It's like, but at the structural level, you're already buying into their ideas.
	And sometimes you get incredible commentators like Dominique or Calvin, who was sat in that very chair the other day, who are the best bastions of articulating exactly why the likes of Black Lives Matter are terrible.
	But sometimes you hire people who might look fantastic in front of the camera, look very polished and all that, but they might not be the best to articulate the positions, and they might not have read as much as somebody else.
	I thought it was bold of Calvin to say, on GB News, no, no, we shouldn't hire on merit, never on identity.
	But not everyone believes that.
	Despite all of these statistics and how the institutional leftists have captured us, they're still buying into it, of course.
	I'd just like to remind you on the next article, from All People Vox, the implicit association tests and unconscious buying tests are bunk signs.
	They don't even make any sense.
	And the people who created the tests, other than Mazrin Banerjee, who is a, I suppose you could charitably define her as a communist, I've walked it back and said it doesn't do a damn thing.
	According to the growing body of research that researchers who created the test and maintain it at the Project Implicit website, the IAT is not good for predicting individual biases just based on one test, because it's not replicable.
	You can take the test, it basically tests reaction time, and you can take it repeatedly until you get so good at it that even if you come up with an instance of unimplicit bias on the first one, by the third one, you're clean as a whistle, even if you are an actual racist.
	It can predict things in the aggregate, but it cannot predict behavior at the level of an individual who took the test once.
	Calvin Lye, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University, and the director of research at Project Implicit, told me, for individuals, this means they would have to take the test many times, maybe dozens of times, and average out the results to get a clear indication of their bias, and potentially how that bias guides behavior.
	And you know for a fact that this is not being taken multiple times, and the cost of taking it even once is astronomical, which we'll get onto a bit.
	No researcher, not even the test creators, defend one-off use.
	Tony Greenwald, a University of Washington researcher who co-created the test with Mazrin Banerjee at Harvard, conceded this point.
	He told the writer that IAT is only good for predicting individual behaviour in the aggregate and that correlations are small.
	So basically, you can't test the unconscious evil in someone's head.
	It's a witch hunt.
	Shut up and go away.
	Unfortunately, most Tory MPs took part in DEI training during the Black Lives Matter riots anyway.
	And this included Rishi Sunak, because I don't think he dissented from this.
	Only 40 Conservative MPs were expected to say no at the time to unconscious bias training intended to tackle racism in the Commons.
	terrible framing here by the Times.
	Accusing parliamentary authorities of pandering to the woke agenda.
	Tories in the European Research Group and Common Sense Group of right-leaning MPs said their colleagues would not take part.
	I would really rather gouge my eyes out with a blank stick than sit through that Marxist snake oil crap, said one.
	Worth voting for.
	Tom Hunt, the MP for Ipswich, who's actually a half-decent MP, whoever is pushing this forward now is trying to pander to the woke agenda.
	I won't be.
	I think the vast majority of my constituents would not want me to waste two hours on a pointless, unconscious bias session that will have no effectiveness whatsoever.
	Alexander Stafford, the new Conservative MP for Brother Valley, said it would be far better to spend time helping constituents than to be lectured by someone who's being paid a lot of money to tell you that you're an awful human being.
	Now again, I don't want to sound like Gary Oldman from Leon the Professional, but only 40.
	Why not all of them?
	LAUGHTER So, the really frustrating thing is, Ben Bradley wrote an op-ed at the time, in the mail, and he actually gave us the figure for exactly how much this would cost.
	How much would you guess they're paying these people to come in for a couple of hours of conversation about why you're an evil, implicit racist and you don't know about it?
	Per hour?
	A few grand.
	1.4 million.
	Hang on, I thought you meant per person when they come in.
	You mean in total?
	Yeah, in total.
	1.4 million, taxpayer cash.
	Nice work if you can get it, eh?
	I might just start going around calling people racist for the grift, I suppose.
	But no, right-wingers are grifters, of course.
	So, after all that...
	We've seen that Sunak's record is decidedly not anti-woke.
	He's not against the lefty cancel culture who are trying to cancel our history and our women, as he said in every pre-scripted hustling statement.
	Very weak on the woman question as well, wasn't it?
	What is a woman?
	And he said, I think the Prime Minister gave a good answer the other day.
	Yeah, to Julia, yeah.
	But Boris had said on multiple occasions that, oh, it's biology, adult human female, but also there are some men that identify as women and trans people need to be treated with respect.
	Yeah.
	But sadly, that was the most based answer.
	It was compared to Rishi's...
	Well, that was a frustration with Liz Truss the other day, when at this hustings, funnily enough, she was sitting there talking to Tom Newton Dunn, and some imbecile in the crowd said that, oh, you think a woman is a woman, but is there any place where you would call a man a woman?
	And she said, well, there are trans people who need to be treated with respect, which is fine, and she said, but you can live as the opposite gender.
	Great, you've now accepted the left's premises of distinguishing gender from sex and saying that gender is delocalised from biological sex, and that was their wedge issue that got them to abolish sex in the first place.
	You're still mentally trapped in that prison.
	No, gender are a set of normative, sex-specific ethical standards you should try and live up to.
	If you're a man, try to be masculine.
	If you're a woman, try to be feminine.
	It's not oppressive, it's helpful.
	Frustrating.
	Anyway, on Sunak's tax issue, another reason he's unpopular, the Hustings in Darlington, Liz Truss said he was doing Gordon Brown fixed pie economics.
	I also want to note that Tom Newton Dunne complained that she'd slagged off the media a bit and got caught on a hot mic saying, oh, that was cheap.
	And she said, well, you know, I'm sorry about that, but it is his fault.
	So well done for doubling down on that.
	Sunak, on saying that Truss is making unfunded tax promises because she wants to borrow a bit to try and help us out in the interim, He has only promised to cut VAT on energy bills, which was his Brexiteer promise.
	And he said, oh, I'll cut income tax four pence in the pound eventually, you know, after we win the next election that I've got to hold you guys to ransom to.
	But then he's raised national insurance at the time of a pending recession, making it the highest tax burden on the UK in 70 years.
	And then he's also pledging to raise the corporation tax to, I believe, 23%.
	So he was in charge with the US's Janet Yellen of getting this global corporation tax rate of 15%, which is basically a strong-arming mafia racket of every business around the world to say, well, you can't go elsewhere, can you?
	But now he's trying to look to raise corporation tax to a higher level than Jeremy Corbyn promised at the 2019 election.
	So, yeah, he's just Blairite.
	He's an absolute Blairite.
	Our Scottish neighbours have shown exactly why high taxes don't work.
	They're actually bringing in £200 million less in the next piece, John.
	Because they've put taxes up so high.
	And the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that this has actually caused a forecast of growth far weaker, just because even you're trying to offset inflation, you can't tax your way out of debt.
	It's a stupid plan.
	So, if we can just play this next little clip.
	This was a Sunak defender, and this just shows you exactly how much economic knowledge the Sunak camp have.
	What is his plan to beat inflation?
	He believes that we need to get inflation down first.
	Yeah, but how?
	He's involved working with the Bank of England.
	Well, certainly not by launching into very big unfunded tax cuts.
	I think that would be a danger.
	He's setting out his plans on how to beat inflation in due course.
	Yeah, but we don't know what they are, do we?
	So if he wants to be Prime Minister, shouldn't we be told what he plans to do to get people's cost of living down?
	And he certainly will set them out.
	When?
	I can't give you a date for that, but he is absolutely determined that we will address inflation.
	That's part of his core plan for the economy.
	Yeah, okay.
	But I understand that, and I'm quite happy that he wants to do it, but you're halfway through a rather lengthy leadership debating season, and he hasn't yet revealed how he would do it.
	Is he reluctant to reveal it?
	Does he not know what he will do?
	What's the story?
	He is determined to get inflation down.
	He knows that that is the biggest economic challenge we face.
	And that's what he will do as Chancellor.
	And he has made this his priority ahead of tax cuts, of course.
	You know, as Conservatives, we all want to see taxes come down, but the reality is that you need to find a way to do that, which doesn't lead to excessive borrowing or fuel inflation.
	Okay.
	Well, let me ask you, Theresa, what do you think he should do?
	If you were advising him on how to get inflation down, what would you suggest?
	Well, certainly I think we need to ensure that the Bank of England has all the space it needs to deliver on the mandate that it has set.
	That is a crucial way to beat inflation.
	I know Liz Truss wants to see a review of the Bank of England's mandate, but actually I believe that the Bank of England has a pretty good record in terms of keeping inflation at or near to target inflation.
	Since it was granted independence.
	Really?
	So I think working in collaboration with the Bank of England and giving them the space they need to take measures to address inflation is of course crucial.
	Yeah.
	Well when the Bank of England said that they couldn't control inflation about two months ago, when it was down below sort of 7%, what did you make of that?
	Because that sounded to me like they didn't know what they were doing.
	So, I'm sorry for making you sit for a Mike Graham clip, but if you've noticed, I mean, if you make him sound intelligent, it's quite staggering.
	I didn't know you were so anti-Graham.
	I just felt like that's how I would feel if I was stuck in an economic argument with my brother, who has an economics degree, and I'm like, um, I'd ask the Bank of England.
	Well, she's a predictive chatbot, isn't she?
	She's about as eloquent as Kamala Harris.
	Yeah, and can I just say, there was a poll the other day, I can't remember if it was Tory members or the general populace, but 62% of people...
	I felt that inflation was the main issue at the moment.
	So you might want to know what the policy is on it.
	Yeah, exactly how to tackle it.
	Yeah, I agree.
	So if we'd like to load the Bank of England's mandate, this is the last case against Richard Sienk, I suppose.
	Bank of England tells ministers to intervene on digital currency programming.
	Tom Mutton, the director at Bank of England, said during a conference on Monday that programming could become a key feature of any future central bank digital currency, in which the money would be programmed to be released only when something happened.
	He said, you could introduce programmability.
	What happens if one of the participants in a transaction puts a restriction on the future use of money?
	There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen as socially harmful in some way.
	But at the same time, it could be a restriction on some people's freedoms.
	He warned that the government would be required to intervene and make the final decision.
	So, Rishi Sunak's government would be seeking to intervene on what would basically become a financial social credit system.
	Yeah, if you speak to people at the Bank of England, they're like, oh, Bitcoin's just for drug dealers.
	That's very much it.
	They don't want anyone doing anything with money that...
	That they can't control, yeah.
	But they like the idea of a blockchain because everything would then become nothing against the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against taxation, nothing outside taxation, etc.
	So if we just like to look at who is spearheading digital currencies, oh, it's Rishi Senak.
	Great.
	So, the crypto-communist who's running for office, who isn't leading, funnily enough, with any of this stuff on his campaign trail, who is involved with the...
	Oh my god, Goldman Sachs, who were involved in the consultancy period of the WEF's blueprint for a digital identity, at the same time as the UK Cabinet Office, which he wasn't a member of, but the UK government were involved in this.
	That guy, the guy who is spearheading the apparatus of our digital immiseration, is running for PM. On a fake anti-woke ticket.
	I wouldn't worry too much because he's not going to win.
	And the other day he said, I'd rather lose than win on a false promise.
	So he's now at the stage of like, that's actually morally better guys to lose.
	That's the real quiz.
	He's gone full Brent.
	He's like, you know, it's better to actually lose.
	That's the stage The Corbyn position of, I may have lost the election, but I won the argument.
	And you know what?
	Unfortunately, I fear he might get a cabinet position, and unless Truss's advisers are stalwart against this, they'll just adopt these stupid policies anyway.
	And on with that, to the comments.
	Hey guys, it's been a while since I commented.
	I have just finished day three of a fast.
	I'll probably go for five.
	And yeah, you guys, some of you are into keto, some of you are into exercising.
	Any of you guys ever done a fast before?
	What were your experiences?
	I suppose I accidentally fast because I don't have breakfast and I don't have time doing this job.
	I don't go keto.
	I've been carnival for the last couple of years.
	I used to eat about 5,000 calories a day just because I could never put any weight on.
	So I used to have a bag of rice, a bag of chicken and all that stuff.
	And I found that for some reason my processing of glucose is so terrible that I was still losing weight.
	It's like when I said to you, when I started training, I was six stone.
	And so I just needed something.
	That's crazy.
	You're on these annoying, can't put on weight people.
	I guess you're an ectomorph.
	But I did tell you after 35, you don't want to worry because it happens anyway then.
	So I'm not going to give fasting advice because I'm fat.
	But I did do, when I was not fat, I've done OMAD one meal a day.
	I've done 16-8.
	I've done all of them.
	It gets really hard after 35.
	It's so much harder.
	You've got your calorie restriction, but you've still got to get your protein, enough grams of protein.
	What do you do now?
	What's the secret?
	I sort of just eat intuitively.
	I don't even track my macros really anymore.
	So in the morning I'll have a shake and then, you know, teas and that don't count.
	And then I'll get in and have five or six eggs, the Gaston style, loads of cheese, some halloumi, probably some prawns, bits of steak.
	That's it.
	But then again, as I've said, at your age, you can basically do anything.
	So it doesn't really matter.
	You could eat all the chocolate you want.
	Yeah, pretty much.
	I do have a jet engine metabolism, but I will feel terrible afterwards.
	So I actually do advise...
	I mean, you don't actually need three meals a day, really.
	I think snacking is probably a lot worse for you.
	I do advise probably consolidating your calories into a particular time window and eating a lot less processed foods and sugar.
	Hello.
	So I have a question about morality today.
	Basically, if I ever go to the store and I purchase some items and I realize I didn't pay for it, I'll go back and I will pay for the items that I received because nothing is free in my opinion.
	You should pay for everything you get because someone pays for it in some manner or another.
	Besides, someone will get in trouble.
	But I've explained this to people in California and they think that basically I should have just benefited from it because it was someone else's mistake and they think I'm crazy for going back to the store and paying for it.
	But do I even bother to try to argue with these people because I just feel like maybe we just morally are incompatible and I get tired of trying to explain to people that it's wrong.
	Okay, well, first of all, congratulations.
	I've met someone that can actually talk faster than me.
	That's genuinely impressive.
	But no, you're banging on the money with that because if you're a solipsist and you believe that essentially no other person in the world is affected by your subjective moral enrichment, I suppose you could say it.
	The world will collapse that way.
	Like, if you break a window, there is an entire industry around repairing that window.
	And that affects all sorts of people's livelihoods.
	And I think if you want to be a moral person, every single moral act you must take must be universalizable.
	Yeah, my ex-girlfriend mocked me for paying for the bags in the supermarket.
	I used to not really...
	Pay for much stuff in the supermarket, but I'm joking.
	But you can get away with some stuff in the supermarket.
	Not me, but one could.
	But now I've decided you have to do everything completely morally right.
	And she thought I was an idiot for paying for the bag.
	But I was like, no, no, I'm not going to steal because this goes against my code.
	You can do what you want.
	Yeah.
	Can I go up one notch?
	It's alright, I think that's the last of the video comments, yes.
	The rest of them are on the website in the drop-down tab.
	Base Ape.
	Connor, I've asked other hosts this before, but it would be good to get your answer too.
	Could you ever envision a Brexit-style populist movement to oust the UN, especially the WEF and the IPCC, and its influence out of UK politics?
	At the very least, even an attempt would bring more awareness of its existence and influence the normals.
	What do you think?
	I think we're sort of reaching a fever pitch of where now mainstream GB news hosts, particularly the ones that are getting the most views, like, you know, Witten, Stein, Oliver, etc., are openly excoriating the WEF, whereas a year ago, and this is why I have my grievance with Mike Graham, is he, in no small part, was responsible for my moratorium from Talk, because he called me a conspiracy theorist, when I tweeted at him a clip of me discussing the WEF on Talk with his political editor.
	I think the fact that this has entered mainstream discourse, and you can easily say, just like the EU, as I said in an interview with Peter Carwell, just like the EU, they're unelected, unaccountable, and have some bad ideas.
	I think you can enter into public consciousness, and a possible pressuring politicians to ban...
	Wef influence or association with the Wef could work.
	The issue I have is there is too much money invested and we are too institutionally captured for many politicians to even admit that they are involved with the Wef, let alone go openly against them.
	Same with the fact of the ESG scores.
	They've created a get woke, go broke insurance mechanism and so even though it's unprofitable, they've ideologically captured business.
	However, it will run aground on the rocks of reality eventually.
	I just hope that not too much human suffering has to happen For things to fall apart.
	Shango98 Conor you're right to bring up the 23% mandatory environmental contribution on UK energy bills but don't forget that on top of that we also have to pay 20% VAT perfect point government has scoped to reduce the cost of every domestic energy bill in the country by 45% tomorrow if only it could divorce itself from its addiction to frivolous spending Agreed.
	I did an interview a while ago about how those 46% of every litre of petrol is tax.
	It's fuel duty and it's VAT. You could scrap that immediately overnight if you wanted to.
	But this is your point about sabotage.
	Why don't they?
	It's because they don't want to.
	It's because they're addicted to spending.
	And spending on policies that they know will only make the problem worse.
	So, the climate policy apocalypse segment.
	Let's go on to that.
	Longshanks.
	We used to be the envy of the world in every industry, particularly in manufacturing and energy, and slowly, factory by factory, industry by industry.
	It's all gone, and the people left don't have the know-how to replicate it, let alone take it to the next level.
	Reminds me of a quote from Metro last night, where Anna said that the children won't know how to work these machines, and their children will think it's made by the gods.
	Yeah, that's actually a great point.
	Reminds me of the Nietzsche quote that we spoke about when we did Notes from Underground, where every cathedral will be made a sepulcher to a dead ideal.
	And so, you know, generations down, when they've forgotten...
	The name of God.
	They're wandering through this giant building and wondering what the hell was it made for.
	Same with the Google engineers now.
	There was a tech insider that Carl covered a while ago of where he said, yeah, 10 years on, all the people that have actually programmed this stuff, you've got a bunch of Wokies that are in from the HR departments.
	And if the thing fell apart now, they wouldn't know how to rebuild it.
	So they kind of just sit around, you know, eating free breakfast.
	Yeah, it reminds me of that Graham Hancock type stuff of like, there probably were very advanced civilizations in the past And they went because they were over-reliant on technology.
	Then something went wrong with it or they didn't understand how to work it.
	And only the sort of people in the Amazon rainforest type people survive.
	The most primitive people survive.
	Yeah, well, you've got no ability to be self-sustaining.
	I mean, we can see that, for example, when the Seattle Autonomous Zone or the Chaz or the Chop or whatever it was, where a bunch of Antifa people tried to build a commune in the middle of the city and accidentally recreated Lysenkoism in throwing some soil on the grass, threw a few seeds down and wondered why they're all starving to death and why something wasn't growing immediately.
	No one can do their own food anymore.
	It's insane.
	Most people don't even know where it comes from.
	Like, if you ask them, well, where do chicken nuggets from?
	They go, shop.
	Andrew Tahl.
	Something to note about Germany's coal plants is that they burn a type of coal called lignite.
	Lignite is significantly worse for emissions because it's 70-80% water.
	Yeah, actually, when Germany reopened their coal plants, they had far more deaths from atmospheric pollution than before.
	There's also a really funny note that people are terrified about nuclear power for radiation, but more people die from fitting solar panels and falling off roofs than from any sort of radiation leaks from nuclear power plants.
	Yeah.
	JJHW, 2.4 billion litres of water is lost every day to leaks.
	About 20% of all water use in the UK. This is down to the malfeasance of water companies who would rather make monopoly profits rather than actually fix anything so we can avoid hosepipe bans.
	Yeah, I actually have a personal story where my neighbour, he had a property and he was accused by Thames Water of taking water off them without paying for it, and he never did.
	And they continued this lawsuit on and on until the point where they admitted, oh yeah, well we don't have any evidence for it, we were just trying to get some money out of you.
	And all that stress ended up causing him to have a cancerous tumour, and he just died a week after they found it.
	Perfectly healthy 70-year-old guy.
	Really lovely fella as well, but literally the family called it the Thames Water Tumour because of the stress that had gotten to his health so much.
	They just said, yeah, this is probably a stress-caused cancer tumour.
	Oh, that's horrific.
	Yeah, and I saw this leakage story the other day.
	It was about they're giving themselves bonuses, and people have said, why are you giving yourselves bonuses?
	You're leaking all this water.
	The water boss, you know, you don't deserve them.
	That's the new banker's bonuses.
	Yeah, big water, yeah.
	SH Silver, we already know that foreign adversary governments are partially responsible for the Green Agenda, a movement that is weakening the West in competition against these states when it comes to energy and innovation.
	How anyone doesn't see these lobbyists and activists as anything more than useful idiots for our competitors, driven by a skewed morality is beyond me.
	Yeah, they're actively fifth columnists, and anyone with ties to that and the funding should be...
	Well, more than investigate, let's put it that way.
	Yeah, they believe you're going to live in this permanently ecologically controlled atmosphere, whereas the world itself has extinguished species forever.
	And also, the idea that human beings are so thick that if the water starts rising up our shins, we're just going to stand at the shoreline with our wellies, rather than learning how to swim, Just stupid.
	If you want to read some of yours.
	Oh, you want to go for mine?
	Yeah, sure.
	Hitchens goes beast mode.
	So, Edward of Woodstock.
	Speaking as a public schoolboy, I find it rather puzzling how grammar schools are frowned upon.
	It's similar to what I have, but children earn the chance for themselves, which if anything is far more admirable than the vestige of old empire I went to.
	That we're still somehow subverted by leftist teachers who just had less scruples.
	This is the perfect example of crab-bucket socialism, wanting to drag people who would otherwise become successful in spite of their background for the facade of equality.
	Nailed it.
	Absolutely.
	It makes me so angry.
	You're bringing everyone down.
	My frustration is that actually sets in grammar schools as a mentality.
	So most grammar schools aren't actually proper grammar schools.
	The one I went to was so poorly mismanaged.
	It was an academy, so there were teachers credibly accused of skimming money off the top.
	So the point where the students didn't have a budget for printing out their homework worksheets, or the art department didn't have any supplies, so I had to pay for everything in my GCSEs.
	I literally, and we weren't a rich family, never have been.
	I had to go to B&Q after nights on school and just take the wallpaper samples to have something to put in my books.
	Yeah, it's not, you know, I was the poor kid in the grammar school.
	It wasn't, you know, it wasn't very glorifying.
	But then the way these are run, okay, most of the, unless you're super elite in a subject, you sink to the bottom.
	Those are sink to the bottom because there's so many kids in the class.
	You don't get any specialized help.
	Loads of the teachers don't care because most of the time they're too thick to have done anything else.
	And so they just go into teaching and they luck out because of their postcode at working there.
	And then the financials of it, I mean, it allows for corruption.
	And so it's frustrating.
	Yep.
	Lord Nervar, is that right?
	Nervar.
	Nervar, sorry.
	The moment for the abolition of...
	Sorry, I can't read.
	The movement for the abolition...
	I didn't go to a grammar school.
	The movement for the abolition of grammar school seems rooted in the Marxist idea of reducing society to the lowest common denominator.
	There's no room for excellence and meritocracy in a society ruled by the lowest standards on offer.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, Omar Awad.
	There's something really demeaning about assuming the less fortunate can't also aspire to higher standards.
	What?
	Omar Awad is the character from Four Lions.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, he's the lead guy.
	That's very funny, yeah.
	This is healthy at every size thinking.
	Oh yeah, body positivity.
	Where, not only must you not represent higher standards, but actively strive to stagnate in suboptimal conditions.
	I miss the left that wanted to raise the lower standards and close the disparity rather than remove all standards and set the divide in stone forever.
	Never existed, bro.
	Never existed.
	Maybe not, but they need to make these slightly easier to read this font, I'm telling you.
	Free Will 2112.
	No, I say it wrong.
	It's 2112, isn't it?
	From a Rush song or something.
	You will not get any reform through the civil service as it's currently constituted unless you can break the left grip on it.
	Hitchens knows this, which is why he's a pessimist.
	You have to be realistic about how far the march through the institutions has progressed.
	Oh yeah, it's progressed all the way.
	We need the Trump Schedule F thing of firing 50,000 people en masse.
	Drain the Swamp.
	Longshank, 1690.
	I can't speak for the English experience, but coming from a Northern Irish grammar school where they've basically been retained and untouched, it was a godsend to a lot of people I know who didn't come from well-off backgrounds and gave them a springboard to a good university.
	Now, granted, there was a majority of middle-class kids, but I think there was far more class mixing at my grammar than if the comprehensive system had been imposed on Northern Ireland.
	Yes, in Ireland, Hitchens notes this as an exception because of their controversial...
	Issues in Ireland, you know, the conflict there.
	It's been relatively untouched in Ireland.
	It's something that hasn't...
	I don't quite understand how I need to do more research on that, but Hitchens did know Ireland as an exception.
	Well, it's because they're just otherwise focused on other legislative issues rather than meddling.
	Right.
	And you've got relative peace.
	You don't start trying to engineer society top-down into a utopia because you're too worried about the war in the present.
	Right.
	And Colin P says, reading a lot of the articles published by journalists, our education system needs to be in dire need of grammar.
	Yeah, look at anything on Daily Mail.
	They're constantly misspelled things, even though some of their reporting is actually pretty decent.
	Because they don't know proofreaders.
	They're too busy pushing it out the door.
	Whereas Rory in the office does a wonderful job proofreading.
	And if you ever send an article to lowdiseasers.com, prepare to be chewed out for it.
	Love you, Rory.
	So on Schrodinger-Sunak, my favourite politician of all time, JJHW, all three segments today prove why everyone in the British government must be removed.
	Alright, Guy Fawkes, Lord Nerovar, realistically, are we surprised that Sunak is pandering to issues he thinks will win votes during the leadership election?
	I'm glad you find blokes are highlighting his record here, because it's easily to get netted up in nice-sounding rhetoric.
	It's important to see how Rishi will actually behave as PM. Do Truss next, please.
	We did some coverage, I did some coverage of Truss.
	The thing is with Truss is that she's a sort of like a cheese repatriation-obsessed blithering idiot, but she's not openly malicious, so it's easier to find stuff on her personal failings, like her affair with a I believe it's the sitting army general, the guy that choked out Greenpeace activists at Conservative Party dinner.
	But it's not as easy to find evidence of her sort of openly lying.
	She's made a lot of stupid mistakes in her time.
	And so she's ripe for ideological capture.
	And I wouldn't want her as a prime minister.
	But of the two, I'm going to take the bird that's going to lower my taxes rather than send me into cryptosurfdom, I suppose.
	I actually think I still get a vote on this, but I haven't received the ballot paper yet.
	Leo Robillard.
	This is total culture war now, stripped of all pretense.
	There you go.
	Omar Awad.
	There's a difference between not considered and not reported.
	They absolutely considered it to be politically inconvenient.
	They probably prohibited any kind of reporting on it.
	Scumbags.
	Yeah, this is exactly the same as one of the police at the Manchester bombings thought the guy was suspicious, but he didn't want to go up to and search his bag because he was afraid of being called racist.
	That kind of ideology literally got children killed.
	Not good.
	X, Y, and Z. At least Trust got rid of woke Stonewall funding.
	Sure.
	Worked to get rid of Stonewall funding, yeah, because she tried to say, look, you shouldn't...
	Loads of institutions still stayed with them, but she tried to say you shouldn't.
	This thing I think of Trust, she does at least have the right idea.
	She says you shouldn't be doing that.
	And she worked with Kemi Bade not to get, you know, women...
	Get that awful language that takes away...
	Deletes women removed from documents.
	Yeah, yeah, sure.
	I mean, they weren't successful, and then as soon as the self-ID law passed, they did tweet out, on Pride Month, you can now change your gender.
	So yeah, Kemi Bateman tweeted that out.
	Again, Kemi's not our guy, guys!
	Free Will 2112.
	She won't break her programming to answer the questions.
	She won't or can't say.
	She's just a talking head with the imagination of a potato.
	Yeah, she...
	Fair.
	Anonymity?
	Enemy?
	Okay.
	Rishi would only care about grooming gangs if his...
	That's...
	No, hang on a minute.
	That's...
	Nah.
	I'm not reading that one out.
	Jesus, man.
	Come on.
	Free Will 2112.
	There is an attempt to create a shadow world with government with Tony Blair's third-way politics as the template.
	They call it stakeholder capitalism.
	Yeah, I've covered that.
	And as part of its remit has co-opted most political leaders and parties across the Western world.
	This is why they can go out of their way to ruin any politician who does not fit the new paradigm, like Trump, Farage, Corbyn, and Sanders.
	Mm-hmm.
	Kind of.
	I mean, Bernie Sanders has literally spoken when he was in a commune years ago about exposing children to pornographic literature to make them more docile.
	So, again, Bernie Sanders is not nearly as outside the mainstream as you think.
	He even said he's gone back on his issue about open borders, etc.
	So, no.
	They want pliant, bland leaders like Cameron and Trudeau, Sama and Sunak.
	Yes, that's very valid.
	So that's about all we've got.
	Can we quickly do an honourable mention?
	Yeah, please do.
	Because Generico101 says, Guys, please, I can only stomach so many black pills.
	Are we really so doomed?
	Are the pods and the bugs in our future so inevitable?
	You guys are great at identifying the issues, but you have so much talent and brainpower.
	that means you're in the studio, and you are yet to devise any solutions.
	What is the counter-weft revolution meant to look like?
	What should we be doing?
	Is there anything that can be done?
	I just think it's a really important question.
	We can get very black pill.
	Most of these segments are because our culture is collapsing, but that is a good question.
	I know some people here are concerned about that.
	Yeah, I think we need a great retreat while the great reset is being enacted.
	Basically, stock up, find a solid family, find a solid community, ensure that you are isolated from when, or insulated as much as possible when the collapse comes, because something is going to happen majorly.
	There's going to be strife.
	And when you have that, you're going to be the most prosperous.
	Like you said, self-sufficiency.
	Make sure that you can rebuild when people have amnesia about what has gone.
	Anyway, I'm getting that look from John because he wants a nap.
	Thank you very much for watching.
	Rejoin us tomorrow at one o'clock where Carl and I will be going for the news.

▲