Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 19, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:34

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #571

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Thursday, the 19th of January, 2029.
	I'm joined by Nick Buckley.
	Hi, Nick.
	Good afternoon.
	Nice to be here again.
	Good.
	And today we're going to be talking about the WEF. They're currently in the middle of their World Economic Forum meeting of 2023, abortion in the UK, and then just a collection this week in stupid leftist nonsense, basically, because they just won't stop and it's just always in my timeline.
	And so I reckon fine.
	But before we begin, on Monday afternoon on lowseas.com, we have a premium live hangout called The Price of Apostasy, which is going to be talking about Andrew Bridgen being excommunicated from the Conservative Party.
	For not being entirely on the narrative that the vaccines are safe and effective and nothing has ever happened that's been negative from them.
	It's going to be interesting.
	And obviously, you can imagine, we can't put that anywhere else other than on the website.
	So anyway, let's begin.
	Let's talk about Emperor Schwab, the first global emperor of the world.
	Emperor Schwab is obviously a joke title, and I don't actually think it's actually going to turn out the way that he expects.
	But it is interesting how the world is getting around and genuflecting to a German guy of no particular importance.
	That sort of rings a bell.
	Have we not seen something like this a little bit before?
	It's genuinely...
	If you were going to design a Hollywood villain, he would have been born in Nazi Germany in a place called Ravensburg.
	And he would have a very German accent, he'd look like a tortoise, and he would somehow be in control of the minds of the world leaders.
	Has he got a cat?
	I don't know.
	I mean, I don't see why he wouldn't.
	But yeah, he does look like an archetypal bomb villain.
	Yes, he does.
	But anyway, before we go on, if you want to support us, go over to lowstudies.com, sign up for £5 a month, and go and read or listen to the audio on Connor's excellent deep think, the WEF's ESGs are the mark of the beast, in which he explains what the WEF's connection with the ESG scores are.
	And of course, it's all intertwined, as you might expect.
	But anyway, Connor does a great job of laying it out there.
	So let's go over and have a look at what's happening in Davos at the moment.
	Well, 5,000 Swiss Army soldiers being deployed to protect the World Economic Forum.
	Only 5,000, eh?
	And Davos was the boss of the Daleks.
	I don't think there's any connection.
	I think it's linking in now.
	Mimetically linked.
	But yeah, so the post-millennial reported that 5,000 Swiss Army soldiers have been deployed to Davos.
	But the thing is, there's a quick fact check on this from Newsweek.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	It's not 5,000.
	It's up to 5,000.
	It's like, okay.
	Fine.
	Not much of a difference.
	Yeah, well, okay.
	So it could well be 5,000.
	Depends on how many protesters arrive, I suppose.
	Anyway, so before we begin, let's have a quick flashback to Klaus Schwab's influence, shall we say, around the world in democratic governments.
	Let's play his first clip.
	What we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, that we penetrate the cabinets.
	So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I We know that half of this cabinet or even more half of this cabinet are actually young global leaders of the world economy.
	Isn't that remarkable?
	So they go on TV in front of cameras and just start saying, yeah, half of the Canadian cabinet are our guys and they're doing what we want.
	Isn't that just amazing?
	This, I mean, the...
	WF, the public's knowledge of it, has only really started this last year or two, maybe.
	It's been brewing for a while.
	Oh, yeah, absolutely, but...
	It's becoming part of the public consciousness.
	Yeah, you could get away with all this before, but I don't think you can get away with it for much longer saying stuff like that.
	But the question of who's actually at this year is very strange because, I mean, as Troy Nails here is asking, why is the FBI director speaking at the World Economic Forum?
	What's the director of the FBI got to do?
	I mean, okay, if it was about elected politicians and business leaders coming to discuss the world's problems, I mean, that sounds nefarious to me, but, like, why would the director of the FBI need to be there?
	It's interesting.
	And anyway, so we get various politicians turning up at the World Economic Forum, such as a Democratic senator called Joe Manchin, and he has some opinions on things.
	Let's watch.
	The problem that we have is the open press system and basically all the platforms.
	So if you're able to have five platforms, social platforms, that you can basically Personify the extremes.
	Somebody who is extremely right or extremely left.
	And it seems like that is the majority speaking.
	They're not the majority.
	But they're basically driving everybody to make a decision.
	What side are you on?
	Are you on this side or this side?
	And in America, there's only one side, the American side.
	It's not the Republican side or Democrat.
	We should be coming together to solve the problems from a different angle.
	Isn't that interesting?
	The problem that we have is the open press and all the plurality of platforms, because it allows people to express opinions that are either extremely one way or extremely another way.
	And I find it really interesting, he says, there's only one side, the American side.
	He's like, we'll try and convince your fellow Democrats about that.
	Considering that they're constantly going on about, what about immigrants?
	What about minorities?
	What about hyphenated Americans?
	There's not just the one side.
	There are lots of sides.
	But he has got a point.
	He does have a point.
	He has a point that we are...
	All our societies now are splitting along race lines, sexuality lines, you know, political line.
	It doesn't matter.
	And the point I would get out of that was that's what he foresees is the big problem.
	It is.
	And he's not wrong that political polarization is a consequence of a free press.
	Yeah.
	But this isn't exactly the first time that we've had political polarization because of the free press.
	But what can be done about it?
	Restricting people's freedoms?
	Centralizing all the platforms?
	Well, you have to look at the pros and cons.
	So, you know, the cons of the free press of what we just described, then it can, you know, split people.
	You can have people you don't want on there speaking.
	But the pros of having a free press is we stop tyrants and we stop it turning into a dictatorship.
	So you have to pick the one you think is more important.
	We have to endure the polarization and the polarization can only be stopped By discourse between the two sides.
	Yes.
	That's the problem.
	The issue, and this is something I always found really strange, is that we never actually, it should be some sort of mandatory thing where politicians have to talk to one another, like in a public arena or something like that.
	I mean, BBC Question Time is actually quite a good thing for this, because at least they have at least one right-wing voice, and then they field questions.
	But the Americans don't do anything like that.
	And what I'm tired of is people blaming social media.
	This is a human trait.
	Social media enables people who want to do this to do this.
	Social media hasn't created this.
	This was already within us, splitting up, having got another side, trying to get people onto your side.
	Social media is just the latest tool we use in this.
	Yeah, it just accelerates the problem, but it didn't create the problem.
	But anyway, so Klaus Schaub is going to tell us the role of the metaverse in his new global order.
	Let's watch.
	The Global Collaboration Village is a pioneering effort to use the metaverse for the public good, to create global cooperation and to strengthen global cooperation in the metaverse or using metaverse technologies.
	And we are pleased to create this Global Collaboration Village In cooperation with Accenture and with Microsoft.
	So the idea is to bring all the stakeholders, governments, business, civil society together on a continued, sustained basis.
	This is the next phase, the next big phase of development in the virtual world.
	It's especially important for this vision of a village without borders.
	It's an open development process and it is an open development philosophy.
	We're creating at Microsoft, through Microsoft Mesh, a software platform that will be accessible to people through a variety of different hardware devices.
	This particular project, in our view, is of enormous importance for the world because of the role that the World Economic Forum plays in the world.
	This is an opportunity to create a village without borders.
	So the interesting thing there to me is not really the use of the metaverse, because I don't know how much that's really going to catch on.
	It's the underlying philosophy that underpins this.
	A village without borders...
	Who's in this village?
	Well, it has to be everyone, because it doesn't have a border, so there's no particular delineating place where you're not in the village.
	So, essentially, the remit is global.
	I mean, it's not anything revelatory to say, but who gave them the permission to take what's mine and incorporate it into their village?
	This is my question.
	Where did this arrogance come from?
	It comes from world leaders who have always been arrogant, who always think they know best.
	This is lacking so...
	I mean, if we want to live in a democracy, this is lacking any Hint any sense of democracy whatsoever.
	Put a pin there.
	We'll come back to that in a second because that's exactly right.
	And so here's a speech by Idris Elba, the actor, at the World Economic Forum 2023 meeting in which he just says what we're all thinking.
	Let's watch.
	We understand the power and the change that That can come from this room.
	Davos has become the de facto platform for governments, for corporates, for philanthropists, for activism, for protesters to mobilize quickly, which is why we're all here, because we can move with agility and speed, and your speed is needed now.
	Become the de facto center for world governance.
	Yeah, I agree, Idris.
	That is something that is the problem.
	And so, what are the problems?
	Well, it turns out there are many problems.
	Crisis after crisis after crisis.
	Non-stop crises, in fact, as Klaus explains to us.
	We couldn't meet at a more challenging time.
	We are confronted with so many crises simultaneously.
	What does it need to master the future?
	I think to have a platform where all stakeholders of global society are engaged.
	Governments, business, civil societies, young generation, and I could go on.
	I think is the first step.
	Only if we are involved with all our passion To construct and to shape the future, I'm convinced we will overcome the present multi-crisis.
	Master the future.
	That's an ominous sounding phrase, isn't it?
	I mean, who is the master of the future?
	The answer is, of course, nobody.
	Because the future is unwritten and a lot is going to happen that we can't predict.
	But we've got lots of crises.
	Of course, the scope of the crises.
	Not local, are they?
	They're not small scale.
	No, it's quite wild.
	Let's watch.
	Dear friends, scientifically, this is not a climate crisis.
	We are now facing something deeper.
	Mass extinction, air pollution, undermining ecosystem functions, really putting humanity's future at risk.
	This is a planetary crisis.
	This is a safety crisis, but above all, it is also a justice crisis.
	Many areas in the world are uninhabitable.
	This uninhabitable zone is increasing.
	If we continue with our greenhouse gas emissions, then by 2070, as many as 3 billion people will live in uninhabitable zones.
	How are they going to live in uninhabitable zones?
	Nice way of saying they'll be dead.
	I don't know if it is.
	I think what it is, is their view of what uninhabitable is, is it's not very comfortable for a middle class person who lives in somewhere nice.
	It can mean whatever you want it to be.
	But I don't think three billion people will actually live in uninhabitable zones.
	But you can see the scope of the plans.
	It's not just a localized crisis.
	No, no, it's a planetary crisis.
	Like, everyone on the planet, you're in crisis.
	Be afraid.
	Be terrified.
	And it's not even just the planet.
	It transcends the planet.
	Let's watch.
	And also our faith leaders.
	They know that this crisis is much more than physical and environmental schisms.
	We have a deeply wounded spirit as a people that is in desperate need of healing and restoration.
	And we must look to our almighty creator to find our proper place in humanity.
	It's nice that they're going light-hearted now and encouraging fancy dress.
	Yeah, she's apparently a Native American leader.
	I mean, she doesn't look very Native American, but I wouldn't know.
	But the point is, it's not just a material planetary crisis.
	We're in a spiritual crisis.
	Everything about what it is to be human is in crisis.
	This is the driving impetus that justifies everything that they're doing.
	Now, I would say that this is a product of kind of echo chamber thinking, where there are a bunch of people who have talked themselves up and up and up into a radical position that will justify, well, horrible things.
	But we're not finished cranking the lever, putting the pressure in.
	Let's watch this from Al Gore, Mr.
	Correct Predictions himself.
	We're still putting 162 million tons into it every single day.
	And the accumulated amount is now trapping as much extra heat as would be released by 600,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every single day on the Earth.
	That's what's boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers and the rain bombs and sucking the moisture out of the land and creating the droughts and melting the ice and raising the sea level and causing these waves of climate refugees predicted to reach One billion in this century?
	Look at the xenophobia and political authoritarian trends that have come from just a few million refugees.
	What about a billion?
	We would lose our capacity for self-governance on this world.
	We have to act.
	I must have missed some news articles because I didn't realize we were in so much trouble.
	I didn't realize the oceans were boiling.
	I didn't realise there were rain bombs, whatever that is.
	600,000 atomic bombs going off every day!
	It's the equivalent of, yes, we're told, and we'll lose our capacity for self-government, which surely is not a problem from their perspective, actually.
	But no, that's mental, and obviously extreme, and like all of Al Gore's other predictions, is not going to come true.
	Al Gore predicted that by 2013 there'd be no ice left on the polar ice caps and no more polar bears.
	Neither of those things are true.
	In fact, there are more polar bears than ever.
	Anyway, so the point being is that these people do see themselves as being different to you.
	They see themselves as being the world controllers.
	I should have plugged up Brave New World Book Club, really.
	They definitely see themselves as the world controllers, and they see themselves as a privileged and special class.
	As John Kerry just tells us.
	And when you stop and think about it, it's pretty extraordinary.
	That we, a select group of human beings, because of whatever touched us at some point in our lives, are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet.
	I mean, it's so almost extraterrestrial to think about, quote, saving the planet.
	If you said that to most people, most people, they think you're just a crazy, tree-hugging, lefty, liberal, you know, do-gooder, whatever.
	And there's no relationship.
	But really, that's where we are.
	Just crazy, isn't it?
	Insanely arrogant.
	Hmm.
	All leaders are like this, you know, go back a thousand, two thousand, ten thousand years.
	We have certain traits in certain people who want to be the leader of the tribe.
	And then the leader of the region, the leader of the country.
	Countries aren't big enough now.
	Now I've got to be leader of the world.
	Well, I mean, this is literally what they used to write in their own sort of personal inscriptions, like the Assyrian kings would be the king of the four corners of the earth.
	The Chinese emperor had the mandate of heaven.
	It's unbelievable how disconnected from reality these people seem to be.
	But they're special.
	They're different to you.
	They've been touched by the divine.
	They are above you mere normals.
	You don't even understand about saving the planet.
	God, ridiculous.
	And they're very aware that you are the problem.
	Let's watch.
	We need To overcome the most critical fragmentation.
	And the most critical fragmentation is between those who take a constructive attitude and those who are just bystanders, observers and even go into the negative, critical and confrontational attitude.
	But the spirit of Davos is positive.
	It's constructive.
	You're not going into a confrontational or negative attitude, are you, Nick?
	I hope I've not got a reputation for that.
	Never have I. But this is the point.
	So they have delineated.
	We are the masters of the entire world.
	It's our job to save the entire world.
	And you can either save the world with us, or you are confrontational and negative.
	And who knows what follows from this delineation.
	Thankfully, there are at least some people who are not having any of this, like Ron DeSantis.
	Who accurately characterized it recently.
	Let's watch.
	They do this thing in Davos.
	They're doing it next week.
	All these elites come in, you know, the World Economic Forum.
	And basically, you know, their vision is they run everything and everybody else is just like a serf, like a peasant.
	Very, very problematic, I think, in the direction they want to go.
	And what I've said in Florida is that type of stuff coming out of Davos, those policies are dead on arrival in the state of Florida.
	Bravo.
	And he's not wrong.
	That's exactly how they see it.
	I mean, what's really interesting is to get into the World Economic Forum this year, apparently, you have to take, at least journalists and participants apparently, have to take a PCR test upon arrival, and if you don't take the test, then your ID is deactivated.
	But if you take it and you test positive for COVID, your ID is also deactivated.
	But there is no chance that that happens to Klaus Schwab.
	Right?
	Oh yeah.
	There's no chance that Klaus Schwab gets denied for being testing positive for COVID to his own meeting.
	So you can see in their own organisation there is this two-tier system that DeSantis is calling out here.
	Oh yeah, there are going to be the people who run everything and then the peasants.
	And you are a peasant.
	So let's be clear.
	So I thought we'd take a quick look at the WEF guest list this year, which is interesting for several reasons.
	So if you scroll down, you can see it's huge.
	There's lots and lots of world leaders there.
	And if you can scroll right the way down, because it's an alphabetical order, go to the United Kingdom at the bottom, you can see that Grant Shapps, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy of the United Kingdom is there.
	Keir Starmer is there, Leader of the Opposition.
	Kenny Badenock is there, Zach Goldsmith.
	The Lord Mayor of the City of London is there.
	The Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer from the Labour Party is there.
	The Chief of MI6 is there.
	Hanging out with the Chief of the FBI, I suppose.
	And of course, the Dark Lord himself, Tony Blair, is there.
	So it's not a partisan issue.
	Both parties have been captured by this.
	But this is not as good as it looks, and there have been rumblings that actually there are people who are noticeably absent.
	This is quite an interesting article on Sky News, actually.
	Because the person who wrote this, Ed Conway, points out that, look, there is a concern with the convening of power in Davos, which is unaccountable.
	Who gets to decide?
	And, of course, all of these people are direct beneficiaries of the centralization of this power and wealth and the continuance of the global order.
	So it is worrying that these people would...
	I don't know.
	And so that's very interesting.
	The crisis, the post-COVID and the Ukraine war crisis seem to be damaging Davos' influence here.
	And so, who knows, maybe this is a sign of weakness.
	And there is also another very interesting article that was published by The Guardian.
	We'll go through this in a little bit of depth because this is actually really interesting and it tells us a lot more about Emperor Schwab's own opinion of himself and the way he runs his organisation.
	So they say,"...a group of current and former WEF staff members have contacted the Guardian, said that 82-year-old Schwab is a law unto himself and surrounded himself with nobodies who are incapable of running the organisation that he has founded." That's interesting.
	Who could have imagined that this German man thought of himself in such a way?
	Klaus has been at the helm of the WEF for 52 years.
	He was born in 1938.
	122 of 195 states in the world right now did not even exist.
	He is completely unaccountable to anyone inside and outside the organisation.
	The group said it wants to remain anonymous.
	We are hesitant to come forward as Klaus is very well connected and can make life very difficult for us even after we leave the WEF. There isn't much of a future for the WEF beyond Klaus, not just because there isn't a clear successor...
	Interesting how the need for a successor here...
	Emperors tend to not want to have a successor because that's how you get stabbed in the back.
	Quite often it is, yeah, especially if it's not one of your own sons.
	Even then, sometimes it happens if it's one of your own sons.
	But also, if you don't have a successor, then the empire is thrown into a succession crisis and a civil war.
	So it's actually a smart emperor will actually have someone prepared.
	But anyway, he says there's no clear successor, they say, but also because his manager's board is such a viper's nest that senior leadership will be at each other's throats the moment the old man pops off.
	So something like the death of Alexander the Great we're looking at in the future of Klaus Schwab here.
	Klaus picks his leaders using the same criteria Putin uses to pick his deputies for the state of Duma.
	Loyalty, guile, and sex appeal.
	The quality of the people at the top is reflective of the type of people who work for the rest of the organization.
	And the head of one UK company, again, all of these people are kept anonymous, but I do find this very interesting.
	One head of one UK company agreed there appeared to be no success at Schwab.
	He says, my impression is that he will die with his boots on.
	Not very wise if you're creating the first global government, which is what's happening.
	What do you make of all this?
	I think part of this has come out of the failings of the UN. So the UN was set up so countries could speak to each other, liaise with each other, and it doesn't work.
	It's never worked.
	So this guy set up the WAF. And in the beginning, you know, 10 years ago, I can understand why world leaders and people would want to go, because important people are there.
	So politicians in the UK across the world can have private conversations with people without the civil service involved, without it being minuted, and they can have some real good discussions and maybe get something sorted, because...
	Tomorrow on Monday when I go back to work, if me and you talk, we're going to have bureaucrats involved and we're never going to get things solved.
	I think that's probably why people went in the beginning.
	I think they've got their own...
	I mean, I wouldn't even say it's underhand.
	I wouldn't even say it's a conspiracy theory.
	No, it's not a conspiracy theory.
	They're telling us exactly what they want to do.
	And part of me understands it because when I was a kid and you'd watch science fiction movies on TV, in the future, the world had a world government.
	And that's because over a million years, thousands of years, we all bred with each other.
	Our civilizations all became one and all became...
	It's the Whig teleology that eventually humanity will have a united world government because essentially we're all the same, really, as the Whig view of things.
	Yeah, and I can see that being one future.
	But we're nowhere near people giving up their countries, their sovereignty, their religions, their culture.
	Their differences.
	I mean, we just look at some of the cities in the UK and we can't integrate people in the UK. So how are we going to integrate people across the world?
	So if it's possible, it's tens of thousands of years in the future.
	But the fact that we've got some A-list guests now not attending, it's because the WEF are getting a very poor reputation of being this underhand, sneaky, backdoor organisation.
	So politicians now don't want to be accused.
	You imagine someone running to be a Prime Minister in the UK. I'm going to do this, this, this, this.
	But are you?
	Are you taking your orders from somebody else?
	Which is exactly what it looks like.
	And so they know that will damage them being elected.
	So I think big politicians now and future politicians will, I would imagine, will start keeping away from this unless they believe in this.
	Which a lot of them do.
	I mean, Schwab literally saying we've penetrated the cabinets of government.
	I mean, that's sinister.
	You'd think that would be enough in a democracy to make sure you were never voted in again to that cabinet, because we have this guy saying he's your boss.
	I mean, you would think it would be illegal and treasonous, actually.
	Like, you surely can't have politicians who are beholden to foreign powers.
	Can't be, right?
	You would think.
	I would think.
	Yeah.
	You would have to prove that they're a foreign power.
	But I do get your point.
	There is a point there.
	You've got someone saying, that person has fealty to me, and I'm elected by nobody, by the way.
	Your loyalty is surely to Canada, Mr.
	Trudeau.
	Yes.
	Except, oh, I'm a big fan of Klaus Schwab, though.
	But yeah, so I just find it interesting.
	And again, they just do it all in front of cameras, so there's no conspiracy here.
	This is just what they say.
	And it's all a part of an ideology.
	You can see this sort of crazed globalist ideology that the planet's about to die, humanity's about to be wiped out, three billion people are going to live in uninhabitable places.
	It's insane, and very few of the predictions about this sort of subject in the past have ever come true.
	I'm not really inclined to believe that the predictions of the future are going to be true either.
	So anyway...
	I welcome our new globalist overlords like everyone else.
	Let's move on.
	Yes, my section.
	First question to you on...
	No, I don't support abortion.
	No, no, I knew that.
	That wasn't the question.
	How many babies do we abort in the UK every year?
	It's in the hundreds of thousands, and a lot of them are Irish.
	It's 220,000 babies per year.
	I don't know about the Irish.
	Actually, Ireland recently legalized abortions, so it's probably much fewer, but it used to be that a lot of Irish women would come over to get an abortion because they could.
	Yeah.
	I'm not sure what those numbers were.
	I like to tease people online sometimes by saying the biggest killers are females in the UK called pregnant women.
	Yes.
	Because they kill over 100,000 females every year.
	That's correct.
	But they're big into equity because they also kill over 100,000 baby boys a year.
	Pretty non-discriminatory.
	Absolutely, absolutely.
	Nearly all my life, abortion in the UK has been seen as a settled issue.
	Yeah, same.
	I was brought up thinking abortion was normal, acceptable, nobody ever really talked about it, but this last...
	Five, six years on social media, more and more people are talking about it, and I don't think it's a settled issue anymore in the UK. The Americans are doing their best to really drive home the point that, hang on, isn't this murdering babies?
	Yeah.
	And they are right.
	I mean, in Britain, essentially what we did is just didn't think about it.
	Yeah.
	It's just out of sight, out of mind.
	When I was doing my MEP tour in, I can't remember which city I was in, but this chap was like, look, I can't square this abortion thing.
	Have you got any thoughts on that?
	I was like, I can't either.
	It doesn't seem right, does it?
	The first thing I want in this debate is I'd like some honesty.
	It's a complicated issue, and I'm not saying I'm pro-abortion or against abortion.
	I can see both sides.
	I am more on the, I think it's horrendous what we're doing to babies, and I'll get a bit more into that.
	But because we thought it was a settled issue, and because it was such a controversial issue, people have gone, oh, I'm just going to leave that.
	It's already happening, the laws are in place, it seems settled, I'm not going to talk about it.
	But that was the case with slavery, and that was the case with Brexit.
	And we never know when the people have had enough and will change things because they don't believe in it anymore.
	So I don't think it's a closed issue anymore.
	And let me state for the record that I'm also a hypocrite because I know when I was in...
	No, no.
	I know when I was in my teens or my early twenties, if one of my girlfriends got pregnant, I would have pushed her towards abortion because I'd seen that as an easy way out for me.
	Would I do it now?
	No, I wouldn't do it now.
	But I know for a fact that my personal convenience so many decades ago would have trumped the life of that baby.
	So I am a hypocrite myself.
	And just because something's motherly wrong, it doesn't mean we don't do it.
	Some things are, and this is how I've always described it in previous times, is that it was a necessary evil sometimes.
	Sometimes, you know, if it's to save the mother's life or something like that, you can view it as a necessary evil, but it's an evil nonetheless.
	Yeah.
	That's the way I've always looked.
	And I think that's a great way of describing it because sometimes all you're left with is immoral choices and you've still got to make one.
	We've been brought up knowing murder is wrong.
	It's in the Ten Commandments.
	And people say to me, you know, the state shouldn't murder babies.
	It doesn't seem very morally complex, does it?
	But the state murders lots of people.
	Yeah, yeah.
	We pay for an army that kills our enemies.
	I'm pro-death man, I think.
	Yep, me too.
	But we have the police officers who kill terrorists and kill violent criminals.
	We also have the NHS. Who won't fund certain treatments and medicines which then make someone die earlier.
	So the state does these things and that's how complicated it can be that there's no simple black or white, right or wrong.
	It's very different.
	And then you talked about, you know, Having an abortion if it's going to save the mother's life.
	So if a mother's got four kids and this pregnancy is going wrong and it's going to kill her, what do we do there?
	What do we do when a girl has been raped?
	Been raped by a father, so it's incest as well.
	What do we do there?
	Those cases are the outliers.
	I was going to say that they make up like less than one percent.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So they're the outliers.
	So let's not talk about, which I've not got an answer for the outliers because it's so complicated.
	Actually, I think on the case of the outliers, I could say, okay, necessary evil.
	Yes.
	You know, okay, fine.
	You know, I don't like it.
	It's still an evil, but I can accept the moral justification for why you feel it needs to be done.
	Yeah.
	And it doesn't seem that we have much of a choice in those situations.
	Hmm.
	But the problem isn't the category of necessary evil.
	The problem is the category of elective abortions, which are 99% of all abortions.
	That's bad.
	And it's the numbers.
	We know 220,000 girls are not being raped by their fathers every year, been impregnated.
	It isn't that, it's less than 1%.
	Yeah, we know there's just such an unbelievably small number.
	So, looking at the majority abortions, I want to look at three things.
	Creation of life, fetus rights, and bodily integrity.
	Because I think they're the three points people need to understand.
	So, if you look at image two, When would you say life begins?
	Right.
	So the problem with the formulation of this is that it's been kind of polluted by American discourse.
	Because on a technical term, the life never really stops, right?
	So the ovum is alive, the sperm is alive, and they produce a life that has never not really been alive, right?
	It's just not been the same organism.
	Before they interact.
	So these things aren't dead when they come into contact.
	And they, as I understand it, fuse to form a fertile gamete.
	And then this develops naturally into a new human.
	And so at no point was this never not alive, really.
	But the traditional answer is life begins at conception, because of course we don't So, the question, when does human life begin?
	I would say that you can't really debate that at the point of conception it is a human and it is alive.
	So that is true.
	Is it a person?
	Does it have rights?
	Does it have various other questions?
	Well, this is something else, but it's always been alive.
	It's a moment of conception.
	And I agree.
	That's what almost every biological scientist will say.
	Yeah, it seems to be the science.
	Life starts at conception.
	The conception may not look like me and you, but it's a human life.
	It has its own unique DNA at that time.
	People say, well, it's just a clump of cells at that point, and human life really begins when we're looking at brain function, when we're looking at movement, and when we're looking at the heartbeat.
	And if that's what people want to say, then we're looking at six weeks old.
	Yeah, I was going to say, I'm a father.
	My wife has been pregnant six times.
	We've had three miscarriages.
	And I've seen more than enough scans to know that really early on in the pregnancy, you get the heartbeat.
	But by like 12 weeks, it's all there.
	It's all there.
	You've still got another like 20 weeks to go.
	I've seen scans of my wife being pregnant.
	We can just see the baby moving around.
	You can see the arms and the head and see the heart beating and there's kicking and it's all there.
	It's all there.
	And all that's there from six weeks.
	And then when people say, it's a clump of cells, it doesn't move.
	Well, what happens if I was, or somebody was in a coma, a vegetative state didn't move?
	Are they still human?
	Because they don't move anymore.
	What happens if you need an iron lung to breathe or a pacemaker to beat your heart?
	Are you still human?
	Because you're still a clump of cells, but you can't breathe for yourself.
	All these questions need answering.
	And it comes back to who defines what a human is.
	Well, this is why they will suddenly start arguing for personhood.
	Because things are human that aren't people, as in you don't suggest that the newly conceived fetus is a person, because the concept of personhood requires a form of social interaction.
	And it's a kind of cognitive bias, actually.
	We project onto people as in we are able to empathize with them.
	We are able to have discourse with them.
	We are able to see ourselves in them.
	And if we can't see ourselves in, like the fetus has just been, then we say, well, that's not something I recognize as me.
	And so it's a kind of projection onto the thing.
	But from a technical perspective, it's never not been a human.
	And so if it actually matters whether it's a human, which I think it does, because I think actually, says the atheist, there might be something sacred about being a human.
	And if there isn't, we should certainly act like there is.
	Then actually, everyone gets to decide.
	And the answer always has to be, well, it is a human because factually, objectively, it is a human.
	And therefore, we can't just sit there and say, well, I feel like depersoning this human, because actually, that's evil.
	You don't get to just deperson people.
	And if that's the case, why can't I just deperson you?
	What stops you?
	Well, I can talk.
	I don't care.
	You know, I don't like you.
	I don't have your opinion.
	And so suddenly, you understand how the Holocaust happened.
	I can just sit there arbitrarily depersoning people if I just decide on the correct set of criteria.
	And what's the correct set of criteria?
	What's what I feel is correct?
	Well, yeah, that's your own biases.
	That's your own prejudices.
	And I'm sorry, I just don't think that that's a satisfactory way for us to decide who gets to live or die.
	And that's exactly what happens because as humans, we treat other humans better than we treat any other animal.
	Well, actually, and sometimes we treat them much worse.
	I've seen people treat dogs way better than they treat each other.
	Yeah, in some cases.
	But legally and on the whole, we treat humans better than we treat any other animal.
	And if we can pick a group of humans and then say they're not human, We kill animals very easily.
	And then you mentioned the Holocaust.
	That's because the Nazi Germany told everybody that Jews are not human.
	And if you're not human, we can do what we want with you.
	And that's what we need to be really careful because who defines what a human is, unless it's biology, because you and me or someone else can fall into that group that somebody else has now deemed not human.
	And this also prevents us from having to extend human rights to robots, because if it's the sort of sentience of a person or the emotional projection we put on something that we imbue with personhood, then we have to say that, oh, aliens have got human rights.
	Robots have got human rights.
	Dolphins might have human rights, but none of these things are human.
	They don't deserve human rights.
	We might want to give them moral consideration for all sorts of reasons, but if we're going to have a category that is human rights, it can only apply to humans.
	Great segue into the next question heading, which is, are fetus rights human rights?
	Well, fetus is another way of saying baby.
	Yeah.
	Babies are human.
	So they should have human rights.
	Yes.
	Absolutely.
	Did you know that a fetus has no rights in the UK? I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised to hear it.
	Of a baby only has rights the second it leaves the womb.
	Really?
	So once it's born, human rights kicking up to that point, it has no rights in the UK. But isn't the maximum limit for an abortion in the UK something like 20 weeks or something like that?
	24 weeks, no questions asked.
	You can abort a baby in UK up to the day you give birth.
	Really?
	All you need is a doctor to sign it off.
	And the reason for a doctor to sign it off could be as little as a cleft lip.
	There's no reason to kill a baby.
	You can abort a nine-month-old baby if you can get a doctor signed off with a cleft lip.
	Does it happen that often?
	No, I bet it doesn't, but still.
	But people think it's 24 weeks.
	No, you can kill babies in this country up to nine months if you have a doctor signed off.
	But even then, I'm not happy with 24 weeks.
	I mean, I've had to research this in previous segments.
	And we are very permissive compared to most European countries.
	A lot of European countries, it's between like 13 and 18 weeks.
	And like I said, I've seen plenty of baby scans.
	It's all there at 13 weeks.
	It's all there.
	So it's like you are killing a baby.
	I can accept where it's like the morning after pill, fine.
	There's nothing that you could conceive of being human suffering in that, fine.
	And very early, even then I could probably go, okay, fair enough, it's very, very early.
	But when you get 24 weeks, it just seems monstrous to me.
	And then up until the point of birth, it's definitely monstrous.
	So when you're looking at a late-term abortion in the UK, The doctor has to kill the baby in the womb first because if the baby comes out, then you'll be charged with murder if you kill the baby once it leaves the womb.
	So doctor has to go in through Inside the woman, with a hypodermic needle, looking at the TV screen, he has to find the heart of the baby, he has to inject poison into the baby's heart to kill it before they can pull it out.
	And if they can't pull it out, they have to go in the faucet and they have to break off the arms and legs.
	I don't mean to sound so squeamish about it, but it really is awful.
	It's absolutely terrible.
	So...
	I just want to say, right, my wife's had three miscarriages.
	I've seen them all, right?
	And so it's definitely a baby.
	And the idea of killing it and pulling it apart is just horrific.
	Genuinely horrific.
	There's people, doctors who have performed abortions, who then have had to stop because they've said, I can't do this.
	Well, yeah, it's going to do some serious damage to your soul.
	Yeah.
	Absolutely.
	Now, if a woman's pregnant and I punch her in the stomach and kill the baby...
	Then you're a murderer.
	I mean, you think that...
	Is that not the case?
	No, it's not the case because the baby has no rights.
	So the baby's not...
	But it comes under something called child destruction.
	Right.
	So it's good that they call what's inside a child.
	Yeah, that is a start.
	They don't call it murder, they call it destruction.
	Like it's just a piece of property.
	Yeah.
	But the maximum penalty for that is life in jail.
	Same as being a murderer.
	Seems quite high considering the crime is more like criminal damage than murder.
	It sounds like a punishment for murder without being called a murder.
	And I'm glad.
	Don't get me wrong, I'm glad.
	I would like to call it a murder though.
	But fetuses can't have human rights because if they do...
	Then it's state-sanctioned murder.
	That's what abortion is.
	So therefore, you cannot give them human rights.
	But for me, the second of conception, the human, therefore the human rights.
	What we could do is change the wording of the human rights, and we called it birth person's rights.
	Or we could even get rid of all children's, we called it adult rights.
	So, I have to say, I really don't like this kind of limbo, because they're definitely towards the end of a pregnancy.
	Like, it's definitely a person, you know?
	You see it kicking, you see it...
	Like, my wife has told me so many times about, like, the child...
	The baby in her has moods, right?
	It has moods.
	She can...
	Some days it will kick her relentlessly because of something she's eaten or something.
	And it's like, right, he didn't like that.
	It's like, yeah, clearly, you know, the baby, and because she's connected, she can feel it.
	You know, she can feel the temperament of the baby inside her.
	And so it's just, yeah, no, this is awful.
	This is genuinely awful.
	So we've covered human rights and we've covered when a human life comes into being.
	Where most sensible people fight this battle now who are pro-abortion is on my body, my choice.
	So they fight on bodily integrity and autonomy.
	Yeah, but that won't work on me because I'm against women's rights.
	I'm just joking, honestly.
	So that's where all sensible people will fight this battle because they can't win the other two arguments.
	The other two arguments go into some deep, nasty stuff that they don't want to talk about.
	So it's my body, my choice is a great phrase.
	My body, my choice to murder someone.
	That has been severely damaged because of COVID. I bet it has.
	Because we had many people who shouted my body, my choice for pregnancy were the same people shouting, get a vaccine, get a vaccine, get the state to vaccine you.
	Wear your mask.
	Killed that themselves.
	But also, it's kind of ridiculous as well.
	It's like, you know, my body, my choice.
	Well, okay, I'm Mike Tyson.
	My body, my choice to pummel you into the dirt.
	It's my body.
	I can do what I want with him.
	I can punch you to death because I'm a giant boxer.
	How about that?
	It's a ridiculous argument.
	It is.
	And especially for women because women have a special place inside their body called the cervix.
	And I might be wrong, but from what I've read, the cervix is where the baby grows.
	So they have this place in them That has no benefit to the individual that was created to hold a foreign life.
	Yeah.
	So they're designed for that.
	So we need to look at, in a compassionate society, we have tyrants, we have evil people.
	We are all responsible to try to keep the tyrants at bay and try to protect the vulnerable.
	If we look at a pregnant woman, are we trying to save that baby from a tyrannical mother who has complete power over that new life?
	We've got ways of doing that without killing the child.
	Exactly.
	And if a woman in that position still wants to abort that baby and not live up to the rights and the safeguarding duties that she has, is she any different from a king or an emperor who doesn't protect the people who come under them?
	No, not at all.
	And there's a moral obligation that she has to the baby.
	It's like, okay, well, I want to forgo this moral obligation.
	It's like, okay, fine.
	But it doesn't mean you get to murder someone.
	You can give it up for abortion.
	Adoption, do you mean?
	Give it up so you can abort it.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No, adoption.
	So if you say, I don't want this baby, but I'm not going to kill it, Do you know the waiting list in the UK? If that's not too much to ask, I bet they go like that.
	Absolutely.
	Newborn babies in the UK go within seconds of going on the books of social services to be adopted, just like that, because everybody wants newborn babies.
	I imagine if the baby could be asked, they'd be like, you know, please adopt me, actually.
	Yeah.
	Okay, my mum might want me, but I'd rather not be murdered.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, and one of the arguments is we're only aborting the babies of poor, vulnerable women, and those babies will have a terrible life.
	Well, hey, that's not true, right?
	Because the people who got upset about Roe versus Wade were middle-class women.
	Like, it wasn't poor women who were like, oh, my body, my choice.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	It was the rich women who were, frankly, being whores and knew they were being whores and didn't want that taken away from them, right?
	That's not true from the start.
	But secondly, so what?
	You know, even if that was true, so?
	It doesn't make murdering a baby any more just, does it?
	No.
	Absolutely not.
	Atrocious.
	So, this all comes down to who takes precedence.
	Adult women are unborn babies.
	Unborn babies.
	And I think most people...
	Children take precedence over adults.
	End of story.
	Adults put their lives on the line to protect children.
	How many, usually men, have jumped into rough seas or rivers to save a baby?
	Save a child that's not even theirs.
	We can bring up this year's newspaper articles and we'll find people, men who have died saving someone else's child.
	We'll run into burning buildings.
	It's built in us to protect the tribe and protect people around us.
	It's the right thing to do.
	Absolutely the right thing to do.
	If we can have the last...
	Slide.
	So, you'll know that's from Bristol, the Colton statue.
	I foresee in the future riots on the streets, demonstrations, where people are pulling down statues and people are screaming BLM all over abortion.
	And if you look closely at the signs they're holding, it won't say Black Lives Matter, it'll say Both Lives Matter.
	Let's hope that's correct.
	We shall see.
	Bloody dark.
	I just thought I'd put that topic out today and cheer everybody up.
	It's something we're not talking about, but I want...
	And I'm not saying I'm right or wrong.
	I'm not saying agree with me or don't agree, because I've not even made my mind up completely.
	I'm saying I'm right, okay.
	I want people to think about this, because until you start thinking about it, you won't realise what you're doing.
	Yeah.
	Think about it, and then you want to do it.
	Well, that's down to you then.
	And the thing is, proportionally, it's a massive number.
	In America, it's 700,000, roughly, abortions a year.
	But they've got 330 million people there.
	We've got, what, 70 million people here, and we're 200,000?
	But it's free.
	Exactly.
	It's free.
	Demented.
	Speaking of demented, do we really want to live in the demented world of the left?
	Now, this isn't a segment that has any particular coherency other than, look at all this demented stuff the left are doing.
	This is the world they're creating.
	Is this the world you want to live in?
	Because it's really not the world I want to live in, right?
	And like I said, this is just stuff that keeps coming across my timeline every day.
	It's just like, look at this crazy nonsense.
	So I thought we'd share some of it.
	But before we go on, if you want to support us, go sign up to lowseas.com and check out Harry's latest article, the anatomy of a communist.
	This is really good because he's got a particular little line in here that really summarizes everything about the left these days.
	Right.
	What is the social vision that communists wish to impose?
	It seems to be the ultimate emancipation of humanity from nature, the forces that tie us together and those that constrain us from achieving true liberty, defined as the expressive ability to do or be whatever we want at any time without any moral judgment from our peers.
	That's correct.
	That is the ultimate aim of the left, writ large.
	And Harry's got it right.
	And so we'll begin with...
	Transgenderism.
	The ultimate expression of being freed from our natural constraints.
	Facebook are struggling with it.
	Turns out that Facebook and Instagram are filled with turfs.
	Did you know that?
	No.
	So Meta's Oversight Board, I'm joking about being filled with TERFs.
	They don't know that they're TERFs.
	That's the best kind of TERF, actually.
	This is the independent body of experts, which Mark Zuckerberg has called the company Supreme Court for moderation, have ordered Facebook and Instagram to lift a ban on images of topless women for anyone who identifies as transgender or non-binary, meaning they view themselves as non-binary, meaning neither male nor female.
	The same image of female presenting nipples would be prohibited if posted by a cisgender woman, but permitted if posted by an individual identifying as non-binary.
	They noted in the decision.
	Just say non-binary.
	Yeah, but what does that mean?
	Anything you want it to mean.
	No, it doesn't.
	It means something specific.
	If a woman, a cisgender woman, can't post her breasts, because that would be obscene and indecent, on Facebook's platform...
	Then if a trans woman posts their breasts, and that's not obscene...
	I get it now.
	They're obviously not a woman.
	Exactly.
	That's a man's boob.
	That's fine.
	Very turfy.
	But anyway, in other places, however, they aren't quite as turfy, which is a shame.
	For example, a small place in America called Santee.
	This is a...
	woman called Rebecca Phillips, 17 years old, visited the YMCA there to work out after work as she routinely does.
	But after she had a shower, she encountered a naked man inside the women's locker as she was showering.
	She, being 17, was a bit freaked out by this, ran into a store to hide and change for informing the staff of the naked man just freely using the women's locker room.
	And the staff said the man who claims to be transgender is allowed to shower wherever he wants.
	It's just fine.
	I know you're a 17 year old girl and you're naked in the shower, but this naked guy over here, there's nothing to worry about there.
	What are you talking about?
	Oh, I wish I was 15 again.
	Well, I was going to call this guy a predator, so maybe we won't go down that road.
	But since he identifies as a girl, the naked man chose to use the women's locker room.
	And so when Miss Phillips went and complained about this, she was told she was the bad person for raising it.
	She's a bigot.
	Yeah, she is.
	Yeah, yeah.
	She's an out turf.
	How dare she?
	The...
	She explained that underage minors and her siblings frequent that YMCA in the women's locker room, and so obviously this means that young girls will be exposed to naked adult men.
	And the YMCA spokesman was like, well, we're dedicated to, quote, diversity, inclusion, and equity.
	The only way you stop this is sensible people stop using the facilities and go find another gym that aligns with what they want.
	Or the sensible people in charge decide maybe I'm going to be sensible and actually not allow naked men to wander around with young children, young girls.
	That takes bravery and...
	It's crazy that that takes bravery.
	I mean, that just seems normal, right?
	We're lacking in that.
	We're lacking in that.
	Because you won't get into trouble going down the trans path.
	You may get into trouble going down the cis path.
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, and don't get me wrong, Rebecca Phillips, congratulations for being so brave as to being able to have the goal to stand up and criticise this.
	Because, of course, she's only 17 and...
	And now she's, you know, becoming an international news story.
	Did you see the video from maybe six months ago?
	Girl, again, British girl, about 17, goes into Primark.
	There's a guy in there changing.
	She comes out crying, does a TikTok video.
	You can tell she's still crying.
	She has been crying.
	And she was saying, what's happened?
	And...
	She's all for diversity and he should be in there and he should be using it.
	But I was scared.
	I don't know what to do.
	But he should be in there.
	He should be in there because he sees himself as a woman.
	I didn't see that, no.
	And you can see her having this mental breakdown on her own phone because she wants him in there because she's a good person.
	She's been programmed.
	But she doesn't want him in there because every fiber of a being is going, this won't end well, get out.
	And she's like...
	And she has this breakdown.
	That was exactly what Philip's position was.
	She was afraid because it is scary, I imagine, for a teenage girl to have a naked man wandering around in a private space where you're supposed to be...
	Absolutely.
	You're making yourself very vulnerable in the locker rooms by changing and washing in there.
	Obviously, you expect some provision that will prevent...
	And again, if men didn't have any sexual interest in women, then okay, maybe this wouldn't be a concern, but they do and always will.
	So this is not...
	History teaches what men will do to women if they know they can get away with it.
	Yeah, it doesn't even bear thinking about it.
	So anyway, the same thing is, of course, happening in the UK because the Scotch government were like, hey, why don't we write a bill that means that people can just say that they have the other gender so we can do the same thing over here?
	And because the SNP is a congenitally woke party, it took the British government to step in and say no.
	We're not going to allow this.
	Have you been following this one?
	I have.
	But did you know that this trans-right bill in Scotland came out of 10 Downing Street with Theresa May?
	Did it?
	I did know that!
	When Theresa May was Prime Minister, this was her policy that the British government then dropped and the Scottish government said, well, we're going to carry on with it.
	God, the Conservatives are just the worst.
	Yes, they are.
	They are just the worst.
	See, I don't even blame the SNP. The SNP were like, hey, we're like woke Nazis.
	It's like, yeah, okay, fair enough.
	And the Conservatives are like, hey, we're not woke Nazis, but we're going to do everything woke Nazis want.
	It's like, why?
	But anyway, so the UK government has blocked this bill because they said the draft law would conflict with equality protections applying across Great Britain.
	And Nicola Sturgeon, of course, is huffing and puffing about this, saying this is a full frontal attack on the Scottish Parliament.
	And it's like, oh God, I wish it was.
	I wish they would engage in a full frontal attack on the Scottish Parliament by just abolishing it, defund it, get rid of it, bulldoze the location and build something nice over it.
	Have you seen the Scottish Parliament?
	It's the ugliest building in the world.
	I have seen it.
	I did not have an opinion one way or the other.
	But they're going to fight to the death.
	She says Scottish ministers would defend the bill.
	This is the hill they're going to die on.
	Look, if men can't be in women's spaces, then we don't even need to be in government anymore.
	I don't think that's the hill she's going to die on.
	The hill she's dying on is, look at what the English are doing now.
	They're overdoing the Scottish government, the Scottish parliament.
	Look what the English are doing.
	The English are preventing Scottish noncers from getting access to naked children.
	I can't believe they do this.
	But anyway, it's not all gravy down in England.
	Things are crazy in Scotland.
	But of course, we're still paying Stonewall a million a year.
	This shocked me, this did.
	I thought this had stopped.
	I thought this had stopped.
	Like, they said that they were going to stop doing this, but this is why the Conservative Party is just basically a party of traitors at this point.
	Like, they'll say something, but they'll completely do the opposite.
	The Taxpayers' Alliance discovered that they were handing over to Stonewall 1.2 million pounds of taxpayer money a year.
	Yep.
	Less than other years, but it should be zero.
	Yeah, it should be zero.
	Yes, exactly.
	It should be zero.
	In fact, the net amount of money that they get from Stonewall should be, in fact, negative.
	You know, the Stonewall should be giving them money.
	Anyway, let's move on, because we're not done with the trans madness.
	You know there's such a thing as a trans baby?
	I saw a little bit of this, yeah.
	Trans baby.
	Yeah.
	There's no such thing as a trans baby.
	There's just no such thing.
	Medical students at Harvard are being taught how to care for infant patients.
	Infant, meaning up to 12 months old, who identify as LGBTQIA+. Lesbian babies.
	Yep.
	Got a gay or trans baby?
	No, you don't.
	You do not.
	Did you see the bit where they say...
	I'm not saying it was in this report, but it was to do with this.
	Yeah.
	That...
	Infants know their sexuality because baby girls want to soak their mother's breasts.
	So they're obviously dealing with their lesbianism as an infant.
	That's incredibly Freudian!
	And baby boys, it's quite common to see them playing with their willies.
	So they're experimenting with their homosexuality.
	Oh, so they're gay!
	It's like, you guys are just mental.
	Yeah, that is insane.
	That is just absolutely insane.
	And any parent will be able to tell you how insane that is.
	But anyway, students at the school were given clinical exposure and education will focus on serving gender and sexual minority people across the lifespan from infants to older adults.
	So from birth...
	This gay baby.
	The gay trans baby.
	Gay, trans, queer, two-spirit, all number of things.
	According to the description of caring for patients with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and sex development, students will work in both hospitals with the communities and a spokesperson from Harvard Medical School said this...
	As part of our MD curriculum, HMS offers a four-week elective course that educates and trains medical students to provide high-quality, culturally responsive care for patients with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, and sex development across the age spectrum.
	So it's basically the same as the YMCA, where they're like, no, no, we're a diverse and inclusive woke cult organisation.
	Don't you know?
	The word that jumps out there is culturally diverse.
	Yeah, culturally responsive, but they mean the same thing.
	We don't know what, I know what they mean by that.
	They don't necessarily mean African culture or Japanese culture.
	African culture wouldn't accept the idea of a gay baby.
	Exactly.
	What they mean there is is LBGT culture.
	They mean woke Western.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	That's exactly what they mean there.
	Yeah, but it gets better than trans babies.
	We can do better than trans babies, can't we?
	Trans fetuses.
	That's right.
	Oh, you're joking.
	No, I'm not joking.
	Trans fetuses.
	I know, of course you are, but that's only because you didn't realise how bad this can get.
	Boston's Children Hostel saying children can know that they're transgender from in the womb.
	And they're still having abortions?
	I guess this is the strongest.
	That's transphobic.
	It's transgenocide.
	Yes.
	If transgender babies are getting aborted, there's got to be some sort of transgenocide.
	Am I wrong?
	Am I wrong?
	But they posted a video to their YouTube channel in August, where a psychologist explains that a good portion of the children she sees at the hospital's gender multi-speciality service clinic know their gender identity from the womb.
	How can she know that?
	There's no such thing as gender identity.
	I mean, okay, I can accept the idea that there is a kind of thing called gender identity, that a sentient person who's wandering around and experiencing the world and recognizing the biological differences in themselves to someone else and the social roles and responsibilities that come with that, you could call that a gender identity.
	Fine.
	But a fetus, a baby in the womb, certainly doesn't understand any of this.
	Especially when they're just clumps of cells.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They're just clumps of cells.
	You know, it's barely even a heartbeat.
	They're not conscious.
	Don't be ridiculous.
	Yeah, so anyway, this is absolutely ridiculous and no, total nonsense.
	Anyway, moving on from that, let's talk about what an adult is allowed to do in Canada.
	Now, you and I grew up in a culture that thought drinking was fine, because it's always been the case, but maybe taking crack is less fine.
	Why don't we restrict alcohol consumption and legalize crack, though?
	That would be progressive, wouldn't it?
	It would.
	Justin Trudeau has decided that they've introduced some of the strictest guidelines on alcohol consumption in the West, just weeks before Canada will decriminalize heroin and crack cocaine in parts of the country.
	You've got to understand, right?
	Alcohol's bad for you.
	It's nothing, mate.
	It just doesn't make sense.
	I could understand them doing things that I disagree with, and I'd like to make a case.
	Like abortion, things can be complicated, but...
	You just look at these things and you think...
	It's not terribly complicated, this one, though, is it?
	No, it's not.
	I can understand reducing how much alcohol...
	They shouldn't be doing it, but I can understand why they'd want to.
	But then we're going to decriminalise cracking heaven, and it's like, what are you doing?
	Because we really like heroin addicts.
	Because they vote for Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party, probably.
	Obviously, they don't vote for anyone.
	Now, just to be clear, these are guidelines.
	As in, they recommend no more than two drinks per week.
	I mean, I don't drink really, but that seems stingy to me.
	Two drinks a week.
	We can have one beer on Wednesday and one beer on Sunday.
	But they say no amount of alcohol is safe and concludes that drinking less is better.
	And if you must drink, two drinks maximum each week is deemed low risk.
	But at the same time, they're liberalizing their policy on hard drug use.
	They say that the decision decriminalizing possession of small amounts of cocaine, MDMA and opioids in the Western Territory has been made in the hopes of stemming its record number of drug overdose deaths.
	I don't think that's going to help.
	It doesn't help.
	No.
	Did you read about the guy in Toronto who's opening up a drug shop?
	No.
	So they all know this is coming.
	Yeah.
	And he's been in the press saying the day it becomes decriminalised, he's got a shop and he's going to be selling crack and heroin, even though he reckons he's going to get arrested, he says, and will work it all out in court.
	Which they will, yeah.
	If you decriminalise it, I should be able to sell it.
	Well, the policy will take effect on the 31st of January this year and apply to drug users over the age of 18.
	So at least there's some restriction there.
	You've got to be 18 years old before you can start getting addicted to heroin, according to the Canadian government.
	Mental.
	But then the Canadian government is actually the sixth leading cause of death in Canada, which is something that I don't think enough people are talking about.
	More Canadians are ending their lives in medically assisted death than ever before.
	10,000 people were killed by the government last year, which is just crazy.
	That's 32% more than in 2020.
	I say last year, sorry, 2021, not 2022.
	But 98% of them are truckers.
	I bet they are.
	I don't want to do it this way, Mr.
	Jenkins.
	Also, I'd like to donate my money to the government.
	But, yeah, and the thing is, they also are harvesting organs from the people who they kill.
	Now, they do say in here that, well, these people are voluntarily signing up to have their organs.
	Yeah.
	But I do strongly think that there is a kind of There's institutional bias in favour of you killing yourself so they can get access to your organs.
	Don't you know other people need those organs?
	Minorities need those organs.
	You know, there are oppressed indigenous people who need those organs.
	And you are depressed.
	And you are, you know, having trouble getting up the stairs so why don't you kill yourself, which is what one person, one disabled woman was told.
	And so the continual incentive structure is a very concerning one because it turns out that actually a person is worth more dead than alive to the Canadian government.
	The NAT has also worked that out.
	Yeah.
	I think this is a terrible incentive.
	If you want to donate your organs, fine.
	I don't think the government should be able to kill you.
	And the thing is, I don't even disagree.
	Like, okay, if you want to get it privately done or something, fine.
	You know, then you've at least got to pay for it.
	And there's not going to be, like, a state bureaucrat who's weighing, who's literally pricing you up.
	Yeah.
	At the end of it, it's just awful.
	It's a bad luck.
	I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it's a bad luck.
	It's going to attract the wrong sort of people who think that this is morally good.
	Again, you can say it's necessary evil, fine, but it's not morally good.
	And it's going to attract people who say, no, if we do it, then it must be good.
	Therefore, it's fine.
	And I think it's going to keep going up.
	Again, on your balance sheet, you've got a good pair of healthy lungs, kidneys still work, and you've got a good liver.
	That's worth tens of thousands of dollars, whereas you don't pay that much in taxes.
	You're, in fact, a net drain to the public health system, which is why I think that they're generally incentivized to get people to kill themselves.
	Anyway, moving on, back to the UK. You enjoying our open borders experience?
	It's wonderful, isn't it?
	No, it's bloody awful.
	We know that the British government, congenitally leftist government, is just colluding with the French to bring traffickers across with their cargo of illegal immigrants that they've Trafficked across from Albania or wherever, and they're just cooperating.
	They're just completely in favor of it.
	This wasn't a tremendous, not terribly breaking news.
	This happened at the end of last year.
	But then it was found out that actually there are illegal immigrants working in the border force, which is insufferable.
	There's one guy who's just, go to the next one, just illegal immigrant.
	This, again, was just last month.
	It was very recent, actually.
	He was detained while working for the Home Office Agency responsible for protecting UK borders.
	How is the legal immigrant working for the Border Force?
	Are there no checks?
	It's been here 20 years.
	Well then, don't worry about it.
	So they can check 20 years, which most organisations won't go beyond your last three, four, five.
	It's only got a criminal record as well, and they can find out your last two addresses.
	That's usually okay.
	But you'd think that the Border Force might have slightly more stringent?
	You would.
	But then if they're deliberately trying to get as many of these people in the country, what can you do?
	And he may speak a language that the Border Force think is all we could do with you on that.
	That's true.
	One drawback, though, is that these illegal immigrants are coming from everywhere.
	So there is no one language.
	If they're all German immigrants, I mean, okay, get a guy who can speak German.
	But no, these are from all over Africa and Asia.
	So...
	Anyway, but just to summarize this, this is your taxes at work, as active patriot out here doing the Lord's work, showing how, oh look, he's been giving taxpayer money.
	He's bought himself a little scooter.
	It's just an illegal immigrant from Iran.
	There's a church in London that are buying immigrant scooters.
	Oh really?
	They're collecting money, donations, buying, not saying this is one of them, but there's an article on that.
	Yeah.
	Why is he here?
	Why is this guy here sapping my taxes?
	Yep.
	Scooting around his little scooter?
	It's because we have a weak government.
	It's because we've got a left-wing government.
	Weak politicians.
	This is all left-wing policies.
	I don't think this is even a policy.
	I think it's just pure incompetence and our politicians are scared to do what needs to be done because they're scared of the press, they're scared of a backlash, they're scared of not being voted in again and they're scared of doing anything.
	So if you could give a magic wand, they'd stop this tomorrow, the Tory government.
	I really think they would but they don't want to do any of the hard work To stop it, because they're terrifying.
	I'm mildly sceptical.
	I think that actually they're just congenital leftists.
	I don't think they can help themselves but be leftists.
	And finally, why are they here?
	Well, let's go to the next one.
	They're not all good.
	One of them, in this particular one, sent a present for rape.
	Taking pictures of school kids, the other ones.
	Yep.
	Shouldn't be here.
	Welcome to the world under leftism.
	Anyway, that's about all for that.
	Let's get a video comments.
	More black supremacy from California.
	In addition to the $225,000 per black person in the state, San Francisco didn't want to be outdone.
	A committee of racists is proposing certain black identifying people get $5 million each.
	This would cost the city about $23 billion.
	In addition, they want a yearly stipend that will pay the difference to any black residents, making anything less than $97,000 a year.
	If California tries any of this, I'm not paying my state taxes and I'm moving.
	I don't want to be party to actual systemic racism.
	I mean, you could always consider identifying as black.
	That's that's You're racist there.
	Yeah, but you have five million dollars.
	You cannot change race.
	You can change sex.
	You can change age.
	You can change lots of things.
	You cannot change race.
	I've seen it on TikTok.
	You're not allowed.
	This was the Hypatia controversy, where a bunch of feminists, academics were like, so if you can change every, identify in every other physical way, Why can't we do race?
	And the answer was, you're a bigot for asking this.
	And it's like, yeah, because it undermines all sorts of claims.
	And it's the same reason that essentially they call them the racial version of a TERF. You know, the TERFs don't think you can change gender.
	Well, you don't think you can change race.
	Well, you're all evil.
	If we go back further enough, me and you have got African ancestors.
	I actually have direct ancestors.
	My grandfather was from St.
	Helena.
	There we go.
	You need to move to San Francisco.
	I know.
	I'm going to get my $5 million.
	It's actually profitable for me to do it, actually.
	I mean, the whole of California is in such a mess.
	San Francisco and LA really are.
	Yeah.
	I mean, this will never happen.
	They couldn't afford it.
	But stories like this are killing the state.
	People are moving out all the time.
	It's actually, for the first time in its entire history, a couple of years ago, it suffered a population decline.
	It's like, yeah, because otherwise it's a very desirable place to go, apart from the people who run it and running it to the ground.
	But the population decline doesn't look as bad as it is because It's going down slowly, but what the figures don't show you is taxpayers are flooding out, lots and lots of poor immigrants are coming in, so the decline is looking smaller than it really is.
	Same with New York.
	All the wealthy people are leaving.
	It's like, well, good luck.
	Not my problem.
	Well, the mayor of New York was on TV yesterday.
	Did you see that?
	No, no.
	He was in some city in Texas talking about the migrant crisis they've got at the border.
	And he was basically saying to the Texas government...
	Stop lying to immigrants, put them on buses and send them to New York.
	What's the lie?
	We may be a sanctuary city, but that doesn't mean they all have to come here.
	And I was laughing really, really hard because he created New York as a sanctuary city.
	He wanted to give illegal immigrants in New York the right to vote.
	That got knocked down.
	And now he's complaining, too many immigrants are coming now.
	Well, you made it a sanctuary city.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	This is all good and sounds virtuous in the abstract.
	Yeah.
	But it's just like the Martha's Vineyard incident.
	Yes.
	Where it's literally not even there for a day you get to point out.
	I just want Martha's Vineyard policies applied to my entire country.
	Is that too much to ask?
	We support migrants and immigrants and we welcome them.
	I support Martha's Vineyard.
	Just not where I live, that's what Martha's Vineyard, just not here.
	Yeah, I mean, this is literally the NIMBY, not in my backyard.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But I actually fully agree with Martha's Vineyard that they should just be deported and we should get on with it, really.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	If only you could build a wall.
	They're on an island.
	We're on an island.
	We've got a policy.
	We've got something in common here.
	We can do this.
	We've got a stretch of water to stop the Nazis.
	Yeah, but we can't stop the...
	Let's carry on.
	One of the written comments from yesterday's podcast on the 18th of January expressed the false equivalence of IQ and competence.
	I'd be very interested in a breakdown of how...
	Having a high IQ does not necessarily mean you are competent at whatever it is that you're engaged in.
	I think it'd make a good video series.
	That's interesting.
	I wasn't on the podcast.
	I've got an example that explains that.
	A man told me many, many decades ago when I was, I used to be a cocktail barman at Pontins when I was 19, 20.
	And this customer, I was chatting to this customer over the week, and he said to me, he said, Nick, in life you'll meet many people who'll be able to tell you the internal diameter of a can of baked beans, but won't be able to open them.
	That's a great point.
	And competence is a very interesting way of framing it as well, because anyone can be incompetent at something.
	I'm incompetent at lots of things, because I've never done them.
	But also, I've noticed there's a kind of phenomenon where people who are smart overthink things, and so they kind of ruin their own ability to do something by...
	I'm speculating about it too much.
	It's like, no, just don't think about it.
	Just do it.
	Just let your body, you know, like throwing something or, you know, opening a can of beans, whatever it is.
	Just do the thing.
	And I've known, like, these kind of autistic people who can't do anything, even though they're really smart, ultra smart, like you say, they can calculate the inner dimensions of a can of beans and they could, you know, do all that sort of thing, but they can't do anything physical.
	That's because they're good at one thing, one spike, and everything else they're poor at.
	Or maybe two spikes, where most people are just medium across everything.
	Go to the next one.
	Guys, you need to revisit Stargate SG-1, episodes Chain Reaction and 2010.
	They are prophetic.
	Really?
	Okay.
	I haven't watched Stargate SG-1 for many years, but I did enjoy it.
	So I'll go back to that.
	Right.
	Dr.
	Ziggy says, Hey Carl, will you be covering the recent cancellation of Jeremy Clarkson?
	I can't even begin to explain how the whole situation makes me really angry.
	I'm pretty sure...
	John, have we not covered Clarkson's cancellation?
	Right, okay.
	Is anyone doing it?
	Right.
	Okay.
	Right, okay.
	Well, I'm surprised no one's done it, actually.
	Because, obviously, Jeremy Clarkson shouldn't be cancelled.
	He shouldn't have apologised.
	He should not have apologised.
	He's come across really weak.
	And all that does is give the world a sense of blood in the come after even Harry.
	Which is precisely what Meghan Markle's response was.
	Yeah.
	Oh, look, his response is misogynistic.
	He should have doubled down and said, they're my opinions.
	He doesn't need the money.
	He's a multimillionaire.
	He either...
	If he thinks it's a mistake, he should have owned a mistake and ignored it and just doubled down.
	And if he gets sacked, he gets sacked.
	But he's still going to get...
	He's now given his employees, ITV and Amazon, the excuse to sack him because he's apologised, he's admitted his guilt.
	So, therefore, he was wrong.
	If he'd have said, I've done nothing wrong, that's what I think.
	I was quoting and referencing...
	Game of Thrones, blah, blah.
	And I was just expressing my feelings about Meghan Markle.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, I agree.
	It's come across really, really weak.
	I'm surprised no one's covered it.
	The reason I didn't cover it is I just assumed someone had already covered it.
	But the thing is, this will probably continue carrying, because you'll notice there's been quite a drawn-out saga as well.
	The article was a few weeks ago, and then Amazon was like, yeah, so in a couple of months we're going to not renew his contract.
	It's been going on for a while, so if more things happen, I'm sure we will cover it.
	DosFoxDesign says, "One of the big reasons there's usually a world government in sci-fi is because of some kind of other that the Earth needs to be wholly unified against.
	Aliens, factions of humanity that split off and diverge from the group like Moon, Mars, or whatever.
	Frankly, until there is some large outside force like that, I don't think we'll ever form a homogenous human identity." And that's probably a good thing.
	I agree.
	There's no particular need.
	What's the reason?
	For us to have just this single united managerial class who are just, you know, interfering in everything about your life.
	I don't need that piss off.
	Alpha of the Beta says, the good news about bomb villains is they always tell you their plans, usually in pedantic detail.
	The bad news is they tell you before they try to kill you.
	You know, good point.
	That's a very good point.
	And that is just another aspect of how Schwab is so evidently a bomb villain.
	Yeah.
	You know, he's German, he was born in Nazi Germany, and he's telling us how his plans for world domination are going to take over everything.
	Grant says, in Canada, the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition, Pierre-Paul Lever, banned anyone from his party from attending the WEF. Yeah, that's actually how things should be done.
	I've got a friend called ShortFatTaku, Dev, and he loves this Pierre Polaveo guy, and I can see why.
	He keeps making moves that I like.
	Hopefully more politicians and parties will take this approach, and I hope he's able to brag about that on the campaign trail, but there is a very large mass of people in Canada who would happily join along with the world dictatorship.
	It will come down to how many people that are between Liberal and Conservative parties fit that description.
	Yeah, I mean, there is a worrying number of people.
	It's the same with the Remainers in this country.
	About 30% of this country would happily join a world dictatorship.
	It's terrible.
	Edward of Woodstock says, fact-checkers behave like your sibling when you call them out on something.
	Actually, it's only 4,999 troops.
	You look stupid.
	Yeah, it is.
	William says, Nick, it's not about more people integrating here, it's about disintegrating people's culture everywhere, so they can be more easily moulded and allocated according to their holy spreadsheets.
	That's a fair point.
	I saw an interview with the late Tony Benn the other day, and in this interview he said, if you want to control the people, keep them afraid, make them stupid.
	Obviously true.
	Eric says, Hey Carl, remember George Orwell said who controls the past controls the future and who controls the present controls the past.
	Was that Orwell?
	Yeah, it probably was Orwell.
	It sounds like something from Brave New World as well.
	Small L Libertarian says, Al Gore invited to the WEF to do his best Alex Jones impression.
	Yeah, that was another thing I got from the Al Gore thing.
	It's just, he does sound a lot like climate change Alex Jones.
	It's not the globalists are going to control us.
	It's the planet's going to blow up and everything's going to die.
	It's like, neither one of those things...
	Well, I mean, maybe the globalists are going to take over and control us, actually.
	So Alex Jones is definitely more right than Al Gore.
	But, like, Al Gore just sounded like a lunatic to me.
	The seas are boiling, the bombs of rain are falling.
	So...
	What the hell are you talking about?
	Just look outside.
	There's a bit of frost.
	Wouldn't mind a bit of climate change.
	I wouldn't mind growing grapes, you know?
	Lord Nerevar says, So Schwab has an agenda to reorganise the world to his liking.
	Agents in local and national politics all over the world.
	And now an army of stormtroopers to back him up.
	Well, to be fair, it was the Swiss army.
	And they were technically protecting him.
	So...
	I suppose the question remains his.
	Who is his Darth Vader?
	And what will Order 66 look like?
	Terrifying questions to ask, but we must be prepared to face them in time.
	Schwab is no doubt prepared for us to find out the hard way.
	To be honest with you, I think we're giving Schwab too much credit there, to be honest.
	It's more the meme of him being the evil Bond villain.
	But I've heard people arguing that actually he's more the...
	The sort of agent of the global forces rather than the director of them.
	And it's entirely possible.
	I think what he is trying to do is knit together the underpinnings of a global government that will eventually just be born out of what we already have and just establish itself.
	And it must be natural because it's been in process for such a long time.
	And I think he thinks it's a natural process and kind of inevitable because of the forces that are in play.
	I've seen other speeches where he's talking about mastering the future.
	He thinks that if we don't do this, there'll be world catastrophes and crises and the world will blow up, basically.
	I mean, I think these are natural forces that are in play, but I don't think the world's going to blow up if we don't do it.
	Anyway, Omar says, the head of a three-letter agency complaining about a small minority guiding the public conversation is the height of irony.
	Yeah, I know.
	Elon literally gave us the receipts for government-linked propaganda accounts and censorship, and that's just Twitter.
	Yeah, the fact the FBI was essentially controlling Twitter's policy is just mad.
	Andrew Narek says, Condolences for having to go through the stillbirths, Carl.
	Still glad that you have the family you have.
	Now encourage your staff to start to become proper daddists as well.
	They are.
	A lot of them are anyway.
	But don't worry about it, man.
	You get over it.
	Ross says, metamorphosis is a great argument for when life does begin.
	Does a tadpole look like a frog?
	No, but we know it's alive.
	Does a caterpillar look like a butterfly?
	And that's exactly what I was trying to make, the point I was making.
	The sperm and the ova are still alive, so at no point does life begin.
	Life never ended, actually.
	You can argue that they're not alive if you look at what scientists give seven points of what you need to be to be alive.
	So it's things like you need to eat, you need to replicate, you need...
	I can't remember them all now.
	Right, right, right.
	But this seems...
	It's slightly pedantic though, right?
	Because really, if you look under a microscope, you see them moving.
	There's definitely a difference between an egg that could be fertilized, which I would term alive, and an egg which is dead, that won't be fertilized.
	It doesn't have any energy or life left in it.
	And so, okay, fine, they might not consume or whatever, but they're still living cells, and there's a difference between them and non-living cells.
	And everyone can tell the difference if you were to look at them in a microscope.
	Yeah.
	But again, Ross, I think there's a good point.
	Metamorphosis is a great point.
	You can call it a form of metamorphosis if you like, you know, throughout the life cycle of a human being, because it's definitely a living human, and it always has been living, even if it hasn't always been a complete human.
	Rose says, when I was pregnant with my son, the way he moved would change whenever my husband was talking, so I could tell that he recognized his father's voice.
	Yes, that's another thing that my wife said.
	Brandon says, who defines human?
	The same people who can't define woman.
	Yes!
	Excellent point.
	Great point.
	Justin says, it isn't hypocritical that you change your mind, Nick.
	As you say you wouldn't do it anymore, I imagine you were not leaning against abortion when you were young.
	It's not hypocritical to change your mind on something.
	No.
	It's hypocritical to hold a position and then do the opposite of that at the same time.
	So yeah, no, I agree.
	That's not hypocritical.
	LaFrench says, I love the name LaFrench, the French.
	The French say, abortion for any reason up to 10 weeks in France until 2001 when it was extended to 12 weeks.
	Then in 2022 it was extended again to 14 weeks.
	They started the process to add this right to the Constitution.
	All of these changes have been 100% driven by ideology.
	See, this is what I mean.
	14 weeks stands desperately short compared to what we have in Britain.
	24 weeks.
	Yeah, that's crazy.
	But good for the French for being unbelievably conservative on that issue.
	Try and be more conservative.
	Get it down.
	Someone online says killing someone for the crimes of their parents is immoral.
	Yes.
	Yeah, my father raped me.
	Okay, well now you need to die.
	Sorry.
	It's terrible.
	Omar says, something that is rarely discussed during abortion debate is survivors.
	I don't know of any cases in the UK, but if being logically consistent, there's no human difference to a nine-month fetus and a seven-month premature.
	Patty says, the response to my body, my choice, should be your choices, your consequences.
	Okay.
	That's a good answer.
	Because that's what this is, accountability.
	That's what the argument's really about, accountability.
	Taking responsibility for the decisions you make.
	You didn't get pregnant by accident.
	You had sex on purpose.
	Pregnancy is a consequence of sex.
	Brandon says, so I guess the pro-life movement is a good thing coming out of America.
	It feels somewhat redeeming given all the crap we explore.
	Yeah, to be honest with you, the pro-life movement, even though it's framed in the most American of ways, religious of ways, it is one of the few redeeming things that seems to have come out of America, actually.
	Moving the needle on this argument, I think, is a good thing.
	And someone online says, killing babies is reprehensible, simple as.
	We're out of time now.
	Sorry, I didn't get to the comments on the last section.
	But anyway, thank you everyone for joining us.
	Nick, where can people find you if they want to follow you?
	Everywhere apart from Twitter.
	So I'm doing a lot on YouTube now.
	So I'm NickBuckleyMBE and it's the same name on everything.
	I've been finding me on Substack.
	I do quite a few articles on there.
	You'll find me everywhere apart from Twitter.
	Well, hopefully he gets his Twitter back.
	Come on, Elon.
	Make it happen.
	But anyway, thanks for joining us, folks.
	We'll be back again tomorrow, same time.

▲