Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 21, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:36:00

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #614

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of Loathe Seasers, episode 614 on today, the 21st of I am joined by Dan.
	Hello.
	We'll be discussing the rise of ChatGPT4, how the Conservatives want to destroy motherhood, and how Liz Truss's political career didn't kill itself.
	We'll be doing a bit of myth-busting of the boomer truth about how Liz Truss single-handedly collapsed the economy.
	That's the story.
	One woman, just one woman, was able to take down the entire system.
	With a very, very small tax cut.
	Sounds definitely about right.
	Without further ado, let's jump straight into the news.
	Yeah, so I want to cover ChatGPT4, which has just come out.
	Now, I only did ChatGPT, I think it was with yourself, wasn't it?
	Yes.
	It was only three months ago, in January.
	But there has been quite a significant update, which I wanted to talk about, because I think this is going to be actually a cause for optimism, something that we can be quite enthusiastic about going forward.
	But obviously, I don't want to give you too much optimism because I've got a reputation to uphold here, so I'm going to refer you to the last Brokernomics, which was on the current banking collapse that's going on at the moment, where I sit down with Karl and I answer a whole bunch of viewer questions on what's happening.
	I did think about maybe doing a banking update for today's thing, but, you know, that's still grinding away and that's still relevant, and I thought, yeah, a bit of optimism.
	I do have to point out that all my previous segments on AI have brought out a lot of the well-actually guys.
	For some reason, this seems to be a subject that really upsets people.
	And you get a lot of people saying, you know, angrily smashing the keyboard saying, you know, a load of leaders should get somebody who knows what they're talking about, this is a load of rubbish, we'll never have AI, and... Isn't that just all my segments, Dan?
	Yeah!
	And then they link me to some article written in 2014, which sort of apparently disproves the whole concept or something like that.
	Well, you know, this is the thing that I keep trying to bring back, is that machines do not learn at the same rate that humans do.
	For example, there are 4 million Teslas out there, and if one of them goes over a patch of ice and skids a bit, you know, if you're human and you're in that experience, one human learns something about driving that day.
	If a Tesla does it, all four million of them learn something about driving that day.
	We are legion, and we are many.
	Yes, exactly.
	We are legion.
	So AI learning is essentially a function of data that you put into it and compute.
	ChatGPT, which we talked about last time, in that month that we talked about it, it saw 100 million users sign up in a month.
	It was the fastest tech adoption of all time.
	The previous fastest was Bitcoin, and the previous fastest before that was the internet.
	But this just completely blew away all of the records.
	So it's getting a lot of those sort of exponential trends put into it.
	It's getting a lot of usage and it's getting a lot of update.
	And so a lot of people, they tend to think that, well, they conflate first of all AI with AGI.
	So the AI that we have, which could be thought of as narrow AI, which is learning a particular task or skill, you know, that contributes ultimately to artificial general intelligence, which will be its own thing.
	But this is a process that we're on.
	It's not necessarily a binary event.
	I think a lot of people get stuck in that thinking that, you know, because they watch Terminator, and it's got that really specific date.
	If you remember the line, it's something like at 2.14am on the 22nd of August, 1997.
	You know, Skynet became self-aware.
	You know, we're on a process here.
	So, look, I'm going to start taking you through what this can do, and I'll gradually ramp up why it's so significant.
	And I'll start off with something fairly straightforward, which is the coding capabilities that have been put into this.
	Now, last time I did this on the segment, I did my own coding.
	But because I'm not a coding, the coding that I put into it was really basic, and a lot of people pointed that out.
	So I'm not going to make that mistake this time.
	I'm going to go to a senior developer and see what he says about it.
	Let's watch this.
	This is... actually insane.
	Like, truly.
	What I'm seeing here is it can do everything a junior developer can do, mid-developer, and to be honest with this, more than what a senior developer would also do.
	So as long as you have someone who's competent enough to review things, This could replace a lot of people, and it sucks to say, but it is true, and companies are opportunistic.
	Even if what I'm seeing here is not 100% right, conceptually it is, and I can take that and slightly modify it and be there.
	I'm skeptical, I'm scared, but I'm excited to see what's going on.
	Web3 never had a chance.
	This does!
	Look, I'm going to stop here because I'm sure that at this point, anything I ask, it will do.
	I think it answered every single one of those questions, at first try, perfectly.
	Definitely way better than the previous models.
	Okay, so obviously there's a big road of progress here, and I'll tell you an amazing story.
	Are you familiar with GitHub?
	Yes.
	So it's the online platform for coding collaboration, that kind of thing.
	Amazing statistic.
	41% of the code on GitHub is now AI generated.
	Yeah.
	And this has been out a few months at this point.
	Right.
	So this is where the sort of speculatory area of AI discussions comes in.
	Again, where lots of people are going to say, you don't understand this, that and the other.
	But okay, from a pure non-coding layman here, I look at this and I think, I've watched Logan, you know, we see all the auto trucks in 2025 barrelling down the highway and putting truck drivers out of a job.
	I've seen Ben Shapiro's argument with Tucker Carlson, who said he would at a heartbeat stop automatic cars from displacing the majority job for high school graduate American men in America, because you just displace so many people.
	The worry was always about automating low-skilled jobs, so McDonald's kiosks, truck drivers, shipping carriers and the like.
	Where you're now getting Tech jobs, creative industries, AI art, for example.
	Are we just all going to be shunted into the Wally chair, people, and stuck on universal basic income?
	Because what use are we if not to just consume the products that the AI is generating?
	Yeah, so exactly that thought.
	I mean, obviously a lot of articles, for example, because obviously tech people are the first people to look at this, so a lot of coders are the first to look at this, and there's been a whole bunch of articles, is this going to replace coders?
	Are coders going to continue to have a job in the future?
	And this is a point that I do want to explain because I think a lot of people are getting this wrong.
	It's going to be like coal mining.
	So what percentage of coal is mined with a pickaxe and shovel these days?
	It's all done with machines.
	It's all done with heavy equipment.
	But coal mining as a profession still exists, even though the machines have taken over a vast amount of the total tonnage of coal produced.
	It's like probably 99.99% done via machines.
	I think exactly the same thing is going to happen with coding and a lot of other professional jobs as well.
	So for example, I'm starting to hear that professional services firms, to pick one example, tax consultancies, they are in the process of planning their cuts of how many people they can take out by adding in this technology.
	So at the moment, if you go into, and I'm using this as an example of a tax consultancy firm, you'll have teams which will consist of maybe two senior guys, a couple of mid-level guys, and then maybe a dozen associates.
	Uh, and it's, you know, all of those will be doing the work on this.
	The associates will be doing a lot of the grunt work.
	What will probably happen is those teams will reduce down to one senior guy, one mid guy, and their jobs is mainly to do the relationship management with the clients, and then maybe you have two associates.
	And those two associates will be mainly feeding the data into the AI.
	To generate the response from that.
	And that's the thing, actually, it won't even stop there, because what will then happen is we're now going to see this big rush where all the professional services firms start working on a way of developing their own proprietary AI.
	So, for example, the investment banks, they've all banned ChatGPT.
	And the reason they banned them is because they don't want their sensitive proprietary financial data being fed into a model that then goes out to everybody.
	So all of these big professional services, they're going to lock that down.
	buy in their own model, feed it with all of their proprietary data, and then it's going to become this big sort of rush to whoever could get the most functional one up and running, so that in the future you don't even have a tax consultant, you just have a bit of code running on your main accountancy system within the business, which is doing it live as you're going.
	And whoever gets there first then gets that flywheel effect, because they get the most data fed into it, so they have the best system, and they're always at the front.
	This is basically what Google has done for the last sort of 15 years.
	Because they got a little bit out in front at the beginning, they got the flywheel that then sort of perpetuated their sort of going on.
	The optimistic bent I'm getting from this, just to put a capstone on that, is okay, we could have the WEF's technocratic future where everything is run by algorithm, we don't own anything, everything's drone-delivered and we're all atomized pod people, sure.
	Or, if their predictions don't quite play out how they hope, with the mass exodus of people from the information economy just by virtue of cutting down on the number of jobs you need because you now have algorithms, we could actually break the two-income trap and allow more people to stay home with their own kids.
	Oh yeah, potentially.
	The size of the economy improves considerably.
	But I think this is going to be a force multiplier, effectively.
	So that the size of the economy went up significantly after we invented the plough, for example.
	You know, that simple invention that allowed, you know, then people to stay home because you didn't need two people farming.
	So one of them took up, you know, weaving and then you got to the expansion of that and then you had additional surplus that led to people, you know, getting into specialist blacksmithing, all that kind of thing.
	It's going to be that sort of process again.
	But I think my advice to anybody who's working in a professional services firm who's worried about this is that you really need to sort of be learning this technology.
	You need to be figuring out how to prompt in this.
	Because almost certainly every professional services team, in fact, I think it will remind me of, you might be too young to remember this, but when websites first started to become a thing.
	And all of these companies, they started to realise, oh damn, we need a website and we haven't got one.
	And they started to rush to put together teams to, you know, how are we going to do this?
	And they bought in expertise and they paid far too much.
	Interestingly, there is actually a tech firm, which I saw, which is offering £300,000 a year to be an AI prompt writer.
	I think we've got the ad.
	Yeah, here we go.
	This is the ad.
	John, do you want to scroll down to the salary?
	It should be in the middle there somewhere.
	Yeah, look at that.
	So between $175,000 to $335,000 for somebody who can type prompts into an AI in order to get the right response.
	Right, so you're not even necessarily building the code yourself?
	No.
	You're just putting it in to solicit a certain pattern?
	Yeah, coding expertise is not required.
	It's having the skill of manipulating the AI to use that as a force multiplier.
	So anyone in our audience who thinks they're up to the job, because I'm sure plenty of them are, anyone who cracked that Dan prompt, not you, but obviously the Do Anything Now personality, might be up for a $335,000 a year job.
	Now, it gets more impressive than this, but let's start to ramp it up a bit now.
	So, a very interesting tweet that I saw, let's call this up, this was from an academic who put one of his old academic papers into the new Chat GPT and asked it to do a peer review.
	And apparently it nailed it.
	It got the same points that the actual peer reviewers got.
	But he does say economic sociologist, so given it's a sociologist, the IQ is a low bar.
	Yes, yes.
	We can't put too much stock in economic type people, certainly.
	I agree with that.
	Economic, fine.
	Sociologist, no.
	No, no.
	I think you're right on both points.
	But okay, it does more than this.
	So there's additional features that it hasn't rolled out yet that it's built in, it just hasn't put it out to the public yet.
	And these include things like image recognition.
	So they used a very basic example where they sort of showed you a bunch of balloons held by a string and they asked, you know, What would happen if we cut the string and it, you know, correctly identified that the balloons will float away?
	So it starts to have this sort of physical model built in and it can do other stuff.
	So for example, one guy sketched out a website that he wanted on a piece of paper, took a photo of it, fed it into ChatGPT, and then it turned it into a working website.
	That's very clever.
	But also the interesting thing about the balloons is it takes from abstractions a causal chain of events.
	It understands the physical world.
	Exactly, it's not even being told a list of commands, it thinks, it can interpret from a static image, if x then y, which some people can't even do.
	Yeah, oh yeah, people have an internal monologue and all that kind of thing.
	Yeah, I'm going to come back to that more.
	So, it could do more on the image front.
	So, for example, you can take a photo of your fridge and say, what recipes can I make with this?
	And it will give you the recipes that you can come from it.
	So, you know, in the future you'll be able to, you know, take a photo of your drinks cabinet and say, you know, give me some cocktail suggestions.
	It won't even be that.
	You'll have a screen on the front of the fridge that you'll press and then it'll also mix the drinks inside the fridge and do it like you would with your ice water dispenser.
	Yeah, and some other fun prompts I've seen bouncing around on Twitter.
	This was a really interesting one.
	It's... So people have been doing loads of these.
	I did some of these.
	I got one on spontaneous human combustion.
	It gave me what it said was a new explanation.
	for but taking into account the full set of human generated knowledge and explanation is actually possible to generate please write the explanation it must not be a hypothesis previously proposed so people have been doing loads of these i did some of these i got one on spontaneous human combustion it gave me what it said was a new explanation i've got no idea if it's a new explanation or not but this is fun and As we start to work out, is it actually generating new knowledge that will be interesting?
	And actually, it's good for teaching as well.
	So, you know, I sit around the table with my kids and we talk about various things and the other day I was asked about, you know, how likely is it that there's other aliens out there and how likely we'll see them.
	So then, obviously, I have to explain to the eight-year-old the Drake Equation, if you're familiar with that.
	So the Drake Equation is basically a series of structures that you put together, so the number of stars, the number of them that are in a habitable zone, the number of those that can support life, that kind of thing.
	Right, and the likelihood of... Yeah, and you multiply it all out and it gets the probable number of alien civilisations that are contactable.
	Right.
	So instead of just explaining that to my eight-year-old, we could actually go to the chat GP and say to chat GP, put in reasonable assumptions for each of these, Take into account the size of the Milky Way.
	Assume a universal spread.
	How close is the nearest one?
	And it immediately came back with an answer.
	There are going to be six of them and the closest one is 11,000 light years away.
	And then we could vary the inputs into that and see how it changed the whole thing.
	So it makes the learning process so much more dynamic.
	So you can easily see a scenario in a few years' time where most of teaching can be replaced by having somebody who's good at teaching feeding in a series of topics and progression of things to ask, and then you'll get a much better learning experience.
	That's the first problem, though.
	You need someone who's good at teaching, and given the current standards of education, ChatGPT could just replace that.
	Well, to start off with, you only need one person who's good at teaching, and then you can replicate that using this technology.
	You can multiply it up, so that's why it's a sort of force multiplier.
	Now, I do want to come back to that thing about the physical world, about the balloons, because that's really interesting.
	So let's have a look at this tweet.
	So this is a guy who's basically saying, on the old ChatGPT, if you were to ask it a question like, you know, I put a diamond inside a cup, And then I move the cup around the house and I turn the cup upside down and then I carry it into the final room.
	Where's the diamond?
	And the old one, it couldn't see that the diamond wouldn't be in the cup.
	Whereas in the new chat GPT, it correctly solves it.
	So, you know, I think in the situation he gives, he goes into the bedroom and he turns the cup upside down over his bed and then he walks out and he goes and it correctly identifies that the diamond has dropped onto the bed.
	So it clearly has a functional understanding of the physical world around it.
	So then I took that idea and I thought, OK, well, if it understands the physical world, does it also understand physical properties, and does it understand time?
	So let's go to the next one, which was my response back to that.
	So I gave it a scenario.
	So what I do in this one is I've said to it, OK, I freeze a gold ring inside a cup of water.
	You know the water is completely solid and then I take it to various rooms and I turn it upside down and I leave it in the living room for a day in a warm living room and then finally I take it to another room and another room.
	Now it correctly identified that actually in the amount of time that it was in the living room the ice should have melted and it should have dropped out so therefore it's likely to be in the living room.
	Right.
	So it has this understanding of time, Okay, well that's interesting.
	So does it also understand emotion?
	So if you go to the next one...
	So I gave it this scenario, and I said, look, I meet my cousin at a wake, and we're amongst good friends and family, and we like each other, and everyone was very good friendly, and there was good food, but my cousin still seemed to be upset.
	Why was that?
	Now, that's a very basic question for a human to answer, but what I found interesting is the AI was able to understand that the wake is a gathering hill to remember somebody who's passed away, and that's probably the reason that the person is upset.
	Yeah.
	So it's like Carl keeps talking about thick conceptual language.
	There's a context contained within the word wake in and of itself.
	And it has a contradictory emotional context to all the other actions presented.
	And so it juxtaposes the two.
	And also provides you with potential insight that you might be missing as a Yeah, exactly, and that's the thing.
	So this is a very blatant example, it's very obvious.
	I'm sure if I were to feed in some complex Russian literature or something where the subtleties, it's getting closer and closer, or maybe it can do it already, that it can see through that.
	Now, I'm glad you raised the autistic point, because let's go to the next one.
	So I then asked, I'm confused, I say.
	I spent a lovely day with my girlfriend Alice down the park, and then her best friend Anna joined us.
	Anna was very friendly and attractive, and I was keen to talk to her.
	We got along really well before Anna had to leave.
	After we got home, I noticed that Alice was not very happy, but we had had a great day.
	I'm confused.
	Why might she be upset?
	Right?
	No man has ever been in this scenario!
	Now, that's the sort of thing that your average autist would struggle with, but ChatGPT, he correctly, or whatever it, understands that, you know, Alice may have felt insecurity or jealousy when you showed interest in her best friend's attractiveness and engaged in conversation with her.
	So, you know, this thing understands time, space, physical properties, causality, yet women, human emotion, all that kind of stuff.
	And then I thought, okay, right, so there's another aspect of this, which is mid-journey, which is another AI that I've covered.
	That had a significant update.
	So I then described this scenario to mid-journey to see if I could capture it, and it gave me this.
	I don't know if we feel that is an accurate representation of a woman who's starting to get a bit pissed off because Anna is better looking than her or what, I don't know.
	But pouty?
	Yeah, that sort of thing.
	So maybe that one needs a bit of work.
	But the key point is, once it's starting to understand all of these things, you're going to have something in your pocket which can interpret human emotion and pick up on subtleties and things that you might miss out on.
	So in a few years' time, the average autist might be able to call up from their phone um and say analyze the party that i was just at what social cues was i missing um it will pick up on conversations that weren't there it will pick up on you know you could take it to a business conversation it will pick up on oh that person was trying to angling to get you to give them an invite to that kind of thing yeah you stood in the corner the entire time you spoke about anime you left and nobody noticed Yes, but it's picking up on all of those things that you don't, so that would be useful.
	Now, I had a very interesting series of conversations at the weekend because, even though I do Lotus Eaters two days a week and I do some other things, one of the things I do is a bit of daft internet speaking and I do one of these at a technology get-together where there's a lot of AI people present.
	Incidentally, I do have a profile, let's go to that, so if you want to contact my speaking agent, Go through this website.
	Anyway, so I was at this agency and I was talking to a guy who's all over the AI space of generating video and audio and sort of linking it together.
	And I had this whole conversation, I'd had quite a few beers at that point so I don't remember the exact thread of the conversation, but it was absolutely, I must get him on Broconomics actually, because he was sort of explaining to me that increasingly it's going to be impossible to take, you know, seed um ideas into the ai and generate entirely fresh content so you'll be able to generate a new game of thrones season eight right because it was yeah
	if you combine mid-journey and the voice generating one that calum's been having fun with and the scripting power of chat gpt and if it then understands all the emotional nuances between the motivations of the characters it can generate novel conversations and interactions and play them out to their logical conclusion and we're not there yet but the point is in three months we've had a significant upgrade in the understanding of this stuff so you know where are we going to be in a few years time In ten years' time, we'll have entirely individuated entertainment.
	The only problem is, that's just going to entrench further atomisation and political divides, because we're already watching two different television screens, whether you're on left, right, woke, anti-woke, whatever.
	Yeah, that's a fair point.
	But this guy I was talking to, who's deeply involved in this space, he was convinced that we're not going to be a few years away from what you just said, which is fully localised content.
	So, I mean, I know at the moment we tend to regard, you know, being British, we tend to regard anything that's British or American or Canadian or maybe Australian, they've got funny accents, but you tend to regard any of that stuff as basically being in your sort of local sphere, but then you'll go to Netflix and every so often you'll see like a Swedish detective drama or something.
	Or a South Korean film.
	Yeah, something like that that comes up.
	Whereas it won't be long before you'll be able to input that as a sort of seed and then regenerate it so that if you're in Oxford or Nigeria or Peru, you'll be able to generate a version which represents local actors, local brands, local styles of speaking.
	You would be able to repurpose the exact script or something or the scenario for something like Squid Game, put it all in English rather than just a bad dub and put your friends in it until you win.
	Yes, that kind of thing.
	I'm hearing about things like they've been putting as much information as they can about fighters of different eras, so Muhammad Ali versus Tyson Fury, and then you can fight them off in a virtual environment.
	Is this just Deadliest Warrior?
	Yeah, something like that, but a slightly more sophisticated version of that, right?
	So, I mean, all of this stuff is going to be coming.
	I also think we're going to get, so mid-journey, which is the stable diffusion technology, I think we're going to get that on toasters soon.
	Because, yeah, because your eight-year-old's going to say, I want an Elsa pattern on my toast.
	Oh, right, or coffee makers.
	Oh yeah, yeah, the little pattern on the top of your flat white thing, yeah, so that will happen.
	So, in the space of three months, we've had all of these advancements, and I think, you know, in the next five years, it's going to be truly significant where we're going to go next.
	And I think it can be quite terrific, some of this stuff.
	Because, look, the way I think about it is electricity was the digitization of energy, and it allowed a huge multiplication of the amount of energy that we could deploy.
	The internet was a digitization of information, which has allowed a huge amount more of information to be generated.
	Blockchain was the digitization of value.
	We're not really starting to utilize that because it's still so new, but I think that's going to happen very soon.
	And AI is the digitization of thought and expertise.
	So if these previous patterns hold, we're going to get a huge expansion of the amount of that.
	So as Elon Musk says, the proportion of intelligence which is not human is going to start rising exponentially.
	So hopefully this will be a force multiplier.
	Now, I think this could lead to a significant increase potentially in GDP, which will be amazing for us.
	It does have downsides.
	It will bail out the establishment, because they've got themselves into a big debt trap, and you either basically need to wipe out the debt at this point, which will sort of bring down the system, or you need to find a way to substantially grow the economy.
	It's possible this could bail them out by growing the economy at such a rate that actually the debt becomes manageable.
	A great rebirth rather than a great reset.
	Yeah, but they get to stay in power, so they're happy with that.
	Pros and cons, I mean, we don't have to eat our pets, but on the other hand, you know, Klaus Schwab stays in his castle, so there's that.
	I'd sooner an AI overlord, frankly.
	Yeah, I would as well.
	Yeah, totally.
	I mean, I actually think the probability of getting benevolent AI overlords is higher than benevolent politically elected people.
	Though it did just understand and justify the context of a rather pissy woman and generate a face for it.
	So are we going to have very feminine, passive-aggressive AI overlords?
	It might not be masculine enough.
	We can work on that potentially.
	But then you start to add in some of the other big technology trends that are coming through at the moment.
	So 3D printing, genomics, which has just got abused horribly.
	I can't go into that too much on YouTube, but basically that technology was pushed Far before it was ready.
	Blockchains, energy technology, the multiple iterations of AI that we're going through.
	I heard a really cool thing the other day about room temperature semiconductors.
	So basically, semiconductors have amazing properties that you can store a huge amount of energy and then you can sort of use them as sort of maglets on trains and that kind of stuff.
	So you can have trains that, you know, you basically push them on so they just keep going.
	So you've basically energy-less train.
	I mean, apart from the air friction, there's a little bit of that.
	You can have batteries where the energy... basically unlimited batteries.
	Because the energy just keeps flowing, it doesn't need to store.
	But superconductors, they need to be compressed down to an extremely low temperature, whereas it's starting to look like there might be breakthroughs in having them at basically room temperature semiconductors, which would be a huge unlock of energy technology.
	Quantum computers and robotics.
	And, you know, it's not totally impossible to see a world in our lifetimes where, you know, if you combine things like, if they happen, AGI, quantum computing, robotics, where you basically have an unlimited amount of workforce and an unlimited amount of consciousness.
	And, you know, what does that even do to an economy?
	Plus 3D printing, so they will have the human-looking exoskeleton.
	So, when you started this segment saying most people have only seen Terminator and therefore they just think all these misconceptions about it's going to come online one day, haven't you just described Schwarzenegger?
	Yeah, yeah, kind of, kind of.
	I mean, it could be that.
	I mean, so my eight-year-old was asking me this and says, you know, what happens when we do have true artificial intelligence?
	And I have to say, look, I've no idea.
	So it could be the most fantastic thing that has ever happened to us in that, you know, the AI, they love us and they want to help us and it expands the economy and we have, you know, an economy of plenty going forward.
	Or they might resent us and get rid of us, you know.
	It's a tough message to give an eight-year-old, but you have to be honest that I don't know what's going to happen next.
	And by the way, Santa isn't real, you know, right?
	Yes, yeah.
	But given the alternative of that or Klaus Schwab, you know, I'll take this.
	Final point that I want to end on this.
	When I was at the thing at the weekend, a young developer, he asked me, you know, basically, have I just wasted my time?
	Because he'd spent, whatever it was, like the last four or five years Learning how to become a coder is saying, have I just wasted my time?
	And I thought this is an important message.
	I want to pass this on as well.
	General advice to anybody who's in that sort of situation.
	You've got to remember that the reason that you went into coding or whatever it is that you do, you didn't actually do it.
	The coding itself wasn't the end point.
	What you're actually doing was learning how to solve problems for your clients and how to generate value for them.
	You need to lean into this technology and use this to deliver value for your clients or to deliver value for yourself or someone else.
	And if you lean into that and you use it as a tool, like I say, it'll be like a it'll be like a coal miner who's using a bit of heavy equipment as opposed to a pickaxe.
	So, you know, like I say, I think the right thing to do is lean into this.
	It could be fantastic.
	Small possibility they might wipe us out when they become self-aware.
	But overall, I'm pretty positive.
	So all the best to us.
	Alright then.
	On a slightly less optimistic note, it turns out in the UK that we're facing widespread demographic collapse.
	That's not unique to us, but just speaking for us over here, this was the census data recorded in 2020.
	Record number of women reached 30 without any children.
	It's 50.1% have never had a child over the age of 30, and that's just unprecedented.
	As long as since records have began.
	So that's not a good trend to go on.
	Especially not for the women.
	No, no.
	A lifelong of loneliness, basically, and being taken care of by a... AI maybe?
	Well, possibly AI.
	There was a World Health Organization survey a little while ago of people who work in care homes, and because they weren't aware that the data was going to be published, I think it was up to about two-thirds of them had admitted to at some point physically or verbally abusing one of the care home residents because obviously they're not family, they're mostly low-paid immigrants and so they've got no consequences too if they treat someone who won't remember it pretty poorly.
	Yeah that's not a future you want.
	No, it's not.
	Not particularly.
	Unfortunately, it's a future the Conservative government want, because, like, every single government, they see a problem, and they make it worse.
	So last week, the Conservatives decided to do their spring budget, and this included provisions for subsidies for childcare, 30 hours a week, for any child... Sorry, for mothers of any child of one and two-year-olds.
	So they are getting down the brackets of exactly what age you are.
	It's almost like when puppies are born, about six weeks after you're taken away and you're just given to a new owner, right?
	They're deliberately trying to drive a wedge between mothers, who should be at home looking after the kids, and the kids.
	Now this was celebrated by quite a lot of the yes-in-my-backyard, GDP-at-all-costs conservative types, and Weirdly enough, some small-c pro-family conservatives that I was speaking to saying, well, at least this is a step, because at the moment it's basically unaffordable to have a child if you're a member of early millennials or late Gen Z. Yeah, but this is kind of, we've created a problem, so we're going to create another problem to solve the previous problem.
	How many days a week was it?
	How many hours was it?
	30 hours a week.
	30 hours a week, right, okay.
	So it incentivises more part-time-ish work, but it's still trying to expedite the time that you stop maternity leave and you leave the home and stick your kid in front of someone else who hasn't got their best interests at heart like you would as a parent.
	Yeah, I mean, I kind of got mixed feelings on this one, because, I mean, with our kids, we did put them in for two mornings a week.
	I mean, we had them for the rest of the week, but we thought it was important to help socialise them, because you want a little bit of time around their peers.
	The problem is, if you're just sticking them in either a very large daycare, or you're paying a nanny, which is also an option here, then they're not with their mum And also, are we always going to trust people that go into early childhood education to not be utterly resentful?
	Yeah, I mean, we thought it was benefit because of that socialisation thing.
	So, like I said, we did it two mornings a week because that was enough to get that.
	But I did notice there were people there who basically put them in at 8am and then collected them at 7 o'clock in the evening.
	So, nearly 12 hours with a stranger.
	Yes, not good.
	So, I wanted to just look at this article particularly because one of my former Young Voices colleagues, The childcare plan suggests that a mother's worth comes from their economic output and active participation in the workforce.
	wedded catholic so she's going to have a few kids soon herself i'm i'm guaranteeing so she puts it pretty pretty well the child care plan suggests that a mother's worth comes from their economic output and active participation in the workforce it also falsely assumes that children are better off with hired help than a loving parent at home in short mother's preferences and baby bonding get sacrificed in the name of economic growth and babies and toddlers get designated as barriers to work that mothers need to overcome The childcare reforms make one thing clear.
	Hunt does not believe a woman's place is in the home, but wherever she will give the biggest boost to the economy.
	This disregard for stay-at-home parents and the integrity of the family for the sake of the government balance sheets reveals an inverse subordination between government and people.
	The state should serve families, not families of state.
	Yet here the virtues of family and home life get sidelined in the name of profit and GDP.
	Heaven forbid a mother would rather stay at home with her child.
	Now, that is a brilliant summation of the moral dichotomy that's embedded in this.
	Notwithstanding what I said a moment ago about the socialisation aspect, that is clearly not what Hunt has in mind.
	No.
	Hunt is 100% about, we need to get the GDP, we need to get the line to go up.
	Yeah, and it's not just bringing people back to work fast enough, but it's also, parenthood is a sphere of activity entirely outside of the economy.
	Right?
	Because there's no money changing hands between parents and kids.
	Well, I mean, you spend a bloody fortune on nappies and whatever else.
	Of course you do, but then someone else could spend that bloody fortune on nappies, and also you could pay them to do so.
	And that's what he's thinking.
	He's thinking making childcare an industry means more money changes hands over the course of... Which becomes a taxable event.
	Exactly.
	And it just becomes more economic activity on a balance sheet, which you can then say, we're out-competing our neighbours and we're one of the fastest growing economies in the G7.
	Blah.
	Blah blah.
	And so there's no consideration for what's best for the kid within this policy.
	Which means it's definitely not a small-kit-C Conservative policy, but it is definitely a big-C Conservative Party neoliberal policy.
	And what we're going to see throughout this segment is that the big-C Conservatives are in league with the big-C Communists for trying to abolish motherhood and the family.
	for purely material reasons.
	And the communists as well, as we'll look at through a brief condensation of the history of philosophical thought on this matter, are doing it for personal reasons too.
	Because I think, speaking about that resentment, there's a deep seed of their parents were probably absent, and so they want to beget more absent children because of an ideological project, but all they're going to get is more misery over time.
	And we will see where this has led to in the past.
	So this kind of frustration about the fact that I want to stay home with my kids and I don't just want to pay someone who cares less about them to do so, was recently articulated by two women, a very modern woman, and a woman who doesn't like modernity very much, on my favourite boomer panel show, where most of the middle class get their opinions, if it's not Have I Got News For You.
	Question time!
	So, I just want to see these two questions juxtaposed.
	I can't believe you still watch this programme, that's amazing.
	Well, I need to stay in touch with the normies, don't I?
	So, let's play pro.
	Lots of hands up.
	The lady there with the blue hair.
	Thank you.
	I think the childcare announcement is really welcome.
	I was paid over £1,000 a month for my childcare.
	I've got friends who have got two children in nursery care and are paying nearly £2,000 a month.
	However, it's too slow.
	Why are we bringing the pensions relief in for the wealthiest in society next month, but those who are really, really struggling with the cost of living now have to wait until next April to get that help with childcare?
	I think the announcement about childcare is great but I think that the government are prioritising economy over family.
	There's no support for families where one parent wants to remain at home to care for their own children.
	It's just encouraging us to outsource childcare so that we are out in the workplace and I think there should be more support for families to be families.
	So do you think there's It kind of applies a kind of pressure to make you feel that actually you should be out of work rather than looking after your child if you want to.
	I think a few generations ago a family could live on one salary comfortably.
	It's very hard to live on one salary now.
	Obviously there's single parent families as well.
	There's no support for parents who want to raise their own children and don't want to hand them out to other people.
	Especially when they're one and two and they should really be with their parents.
	So the fact that there is absolutely no support for women like her who really care about her children would suggest that it's not just got material perverse incentives to drive a wedge between parents and their children.
	There's also an ideological project.
	Those clips are fascinating.
	The first one, the blue haired woman who was like, why isn't the government doing more now?
	To get my children away from me.
	Rapturous applaud, everybody nodding.
	The second woman who was like, you know, maybe we should value our children.
	Scattering of polite applause died out immediately, and everybody around her was shaking their head like, no.
	Yeah, and I think it's because we've had an ideological disjunction from how we've done it for centuries, because since, what, the 40s, so the boomers, of course, when mainly a lot more women went into the workforce during the wartime, and then we got the advent of second wave feminism, Which then flooded the workplace and doubled the wages and the tax base, and devalued most men's earning potential.
	Now lots of people take it as a given that, well, mums have to work.
	Because you shouldn't be reliant on a man, you should be entirely economically independent.
	Trusting of someone, and subordinate your own personal career advancement, when most people don't have careers, they have jobs, let's be honest, to raising a kid that loves you.
	Well, you can't be subordinate to a man under feminism, it just has to be a boss instead of a husband.
	Yeah, it has to be a floodlit office and tapping away at spreadsheets rather than making a nice dinner and saying, I love you.
	Yes.
	I don't know what they've done to us.
	Right, so it's funny that we've got this, right?
	This is the Conservative position, this is how they're upsetting the general population.
	And yet again, as per usual, Conservatives are not just Progressives driving the speed limit, but they've got Socialists bent to most of their presuppositions, because the Enlightenment Hydra, that is, the materialism of Neoliberalism and socialism are two cheeks on the same backside, because they're both trying to maximise freedom through material prosperity.
	And so we come to Ash Sarkar, who, the same week that this came out — I know, I know — the same week that this policy came out, she did a boneheaded video on tradwifery.
	And in the last segment, when I said we were watching two different television screens, right?
	So we're looking at almost the same phenomena, but one side's screaming at the sky and the other side's going, yeah, that looks quite good.
	Other than her weird smears about saying that this is advancing white nationalism, I watched pretty much this entire video and went, yeah, that looks great.
	Great idea.
	So let's watch Ash Sarkar's summary of the total abnormality that is a woman staying home with her kids and why that's oppressive, because I want to make a point later on in the segment.
	Let's press play.
	Immaculately made-up women gazing wide-eyed into their phones, singing the praises of being a tradwife or traditional wife.
	I'll let her explain.
	If you are not familiar with the term tradwife, it is a woman who chooses to live a more traditional life with ultra-traditional gender roles.
	So the man goes outside the house, works, provides for the family.
	The woman stays home and she's the homemaker.
	She takes care of the home and the children if there are any.
	Thanks for that.
	Though the idea of women being confined to the home while men do things like go outside and work isn't exactly new, the image of 1950s suburban domesticity has been given a new lease of life by the gals on TikTok.
	Can you imagine?
	Me, the wife of that boorish, brainless...
	Some younger millennials and zoomers have decided to embrace living la vida casserole.
	Dedicating themselves to cooking, cleaning and child-rearing while their husbands or boyfriends, I don't know, chop firewood or go to their job in human resources.
	And look, I'm not saying there's anything inherently degrading about being a mum or making nice meals.
	I like cooking elaborate dinners.
	For that matter, my boyfriend does too.
	But the tradwife trend isn't just a way to talk about the experience of being a woman and doing domestic labour.
	It's saying that being a woman or expressing your femininity most fully means doing all the domestic labour.
	Men and women are meant to have rigidly distinct roles in the home, in their relationships and, crucially, in economic activity.
	So this isn't just about personal choice or individual preferences.
	It's advancing a right-wing political ideology and dressing it up as a lifestyle.
	So, why is this important?
	Three things.
	These women are often really young, in their twenties, and they're preaching the values of submitting to a husband to an audience of other young women.
	The tradwife trend doesn't exist in isolation.
	It's linked to deeply regressive political and social movements such as Christian and white nationalism and anti-feminism.
	Feminism is an ideology which cannot be defended by feminists.
	It's part of a wider shift of young people being dissatisfied with neoliberalism and wanting social change.
	Right, so the last point there is not incorrect.
	I think we're mainly very dissatisfied by neoliberalism.
	Lots of which, unfortunately, despite her being a communist, the policies of neoliberalism go towards her ultimate end goal, even if she doesn't agree with the ideological precepts behind it.
	But I just find it hilarious for a number of reasons that she's done this clip.
	Number one, I love the fact that she included that Gaston TikTok, because it does validate my theory that Gaston was the hero of Beauty and the Beast.
	I'm glad you're doing this segment, because I wouldn't know where to start with putting that video apart.
	It's terrible, I know.
	The first point that she had was, these women are very young.
	Yes, that's because it's called fertility, love.
	That's why most people marry in their late teens or early twenties, historically speaking, because you wanted the most amount of years to not have complications with childbirth.
	And also, the average age of death was a lot lower.
	So yes, tradwifery is to do with the This is such a Western concept as well, like in most of the rest of the world, especially in Asia, if you're sort of 25 and unmarried you're considered an old maid.
	Yeah.
	And now, again, kind of demographic time bomb that most women over 30 don't have kids.
	So yes, it's a good idea to get married and have kids on the slightly younger side if you can, because you'll probably be happier for longer.
	As well, if you're going to try and look after kids, it's better that you do it in your most active years.
	Like, trying to lift a baby over your head as, like, a 55-year-old man is not always the best idea.
	You might throw your back out, just saying.
	And then point two as well, it's not even worth refuting, but... Well, if they're 50s that old, that seems quite close now.
	So, point two, it has links to the far right, and then she flushes up Nick Fuentes, who is so deep in the closet he's gonna find Narnia, let's be fair.
	So, this is just a political smear job of tribal signalling to your side to say this is thing I don't like because it doesn't have material outcome I don't like, and therefore Playing whack-a-mole with ideologies, just so you can further your agenda, at the expense of what women actually want, which is not sitting in a floodlit office all the time, and not having it be so expensive to stay at home and raise your own children, even if you just had a part-time job.
	It is funny just how massively materialistic the communists really are.
	Well, they're deliberately materialistic.
	They believe in dialectical materialism.
	Right, okay.
	So they believe in the complete collapse of all economic systems, one after another, towards a historical endpoint of communism, because it's inevitable, because each system has its contradictions, it produces inequality, and the inequality will drive to revolution, and then after revolution you'll have a socialist dictatorship, and the socialist dictatorship will be staffed by people who We're subject to inequality before, which makes them really virtuous, and they totally won't take all the property and kill all their enemies, guys.
	And then somehow the dictatorship will go away, and you'll have permanent, stateless, classless, propertyless communism.
	Okay, so let's say I agreed with all of that.
	What stops communism from having internal contradictions?
	Mark said it wouldn't.
	Right.
	That's literally it.
	It's Source.
	Trust me, bro.
	Okay.
	That's it.
	I see flaws.
	Yep.
	So did the Soviet Union.
	We'll get onto that shortly.
	So, picking up on Ash's point that it's only popular with the far right, she then mentions it's very popular with reactionaries, and I'm only going to play one more clip from her video to not subject you to too much of it.
	And its rigid belief in fixed gender roles, its rejection of feminism and liberal, left-wing or progressive values, and its emphasis on Christianity means that it has lent a feminine veneer to conservative, far-right and white nationalist ideologies.
	One thing that comes up again and again is this idea of women submitting to their husbands as a form of submission to God.
	Wives, respect your husbands.
	It's biblical.
	It's in the Bible.
	You treat your husband as the head of the household and obey him.
	It's a sacrifice, but it is a sacrifice well worth it.
	And this is meant to be a reciprocal relationship.
	You, as a woman, don't have to feel degraded by submitting to your husband because the premise is that his religious beliefs stop him from behaving badly.
	You want your wife to follow you?
	Be a man and follow Jesus and give her a reason to.
	Hmm.
	If only we had any history of religious men wielding their power to abuse those more vulnerable than them.
	Like with the example of finances, the idea of submission is that by giving up her independence, autonomy and power, a woman will be taken care of by a good and godly man.
	She serves him, he serves Christ, but only one person is scrubbing out the toilet.
	So, I'm not going to go on to the fact that when she brought up all those images of Christians, well, pretend Christians who abused women, I'm not going to talk about Marx and his wife and the fact that he didn't go to a funeral, and the material conditions he plunged his family into caused two of his sons to die, and the fact that he raped his indentured servant maid and threw their son out of the house, or all the atrocities later perpetuated by Marxists, which I'll actually get onto in a moment.
	What I want to point out is that embedded in this, embedded in the GoBoss materialist worldview, I think is an admission that she can't trust anyone.
	Well, and the other thing that I picked up on is she's got this disdain for submitting to a partner, and to be fair, she did actually show us her partner, so I can... No, that was a clip from Come Dine With Me.
	Oh, was it?
	Okay, the guy putting the thing in his mouth.
	Yes, yeah.
	Though you could believe it, yeah.
	Because AOC, for example, I mean, I've seen her boyfriend, and I completely understand why she has this antagonistic relationship against... Why would you want to submit to that?
	It's as Patrisse O'Neill once said, women who are very competitive are like female sharks, but they're smaller than the male sharks.
	And so they get intimidated by the fact that they're never going to be bigger than the male shark.
	So they swim off and they find a seal or a penguin and they date their food for a little while.
	And they swim out into the open ocean and they're like, oh my god, I don't respect this guy because I could eat him at any time.
	So then they just leave him floating on the middle of an iceberg and swim back to the male shark eventually.
	Yeah, yeah, that makes sense.
	Yeah, but so the point I want to make with our shark, although, is that, and I'm pretty sure this is probably the mentality of quite a few people, and this is because of an avoidant attachment style that's been projected onto them because probably their own mum left them because of the advent of feminism, but if you don't trust that your man is going to commit to you when he's saying, I have a higher ideal above me, that she uses the example of Christianity here and God, and I would follow that personally, but I know plenty of people who just think it's a moral good to be head of household and you don't necessarily tie that to a religion, so if it works, maybe.
	But point being, she doesn't trust that the man is going to do as he says he will, so you've got to have one foot out the door economically at all times, you've got to have perfectly independent finances, and so at the hint of any potential of him exploiting you, you can cut and run and you'll still be a girlboss.
	Yep.
	That makes sense.
	That seems utterly miserable to hedge your bets for the rest of your life.
	And so, it stops you from committing to someone.
	And so, that doesn't put the kids' wellbeing first, it puts your own fears of being unilaterally exploited first, and so you never have a stable household.
	Yeah, that's interesting.
	That makes sense.
	Yeah.
	So not only are we pursuing GDP balance sheets, to the detriment of children's wellbeing, but individual people, who have no values higher than themselves, are so worried about being exploited, that they just break down their marriage out of fear.
	Yeah, that is compelling.
	Yeah.
	And she keeps saying reactionary.
	Well, the reactionary feminists have risen up out of this, because they said, we don't much like the sexual revolution.
	So we've got Mary Harrington, who's coming in soon, Abigail Favale, who's a Catholic feminist who I'm going to talk to soon, and Louise Perry, who I've already spoken to.
	And they've Broadly use the label reactionary feminists because they've gone, well, was the pill all that good for us?
	I mean, it chemically altered us and we've been mass medicated from a young age and it seems to have lowered male sperm counts.
	Was abortion really that great for women?
	Because now we have no concept of the sanctity of life anymore.
	Was creating the two-income trap really that empowering?
	Do we want the drudgery of being enslaved to a boss rather than a man who does have an ideal higher than economic output and will love us and will commit to us?
	Why don't we go back even further than the tradwife idea and go back to something that you mentioned earlier?
	Where women had part-time job responsibilities, but it was for the home and the community, so they were weaving, they were doing agricultural work.
	Why don't we just do the technological equivalent of that instead?
	And so you can have some kind of part-time career, but it's shaped around family life.
	And so we are contributing both to the household, rather than the having one foot out the door at all times.
	So is fifth-wave feminism tradwifery?
	No, they want to be more trad than tradwives.
	I've got an article coming on this soon and I'm going to be interviewing Mary about it.
	Her book is very good, I recommend it, Feminism Against Progress, so look out for that on the website.
	So this actually bleeds over to the philosophical predicate for What's happened in the past?
	This is not an old idea to separate children from their mothers and their fathers for maximum material output, and also because you want to be some kind of utopian engineer because you're projecting your inner feelings onto all of society.
	So we've got a couple of threads to look at here, and you can look at a lot of our content on the website for as little as five quid a month for that.
	As Stelios has covered with Carl before when he's spoken about Plato, In the Republic, one of the oldest ideas was not just to create the noble lie of the metallurgic caste system.
	So for the philosopher kings, the dictators, to sort all the society into classes corresponding to metals, even though it's completely arbitrary, it keeps them in order.
	So it keeps the plebs in order by telling them where you should rank economically, right?
	He also said for the Guardians, who were among the highest classes to defend the city, that marriage, the possession of women, and the procreation of children will all follow the general principle that friends have all things in common.
	So, all children will be raised communally without ever knowing who their parents are, and everyone will do the education of the kids.
	And that'll produce the best class of person.
	Doubt it.
	Okay.
	He also says, The wave has not swallowed us up alive for enacting that the guardians of either sex should have all their pursuits in common.
	To the utility and also to the possibility of this arrangement, the consistency of the argument itself bears witness.
	The law, I said, which is the sequel of this, and of all that has preceded, is to the following effect, that the wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent.
	I do not think, I said, that there can be any dispute about the very great utility of having wives and children in common, the possibility is quite another matter and will be very much disputed.
	So this is not a new idea.
	This is a very old, very tyrannical idea about the engineering of society by taking children away from their parents so they can't transmit the prejudices of the old society onto them and you can remake them anew.
	I'm starting to think that Plato is a bit of a bastard, actually.
	Yeah, well, this was through the mouth of Socrates.
	But, yes, the Republic is one of the original models for Tyranny.
	This was a thought experiment, but lots of people thought of this thought experiment and went, sounds like a great idea!
	It's like Hillary Clinton's book, It Takes a Village, I mean it's basically the same idea as you just described.
	Yes, almost exactly.
	And we'll see who Hillary Clinton was later probably inspired by.
	So if we just go on to the next one, this was also kind of the idea of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that civilization was unjustly imposed upon man's communal state of nature, where you just roamed around in the wilderness, weren't ever attacked, everything was abundant, and then you would meet up with a woman, you'd have sex with her, she'd have the kid off over there, you'd go over there, and nobody would have any bonds of obligation to each other.
	And with the creation of private property, because one guy said, see that's basically like pre-tinder then, but the same idea.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Which a lot of the feminists want to go back to, like Shimola Firestone, she thought of entirely artificial gestation and insemination would allow love and sex to be decoupled from reproduction, and so we'd all be living in a polyamorous society, which was a matriarchy that existed before the patriarchy, even though there's no anthropological evidence for it.
	Quite the opposite, in fact.
	Yeah.
	So Rousseau wanted a revolution, hence creating the French Revolution a few years after his death, because he believed that, the old quote of, all man is born free and everywhere is in chains, civilization was itself created to seize private property, and because private property is seized, you need to protect that private property, and so it brought people together, and you had forced relationships with people so that people could protect their property.
	So the relationships and the property are the problem.
	So you needed to abolish property and abolish relationships.
	Do you see where Marx nicked everything, basically?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we'll go on to that, just quickly.
	So then Marx and Engels decided- we go on to the Communist Manifesto, please, John.
	Marx and Engels, in their book on the family, I believe this was, but also they do mention it in here, just said that we need to abolish- The irony of Marx writing a book on family.
	Yeah, I know.
	We need to abolish the bourgeois family because the bourgeois family exists only to pass property down the chain of hereditariness and keep the bourgeois class in place.
	So by abolishing the family and abolishing property, we'll all be equal.
	And so all children need to be raised equally and educated by the village.
	You can see a genealogy of this terrible idea, and Ash Sarkar's a professed communist, so it's not surprising that she wants to break up the nuclear family, right?
	Let's just go on to the American version of this.
	People might not be familiar with Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward.
	I'd like to do a book club on this at some point, but the mad idea, this was actually the second best-selling book in America in the 18th century, right?
	No, 19th century, sorry.
	And lots of people became so enamoured by socialist ideas, they set up Bellamy societies to infiltrate the American government.
	The premise is that in 1887, a narrator comes to Boston, Massachusetts, falls asleep on a sofa, and wakes up in the year 2000.
	They're a socialist paradise.
	And there's a guy called Dr. Leet, who is his guide.
	And Dr. Leet tells him, as he's walking him around the civilization, In your day, men were bound to lay up goods and money against coming failure of the means of support and their children.
	This necessity made parasonomy a virtue.
	Alright.
	That's where that's from.
	Alright.
	That's where that's from.
	Remember when Barack Obama set up his plan?
	He had that hypothetical woman of when she's born, when she has a child, when she gets her job, when she's elderly and needs care.
	Yeah, you can see where the idea's basically from.
	There's a lot of continuity here, isn't there?
	Yeah, a lot of continuity of terrible ideas about destroying the family to get redistributed property to create a totalitarian state to oversee it all.
	He also says, our women as well as our men are members of the industrial army.
	And leave it only when maternal duties claim them.
	The result is that most women at one time or another of their lives serve industrially some five or ten years, while those who have no children can serve out the full term.
	And the narrator says, a woman does not then necessarily leave the industrial service on marriage.
	No more than a man.
	Why on earth should she?
	Married women have no housekeeping responsibilities now, you know, and a husband is not a baby and should not be cared for.
	So you've made industries out of every stage of housekeeping and child-rearing.
	I see why you started with the Jeremy Hunt thing now, because it's all starting to come full circle.
	Yeah, the Conservatives are doing the bidding of Time Immemorial Communists and Ash.com.
	Oh dear.
	How are you calling yourself conservative?
	And so, he genuinely gets into National Socialism in this.
	Again, why I want to do a book club here.
	And he says, the narrator says, it would seem to follow from what you've said that wives are in no way dependent on their husbands for maintenance.
	And he says, of course not.
	Nor children on their parents.
	For, their means of support, though of course they are the offices of affection, the child's labour when he grows up will go to increase the common stock, not his parents, who will be dead, and therefore he is properly nurtured out of the common stock.
	The account of every person, man, woman and child, you must understand, is always within the nation directly, and never through any intermediary except, of course, that parents to a certain extent act for children as their guardians.
	So, not only are the parents of subordinate concerns of the nation, but at every stage of parenthood, other than the fact that they've given birth to them, They are being cared for by wet nurses who have been genetically determined to be the best wet nurses, housekeepers who have been genetically determined to do so, and so society is top-down managed for maximal economic productivity at the expense of children's relationships.
	You look horrified.
	Yeah, because I didn't quite realise just how deep this particular root of evil was, and how deeply it is ingrained, as you show, into modern conservative thinking.
	Well, speaking of evil, if you want to know the evil origins of feminism, where all these ideas specifically went onto women's issues, you can watch my podcast with Carl, which has been very well received.
	Which is explicitly Marxist from Simone de Beauvoir, the person who wrote literally what the feminists called the Feminist Bible.
	And she said that not only is the opportunity for artificial gestation and artificial insemination, women's full workplace enrolment, abortion and contraception, and matriarchal governance desirable, she said that, specifically, a world where men and women would be equal is easy to imagine because it is exactly the one the Soviet revolution promised.
	So, let's look at the Soviet model for childcare to see where this ends up.
	Right, okay.
	Have you ever heard of the Romanian orphanages?
	Oh, yes.
	Yeah, because I'm old enough to remember the Challenjanica stuff.
	Yeah, anyone who hasn't heard of this, I'm sorry, but... So there's an Atlantic piece on this that documents the history of the orphanages and also one of the experiences from one of the survivors, who's now an adult.
	Basically, in 1990, the world discovered what they called child gulags.
	So 170,000 abandoned infants, children and teens were being raised in Romanian orphanages.
	Because the Romanian dictator had banned contraception and abortion because at one point in the USSR abortions outstripped live births.
	Peter Hitchens has documented this in the abolition of Britain.
	And he put tax penalties on people who didn't have kids and then encouraged people to have 10 kids or more.
	Now I think there's a sensible middle ground between total demographic collapse and, should we say, like with mass immigration, the exponential population increase just for the sake of GDP.
	Both of these seem to be conservative projects but neither here nor there.
	And I remember those Romanian orphanages are quite awful.
	They're basically just concrete rooms where you just have a dozen kids and they would just literally spend their entire lives in a concrete room.
	They were deliberately deprived of affection to create the Soviet new man because they thought that if you were affectionate to children they wouldn't form their values on their own and you were inhibiting their self-actualization.
	So these were the conditions.
	I'm just going to read one paragraph.
	OK.
	So, and these kids who grew up in these conditions, they're going to be in their sort of 30s now?
	Yes, they are, yeah.
	And he actually documents how one woman who is in her 30s wasn't... So he was adopted, fortunately, by a Californian couple.
	One woman who lived in Romania is now working on the streets, selling herself for drugs.
	Yeah, I was going to say, I think I've heard something like the Romanians are dominating organised crime and prostitution in this country.
	You've got to wonder if there's a connection going on here.
	I would suggest that a generation of Soviet-style parenting which distances women from their children for the sake of economic growth, endorsed by modern feminists, might screw people over on the culture, yeah.
	Yeah, that would make sense.
	And the sad thing is, The Conservative government don't endorse this ideology, but their policy's going there, whereas Ash Sarkar is playing sleight of hand and saying, the evil far-right want mothers in the home, whereas the ideology that she endorses, saying she's literally a communist on Good Morning Britain a few years ago, has produced the Soviet Union, and I'm going to have some work soon on why it wasn't that real communism has never tried.
	The Soviet Union was an inexorable consequence of Marxism and its revolutionary terror.
	And also the feminism which then said, yeah, this is a good thing from the mouth of Simone de Beauvoir, who is the Tiamatian mother of all the waves of feminism henceforth.
	The Conservatives are doing that bidding.
	This is horrendous.
	And it's no wonder that no one's having any kids.
	So I'm just going to go lastly onto the fact that Ash then tried to defend this video.
	First of all, she completely hand-waved away the fact that she wasn't addressing the traditionalism of Islam.
	Mainly because she has said before she's a Muslim, but she also had in her bio that she drinks and Fs like a champion.
	Yeah, that's not... Very haram, yeah.
	She also says what's wrong with cooking and cleaning, there's nothing wrong with it, and then says the problem is, though, they're not getting paid for it.
	Oh, right, so all these wives, sorry, all these stay-at-home wives must just be living on the street, right?
	Because they're not getting paid.
	Oh, oh, no, wait, wait, wait, sorry, the husband is subsidizing the lifestyle.
	You were complaining about that.
	You just want them to be entirely economic independent out of your own insecurity not being able to form bonds.
	And I think that insecurity, not just the ideological bent, the obsession with Marxism, and the obsession with GDP from the Conservatives, but I think the insecurity is also at the root of this, because, as Nietzsche once said, most philosophy is projection, because finally she says... I've got to say, it is fascinating that she cannot conceive of the idea of value existing without it having been run through the PAYE system.
	Yeah.
	But it's because I don't think she's capable of properly trusting anyone.
	I'm not just here to psychoanalyse it.
	Harry's done that in his anatomy of a communist article, but she says- That makes a lot of sense.
	She says, quote, you're just jealous because you're gonna die single and alone, as one of our critics, and she says, we all die alone.
	That's the most revealing statement, I think.
	It's an existential fear that someone will abandon you.
	And that's why you've got one foot out the door material at all times.
	You don't trust someone.
	You don't have a loving relationship.
	So we are restructuring all of our economy to insulate insecure women from having to rely on the income of a man who just wants to love and support them.
	So you say you don't want to do psychoanalysing, but I kind of want to now, because I think it'd be very interesting to look at the sort of childhoods of people who sort of grow up with this sort of communist mentality.
	Stefan Molyneux has recently done that, and he has some interesting findings.
	When he's saying that the proletariat are screaming at the bourgeoisie for taking all their ode, he's basically saying, yeah, you're talking about your mum and dad who dropped you in daycare.
	Right, okay.
	Fascinating little finding.
	But the point of this segment was that for those who are cheering the conservative policy of saying, well, this is at least one step to incentivise people having children, no.
	At the expense of the quality of childcare, you are taking mothers out the home where children are one and two, and so-called conservatives are doing the bidding of historical communists who produced the horrible conditions of the USSR.
	Maybe instead we should be incentivising one Primary earner and at least one part-time earner, as the reactionary feminists said.
	Or maybe that's just being radical and far-right.
	Yeah.
	And they're certainly not going to do with the current housing policy that they have anyway.
	No, definitely not.
	So, I mean, it's trying to fix a problem that they've already created by throwing something else at it.
	But anyway, right, speaking of the Conservatives, we know now from Matt Hancock's leaked WhatsApp messages that the day that Rishi Sunak was to be installed as Prime Minister was being joked about quite a long time before it actually happened.
	And in June 2022, overt moves started to be made to replace Johnson with Sunak, and they successfully removed Johnson.
	But unfortunately, the Conservative Party members, they didn't play along, and they went and elected Liz Trust.
	So now, they have the problem they've got two bodies to dispose of before the globalists could get their man.
	And at the time, we were treated to a wild story about how Very, very slightly decreasing the top rate of tax basically led to the collapse of the economy which involved the political career of Liz Trust basically killing itself.
	But we start to suspect, don't we, that maybe foul play was involved.
	Yeah, it does seem like a disproportionate freak-out was waged, particularly when it was over the marginal tax rate and not the massive amount of spending on the government securing people's energy bills related to the war of Ukraine, and also- Oh, all the 500 billion we spent on lockdown.
	I was about to say, the money printing.
	And then, if the debt was the problem, then you immediately install the person as Chancellor who wanted longer, harder, faster lockdowns modelled off his sister-in-law's experience in Beijing, and the guy who printed all the money in the damn first place as the Prime Minister.
	So, to fix the mess that they endorsed and caused.
	Something smells pretty weird here.
	Yeah, worth digging into that one.
	Yeah, speaking of smelly bodies and things that didn't kill themselves, you can spend £5 a month to get all of our premium content, and this was a recent debate that Josh and I did on euthanasia.
	We went for nearly two hours, entirely unscripted, dug into the moral complexities of the value of life, we spoke about the death penalty, and we obviously spoke about the fact that the UK government want to bring Canada's Maid policy over here to save money on the NHS.
	There's a recent debate in the House of Lords, it's going to be in the Commons soon, so we'll keep a keen eye on that one.
	But we'd like to hear from you in the comments on your own perspective on this, because there's been some lively debate between the viewers, myself and Josh, even after the episode's come out.
	You can look forward to that in future, can't you?
	When you ring your GP, it's like press 5 to book your euthanasia.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, they just kicked down the door with a needle.
	Brilliant.
	Right, so I just wanted to give a bit of background before you dive into the economics of it, because as of tomorrow, Rishi Sunak has given MPs a free vote on whether or not Boris Johnson will remain in the Conservative Party.
	For those who haven't spent the last year in the UK hearing endlessly about how Boris Johnson had some cake out of Tupperware box in Number 10, well, basically Boris Johnson got ousted because he had a party on camera and a few parties During the time that you put lockdown in place.
	Now, just for pure clarification here, I wanted Boris to go over lockdown, not the fact that he had parties under lockdown.
	The hypocrisy is not what bothers me, it's the fact that he locked me in my home for two years and made me pay for it.
	Oh yeah, I mean, I broke all of those COVID rules.
	I mean, I became far more social than I normally am just because it was against the rules and I wanted to push back against that sort of thing.
	Yeah, I had Matt Hancock levels of household mixing, let's put it that way.
	So, I'm not frustrated about the fact that Boris is gone, but I do smell a rat when everyone votes the same way, they were all breaking it too, but then they can pin it on these two guys, and also Rishu Senak is doing something very clever here of giving it a free vote rather than whipping them into shape, for those who may be in America or something.
	It would be like the House Speaker telling all the Republicans to vote for Ukraine funding.
	Usually the Prime Minister tells the entire party to vote a certain way, and you only get a few dissident backbenchers, but this time he's saying, I'm going to go hands-off and let all the MPs take the fall for the fact that there are still some Boris supporters up in the Red Wall who might not take too kindly to the Conservatives knifing the most popular candidate they've ever had in the back.
	And it's interesting that this is even happening, because if you go to the Select Committee that are examining whether or not Boris misrepresented the fact that he was at parties to Parliament, which would be a breach of the Ministerial Code – if you go on to the next one please, John – there's seven of them, and it's a Conservative majority, but it's actually headed by an MP who's Harriet Harman, Who had ties to the paedophile information exchange, and she's standing down.
	And then there's another conservative MP called Sir Charles Walker, who is a deep Boris critic, and he's standing down.
	And then all of the other MPs, SNP and Conservative, are very critical of Boris.
	I've got to say, I do like Charles Walker.
	He's one of the more sensible ones.
	Out of the not such a great bunch.
	I was going to say the fact that he's standing down means that he's going to bear no consequences for this decision.
	So it's not like the popularity of Boris is going to factor into this, it's just what is expedient for the establishment slash the Conservative Party to do, and that is obviously kick him out.
	Again, neither of us particularly like Boris, but we can obviously see that this is a stitch-up.
	And there's more evidence to suggest that this is a stitch-up, because the woman who oversaw the Partygate inquiry has just taken a job as Keir Starmer's Chief of Staff.
	It's amazing when that's allowed.
	Well, I'm not shocked, because, let's be fair, Whitehall is in no way impartial.
	Impartiality is a myth, we can see this with the BBC.
	But how quickly she jumped ship from indicting Boris to the leader of the opposition who obviously wants him gone.
	Well, and this is a point I want to raise when we come back to the Liz Trust theme, because part of why the reason Liz Trust got into trouble is because she did not trust the civil service, and it turns out that she had every right not to trust them.
	Yes, she also didn't trust the direction of travel for the global hegemon, which we'll be going into very soon.
	One thing that is worth getting into is Boris did do lockdown.
	He had to be nudged and shoved, but he did capitulate eventually.
	And every MP voted for it.
	Yeah, and he's got articles on his website about population control, his dad has written books on population control, I met him, he's a nutcase.
	He literally wrote a book called The Virus, in which a virus is used to force a vaccine on everybody that, well I can't, I better not say much, We just muted that for YouTube, so go to our website and learn what the hell Dan was saying, I suppose, so we don't get in trouble.
	Or join us on Rumble instead, because that's a lot better, we can actually speak freely.
	But anyway, point being, Boris did net zero, he's all out on Ukraine, he should be their guy.
	But I think just the Westminster bubble effect, having been there, people really do get stuck in the minutiae.
	And I think maybe those small amounts of obstinance on lockdown Yeah.
	him not going immediately and jumping when they say how high, means that the technocrats were so impatient, they just had to clear him out even if they knew he would be their guy anyway.
	Because he was delivering like 95% of what they wanted.
	Yeah, but it might just have been that 5% or that slowness to deliver the other 95%, or the fact that he still cared what people thought about him.
	Because Boris, the reason he won the electoral landslide, is because he is a great political optician.
	He might not have been our guy on policy, but people thought of him as a lovable bumbling fool getting stuck on the zipline or tackling a Japanese child.
	He's the sort of guy that you could relate to, whereas the current crop of the people at the top of the political systems, the Macrons and the Rishis and so on, they clearly do not give a damn what the people think, and it's going to be our agenda come hell or high water.
	Yeah, Rishi is like Justin Trudeau if he forgot to take his boot polish off before he got into office.
	And so all of these people feel very distanced from the regular person, and the technocrats actually don't like the ability for someone to be connected to the regular person, because they think that there might be an avenue there for capture.
	So I think that 5% of slowness, and the fact that Boris still cared what the crowd thought, meant that he was a liability for the globalists who have already decided where we're going.
	So they did have to get him out of the way.
	And then they expected people would choose Rishi Sennak.
	Because they thought, well, he's beloved, he did a get-out-to-help-out, great stuff.
	No, they ended up voting for Liz Truss, who is as dim as a 10-watt bulb, and has probably been passed around Parliament more than Michael Gove's dish of wake-me-up powder, allegedly.
	Definitely allegedly.
	But people preferred her because she didn't promise to raise their taxes, and she said she wanted to ban TikTok and all these sorts of things.
	And then, curiously, she was the shortest-lived Prime Minister in history, after a budget which should not have been that controversial, because most of the provisions were on their side.
	I mean, it's true, she wasn't that bright, and she's clearly an NPC, but she was sort of running on an old version of the NPC software that sort of got plugged in, so she was a sort of, you know, student, conservative, sort of Thatcherite programming that she sort of had in there.
	I think she was the neoliberal economic neocon policy of mid-80s to early 2000s.
	Yeah, but she didn't really understand the Thatcherite stuff.
	I mean, she talked about it, but she was talking about it in sort of meme terms.
	She didn't really have that sort of deep conceptual understanding of what was going on.
	Her heart wasn't in Davos, either.
	That's the point.
	Yeah, and what's that famous thing with Thatcher?
	She walked in with a copy of Road to Serfdom, was it?
	Something like that, and she slapped it down on the table and said, that's what you should believe.
	You don't get the impression Liz Truss has actually done the background reading on Thatcher.
	I don't think Liz Truss knows what Serfdom means.
	Yeah, she's somebody who just sort of took the mainstream media news flow of what Thatcher was represented to be in the media when she was a student and basically uploaded that into her programming and that's what she was trying to replicate without having any sort of genuine understanding of what was going on.
	Yeah, but the point why I think, and at the time I was discussing in conservative circles, why it would be more advantageous for people who don't like the Conservative Party and how it operates to have trust in, is because much like Boris, even more so than Boris, she had an ear to the ground of wanting to be liked, and because she wasn't quite as bright, It meant that she was more ripe for counter-capture.
	And you saw this when she read out a speech which had obviously been prepared by a staffer that rebuked intersectional identity politics and gender ideology as antithetical to Englishness.
	And it was a very good speech.
	Her time in the women's and equalities department, she was against most of the trans stuff, so it's interesting how her instincts were closer to ours than the globalists' on some points.
	And so the doors were fully closed for us with Liz Truss there.
	Her basic pattern recognition was quite good.
	She had the sense towards things like low taxes and family and the end of the rope and that kind of stuff.
	Because she wasn't fully self-aware, because she wasn't fully sentient, she couldn't project that across in a way that came from first principles.
	I think like you say, it was like whoever spoke to her last basically got to update the programming.
	Yeah, she couldn't articulate a defence of her own principles because it had all been received wisdom.
	So she wrote this essay shortly after leaving, and I'm just going to read a little bit from it.
	The date of what inevitably became known as my mini-budget was set for September 23rd.
	In hindsight, perhaps we could have delayed it for a few days, but much longer than that would have meant not sticking to our commitments.
	There were concerns in some quarters that the announcement would not be accompanied by a forecast from the Office of Budgetary Responsibility.
	However, the OBR's core purpose is to produce twice-yearly forecasts on whether the government is on track to meet fiscal targets.
	Commissioning a report at that juncture would not have been appropriate, given that the forecasts would have been unable to take into consideration the future spending decisions we plan to outline in the medium-term fiscal plan weeks later.
	As I had spelled out during the leadership campaign, I wanted to go for growth by reversing the proposed rises to corporation tax and national insurance, and implementing a program of economic reform in order to prevent recession and stagnation and put the UK on a positive path.
	But this was not in line with the instinctive views of the Treasury or the wider orthodox economic system.
	I saw first-hand during my two years as Chief Secretary to the Treasury that pessimism and scepticism about growth potential of the British economy are sadly endemic at the Treasury.
	Serious planning reform was dismissed as not politically deliverable, discussing monetary policy was taboo, deregulation of financial services and other industries was viewed as undermining the prospects of a deal with the EU, and Brexit was seen as a damage limitation exercise rather than a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
	So there are actually a number of good points in there.
	I like a lot of that.
	Just to come back on some of her points around not running it through the budget responsibility, so to still man the opposition case to this.
	That budget was kind of a tax and spend budget because what it was effectively doing is it was cutting taxes but it wasn't also cutting the spending on the other side.
	No, it just had more debt.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So therefore it was an increase of the debt.
	And she's saying, you know, we would have come forward with this other thing but because she hadn't have done that it was effectively a tax and spend budget and that sort of allowed her to get caught out because she wasn't able to sort of hold the centre ground of politics, hold the authority of the office of Prime Minister while that was taking place.
	So she then got railroaded a little later on.
	Yeah, and so she says, following the announcement on September 23rd, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research came out and forecast our energy support guarantee, coupled with the tax cuts announced, would lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2022, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 2023-2024.
	And then suddenly, a problem emerged from an eastern mist.
	Brewing in the background, there was an issue relating to pension funds, which neither of us had been made aware of, a problem that would ultimately bring my premiership to an abrupt and premature end because of the panic it induced.
	At no point during any of the preparations for the mini-budget had any concerns about liability-driven investments, LDIs, and the risk they pose to bond markets been mentioned at all to me, the Chancellor, or any of our teams by officials at the Treasury.
	But late on Sunday night came the jitters from the Asian markets as they opened, I was alerted on Monday morning at which point the Bank of England governor was wanting to make a statement on LDIs.
	Astonishingly, it turns out that the value of total assets in LDI strategies is equivalent to around 60% of the UK's GDP.
	Now to me, as a layman, this seems rather precarious.
	Yeah, I mean, well, I mean, so I put out a tweet the other day on Silicon Valley Bank, you know, basically calling it a canary in the coal mine.
	And actually, somebody did correct me on that by pointing out that the canary in the coal mine was this pension issue that had happened about a year before.
	It's actually not a particularly dissimilar setup to what we're going on with the banking system at the moment.
	So, I mean, actually, these pension funds, they'd been desperate for yield because there'd been nowhere to get it because yields have been so compressed with rates being so low.
	And what these pension funds were doing, they were leveraging up and they were sort of selling interest rate swaps, which is the thing that the Silicon Valley Bank didn't have.
	So these pension funds were very leveraged.
	And then what was happening over this whole period is that the US, they were raising rates, which made it more attractive to have your money in the US.
	So the dollar was getting stronger and money was basically flowing out the rest of the world into the dollar system.
	That explains why the UK stock market took a massive hit in the amount of money that was just going through it over the last couple of years.
	Yeah, and actually I do remember just previous to this, about a week earlier, the Japanese market was getting in trouble.
	The Japanese central bank was starting to get in trouble.
	And it looked like there was going to be a series of dominoes that flowed on from this dollar strength that was happening at the time.
	And I think at the time I was tweeting something like, you know, I suspected maybe it was going to be in the ECB.
	It was going to be linked to Italian bonds.
	It was going to be the next thing to go.
	It wasn't actually, it was the British pension system, because they had leveraged up, money was flowing out, Bank of England was tightening, and there's actually a very good article, let's even call it the CapEx one.
	So if you want to go through this one, I think this makes the case very well as to, this is a good spot of yours actually Connor, makes the case very well as to why the issues in the bond market was not a Liz Trust thing, it was something that was brewing in the background.
	I'll read you the relevant section.
	It's actually quite a dry article, but if you do want to go and get to the bottom of this, I would suggest this one.
	But I'll read you the relevant section.
	So, as Listrust arrived in power, the powder keg had been well and truly primed.
	At no point during this steady imperiling of pension funds did any regulator step in to get them deleveraged, nor to warn the government that there was a problem brewing.
	Although, having said that, I should note that the Bank of England itself did start to deleverage its pension fund around about this time, so maybe somebody in the Bank of England knew something was going on.
	Continuing from the article, in early September, investment analysts warned the Bank of England that pension fund softness could lead to chaos in the marketplace.
	On the back of these warnings, guilt rates started to rise and their values fall.
	We now arrive at the period immediately prior to the mini-budget.
	By now analysts were getting very nervous indeed that the bank's interest rate decision could destabilise the markets.
	And it quotes a trader saying, hide your eyes if the bank only raises by 50 basis points.
	Plenty of people were warning the bank that it should delay its process of selling gilts, which is quantity tightening.
	So this article does a very good job setting out the case why there was about to be a blow up in this.
	No matter what Liz Trust did.
	Right.
	But convenient timing, just as this happened, happened to be the day after the mini-budget landed.
	And because she was quite dim, and wasn't brought in on the inner circles, she didn't realise that taking out that little bit more debt was igniting the fuse.
	So, yeah, I mean, that's the thing.
	So, I mean, maybe this would have happened regardless, even if you didn't have a mini-budget, something like this would have happened.
	Maybe it would have been a week later.
	But, you know, that extra debt thing just got a little bit more attention on this and it maybe just, it was just that feather that, you know, broke the camel's back and pushed it over.
	The impressive thing about this is the speed at which the narrative got turned.
	So, Sunax people immediately, as soon as they saw this, the story could have been, oh, there was a blow-up in the pension system.
	But because mainstream media, they like to have mono-causes for everything.
	There's only ever one cause for one thing.
	And if it could be a continuous news flow that connects one thing to another, they like to do that even more.
	Yes.
	And presumably, SunX people were able to brief the financial journalists and the sort of journalists at large, that, oh yes, that thing that happened last night, that mini-budget, where you had that unexpected tax cut to the 45p rate, which, by the way, that only cost two billion.
	Which is half of what we sent to Ukraine.
	And is a fraction of, like you correctly said, is a fraction of the energy guarantee, which was basically open-ended.
	That could be any amount of money.
	Sunak just pledged at COP27 trillions over the course of years in climate reparations to Pakistan.
	Yes, quite.
	And lockdown cost us half a trillion.
	So all of those things, two billion for a slight decrease in the top rate of tax, that would not have pushed it over.
	The general sentiment might have sped up this pension issue by a week or something like that, but that's about as much as it.
	But because they were able to seize the narrative, they were able to say that it was caused by the mini-budget.
	But of course, She should have been able to push back on that.
	But because she's an NPC, she couldn't do it.
	So she was the fall guy.
	Also, just worth remembering, the reason that the debts were exacerbated by the United States specifically was the money printing for lockdown and stimulus checks that we then replicated.
	So all of the people who voted in lockstep on lockdown and quantitative easing have caused this problem and then scapegoated trusts solely.
	Yeah, I think probably her biggest sin in all of this is that she seeded the political narrative.
	So if you look at somebody like Joe Biden, I mean he has screwed up epically, epically on a number of occasions.
	I mean the retreat from Afghanistan, The actions over the course of the last year, the way he's managed to isolate the Russian financial system from the American financial system just as the American financial system blows up, I mean, Putin must send him a thank you card for that at some point.
	But he's got a whole narrative apparatus mobilising at the drop of a hat to defend him.
	Every time he screws up, he's able to say, OK, well, yeah, but actually this is a good thing for these reasons.
	Whereas Liz Truss, over that period, she was obviously reading the newspapers.
	The newspapers were saying that you have done this with your mini-budget, and she wasn't able to form her own conception of what had happened.
	She clearly wasn't getting good advice because she didn't have good people around her.
	And therefore, I think she genuinely believed that her mini-budget had ruined the economy.
	Yeah, that's why she sacked her Chancellor over Twitter.
	Kwasi Kwarteng came out the other day on Camilla Tomoli's show on the weekend on GB News and said, I found out over Twitter that I'd lost my job.
	Yeah, because he was in the US, wasn't he?
	He was flying back or something.
	It was just pure panic stations, because she bought her own scapegoating.
	So, just to finish on why they didn't particularly like Liz Truss, and I'm not defending all of her positions here, because again, she is a neocon, but she was right about TikTok.
	She decided to say that on the campaign trail, when she was doing the hosting, she was going to ban it.
	And now, her predictions have come to fruition, because the Cabinet Office Minister has said all government devices will be banned from using TikTok, because it's Chinese spyware.
	And her conception of the world outside of Davos, still being a 2000s neocon, meant that she was opposing the quote, new world order.
	If we play this last clip, we can just see how she conceptualizes the world is so different from the technocrats like Rishi Sunak, who have now ascended to power and have Chinese interests.
	Let's be clear.
	The free world is in danger.
	We're living in very turbulent economic times.
	Right through from the shock of the financial crisis through to the COVID crisis that we're still recovering from.
	We have less of the world's population living under democracy than we did 30 years ago.
	Meanwhile, we have authoritarian regimes that are building up their armaments as well as they're building up their arguments.
	And they're not just trying to convince their own populations.
	They're also trying to win over global opinion.
	And they're trying to create a new global world order.
	So, very inconvenient for the types that, in Davos, would like to cosy up to China and Trudeau, who'd like to replicate the Chinese model for how fast it gets change done.
	I understand that she's entrenched bricks with her Ukrainian war spending, but again, she's not too bright.
	But it's just that 5% that got Boris out, I think it was wider with Trumps, and that's why they needed to get her out of the way.
	It's just so sad, because you listen to it, and she's got so many of the right ideas being fed to her.
	Yeah, she's just like the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz.
	She just doesn't have a brain.
	If she had a brain, and that set of sort of preconceptions of approaching the world, she had the ability to conceptualise these philosophies from first principles.
	If she'd done the background reading on Mrs. and all the rest of it, she could have been really good.
	Yeah.
	But instead...
	What a wasted opportunity.
	She was too dim to mount her own defence.
	But the point of that segment was, next time you hear from Question Time, Liz Truss crashed the economy.
	Oh yeah, rubbish.
	Bit more complicated from that, and don't buy the line from the people that are now happy that the guys who invented the problem, like Rishi Sunak, are now the ones expected to clean it up.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	I couldn't help but note the vile reactions of the leftists to Carl's take on Shemima Begum's citizenship, where they're arguing, well, if that's the case, we should be taking away the citizenships of white kids that are arrested for saying mean words online, because those are completely equivalent crimes in our minds.
	Really crystallizes how the left has created all these BS laws to persecute the native population and specifically their children in order to create this BS parallel narrative where, oh, there's just as many native terrorists as there are migrant terrorists.
	Yeah, but Shamima Begum is brown and Muslim, and so she is a useful instrument in demoralising the existing population and culture that is in the way of socialist tyranny.
	So, they'll support any position as long as it degrades you.
	Go on, CS Cooper.
	Hey guys.
	I just watched the Chris Rock comedy special, and I hated it.
	It was boring.
	I got a few chuckles here and there, but it was just like all the other woke crap we usually have to deal with.
	So I don't get why everybody's so excited about him.
	If you want a very good comedian, Jeff Dunham.
	Silence!
	I kill you!
	Yeah, you're only saying that because he's an Aussie.
	Yeah, I personally haven't seen it.
	I saw Chris Rock's Tambourine, and that was all about being a black dad and hashtag BLM, which was terrible.
	Yeah, best comedians, Patrice O'Neill, Norm MacDonald, Nick DiPolo.
	There is one I like who did some great COVID stuff, He's one of the minor ones, but I'll think of it in a minute and I'll pop it in.
	Excellent.
	Right, let's go to the comments.
	Yeah, so we got Miles Mitchell saying, do you think chat GPT could be used to create a bot that says and watch the stock market and make auto buys to make money?
	Yeah, almost certainly something like that.
	That's why that ability is locked out of the current version.
	In fact, open AI should really be called closed AI because they're locking away much of the functionality.
	They're going against the original principles on this.
	But yeah, almost certainly.
	That's why the investment banks are not allowing their data to be fed into it, because somebody wants to develop a model that can do all that kind of stuff.
	Right, BassDape says, as a senior developer myself, I'm blown away with ChatGPT's ability to replace coding.
	I'm now working heavily with various AI models day to day.
	To help me take over the... not the world.
	I've been having a lot of conversation with coders, writers, artists, and I can understand why people are upset or worried.
	But in my opinion, I don't think AI will ultimately replace anyone.
	I think it will be used as rocket fuel for productivity.
	Yeah, that's my base case as well.
	I would hope so.
	Even for artists or writers, these are extremely powerful tools that can easily handle all the tedium and time-consuming parts of work, freeing up to focus on shaping the final product.
	Yeah, so I don't normally read out the longer comments like that, but I thought that was really good because he's a developer, and actually I agree with all of that, and that's my case as well.
	need human imagination and empathy to build good stories and the artist's eye for visual communication of humanity i genuinely think we're on the brink of a massive leap forward uh for humanity yeah so i don't normally read out the longer comments like that but i thought that was really good because he's a developer and actually i agree with all of that and that's that's my case as well uh chance we're wrong and they do wipe us out as well so that we have to bear that in mind um sketchy wombat says i've been having fun with chat gpt since you first talked on it I've used it to help write code to streamline my job.
	It's been fairly useful for that.
	Yep, well hopefully the new version will be even more useful for that and leverage you even more.
	JC says, it seems like we're at a point in history where you have access to technology that could improve our quality of life considerably, while at the same time being very close to total annihilation.
	Is resource scarcity the limiting factor?
	No, I don't think it is, because what a lot of this stuff unlocks is greater energy efficiency.
	So this is where the World Economic Forum gets it wrong.
	So they put out a global risk report in which they were basically citing
	Resource scarcity is the main factor and I did a segment on them talking about that but that's because what they assume is they said okay we're gonna move everybody over to electrification and they assume that the total amount of energy needed in an electrified world is the same amount is currently being used in a fossil fuel world but there's a lot less wastage on it allows for greater efficiencies and a lot of these things so you can shrink the energy consumption basis down and then if you spatially you add on some of the other energy technology stuff that's coming through it yeah it's I don't think the resource
	thing is going to be as much as a problem as the world economic form think it is, which takes away their Malthusian set of assumptions that lead them to believe that we all need to be disposed of one way or another.
	Yeah, but innovation hasn't discouraged them from that for the last 500 years, so it won't stop them.
	Yes, yes.
	No, it's true.
	They will be coming for us one way or another.
	But yeah, basically their assumptions are wrong.
	Right.
	Rose says, if I read my history right, advancing technology tends to cause some job losses in the short term but creates new jobs in the long term.
	Yes, I mean, to still man the argument there is a lot of people think that this is going to be different because this replaces sort of human thought, so that, you know, consciousness, the proportion of intelligence, and therefore it's not going to be that.
	But, you know, I disagree and, you know, Ape disagrees and he seems like a chanceable chap, so there you go, you've got two of us who disagree with us on that one.
	I'll do a couple from mine just before we wrap up and we'll let John go.
	Taffy Duck.
	Both me and the wife work.
	We need to be able to afford a house.
	We'll be paying nursery fees for the next three months a week.
	I'll look after my child Monday.
	30 hours free childcare would be amazing.
	We love our daughter, but we can't escape the reality that we need to work.
	That's not my point.
	My point is the economic incentive structures created by the mass influx of women into the workforce out of a fear of dependency on a man have created a system where you are in a two-income trap, and yes, you are forced to work, and therefore the incentive structure is there to palm off your children on someone else so that, one, the government has it on a GDP balance sheet, and two, so that you can afford to stay alive.
	It's a trap.
	They've deliberately set it up so that you are constantly poorer and you don't get to see your kids.
	So I take Taffy's point, but what O'Connor is saying is that you shouldn't have been in this situation where you need to spend so much time out of the house in the first place.
	Exactly.
	It's dealing with like a third or fourth order effect rather than the original cause, which is the broken economic system.
	Yep.
	Base tape.
	Feminism is to be the greatest psyop of all time, convincing so much of the population that the slave-master dichotomy works as the slave stays at home while the master goes out to the fields and works to financially enrich the slave.
	And the idiocy of the domestic labour argument, tradwives need to do the laundry, cook and clean, single people need to do all of those things as well, What, are you not cleaning your clothes or home, you gross... I can actually authenticate the fact that, yes, lots of single women don't do that.
	I've been back to many... That was nearly incriminating, wasn't it?
	I've been back to a few women's student apartments and seen...
	Yes, purely.
	Do not pass go.
	To see the fact that they do not clean those things at all.
	Don't turn the lights off for more than one reason when you go back there, fellas.
	Sophie, what's also amazing is that people believe that if women are housewives, they can never do anything else.
	Women also used to be the great keepers of the communities, the council members running things locally, those unpaid positions.
	Yeah, they were the custodians of the great cultural chain of civilization, as will be in an article soon.
	And my last one for this is, Radchak was right, imagine having such an inferiority complex you think the words respect your husband means submit to authority.
	Sweetheart, your inability to trust anyone demonstrates you're too emotionally insecure to be accountable for your own well-being and by default are submitting to the authority of an employer for your happiness.
	Yes, what you fail to understand is, this woman wants a dictatorship of the proletariat, which she'll be staffing, so yeah, you're gonna have an insecure, capricious ideologue ruling over you if her revolution is successful.
	And you wonder why every single Marxist state ever has been of murderous failure.
	Yep.
	Want to do one or two of the last ones before we wrap up?
	Oh, yeah.
	Last segment.
	Lord Nerevar, Liz Trust was obviously doing the right thing, even if she was magnificently incompetent while doing so.
	I remember thinking at the time that the factors in her resignation were a bit too perfect to be organic.
	I wonder who it was.
	Any guesses?
	I'd say the people at the Treasury who wanted to push central bank digital currencies and wanted their guy, Rishi Sinhak, who was on board with it, to be in place.
	The thing is, when you're dealing with a globalist, it's difficult to pin them down because they're basically this sort of gestalt entity that sort of exists through this organisation of investment banks and... And Chinese interests.
	And supranational organisations and Chinese... Yeah, exactly.
	So pinning it down to an individual, it's, yeah, harder to do.
	Shall we do just one more?
	Go on then.
	Angel Brain, my thoughts on the higher tax rate for a long time have been that if we wish to retain it, the threshold needs to be way higher.
	To appeal to a personal anecdote, I had a friend who was a teacher and works hard to be promoted to head of department.
	She told the school she could only accept the new position if they withheld the pay increase, as it would have pushed her just over the line into a higher tax rate, and she would have been worse off.
	Nice system there.
	Yeah, it actively discourages hard work, because if you earn more, you will earn less.
	It's exactly the same at the bottom end of the spectrum as well, when you first come off benefits, which is why so many people get stuck on it, so yeah.
	Yeah.
	It actively discourages you to be a parasite.
	This is why I think that a benevolent AI sort of overlords would probably be better than what we've got now at the moment.
	Libertarian robo-kings.
	We're not going to get that.
	We're going to get passive-aggressive feminists that's going to say, is there a problem?
	No, there is not a problem.
	No, there's nothing wrong.
	And you just have to divine from the tea leaves the robot's emotions.
	Anyway, enough about my love life.
	Dan, pleasure as always.
	Thank you very much.
	Tomorrow we'll be back at one o'clock.
	Well, I won't be, so you'll enjoy one of my other co-hosts.
	But until then, thank you and goodbye.

▲